Mumbai Court December 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Board of Control for Cricket in India, a Society Vs. Jaipur Ipl Cricke ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-2010
:-1. Admit. With the consent and at the request of the parties, the appeal is heard finally.2. This is an appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") against an order passed by the learned sole arbitrator dated 30.11.2010 in the respondent's application under section 17 of the said Act.3. The respondent had filed Arbitration Petition No.1322 of 2010 under section 9 of the said Act in this Court. By an order dated 19.11.2010, the petition was disposed of in terms of the consent minutes of the order by which all the disputes and differences between the parties stood referred to the sole arbitrator and the pleadings before the court and the pleadings to be filed, were to be treated as the pleadings for the purpose of respondent's proposed application under section 17. The respondent accordingly filed an application under section 17 before the learned arbitrator which was disposed of by the said order dated 30.11.2010. ...
Sayyed Firoz Sayyed Ismail Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-14-2010
:1. Heard rival submissions. Perused the reasonings given by the Extra Joint Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharkawada (Kelapur) while deciding Sessions Trial No. 20/2004. Also perused the substantive evidence of 13 prosecution witnesses and certain relevant documents including postmortem report apeal449.10.odt 2/12 and injury certificate of the appellant/accused No.1.2. Present appellant/accused No.1 faced Sessions Trial No. 20/2004 along with 2 other co-accused. They faced the charges punishable under Sections 302, 201, 211, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgment and order dated 23/7/2010 in Sessions Trial No.20/2004, present appellant/accused No.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections302 I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer simple ...
Savita Jyotiba Dembalkar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-2010
:1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 20/03/2003 passed in the Sessions Case No.56 of 2001 by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, District Pune whereby the Appellant was found guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian penal code and sentenced to suffer R .I. imprisonment for life and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.500/-.2. Brief Facts, which led to the prosecution of the Appellant are:- Complaint was lodged by Dattatraya (PW1) in respect of the incident which occurred on 18-12-2000 at about 6.30 p. m. after the first informant returned to his house was informed by his neighbour Mahadev Baravkar that he had seen dead body of a lady lying by the side of a pathway. PW-1 immediately took a torch and proceeded to the spot with one Rambhau. They noticed dead body of Shalan lying by the side of pathway. It appeared that she had sustained injuries on her head, neck, and on the jaw. Blood was seen lying on the ground. When Dattatr...
Mr. Prem Ranjan Patel Vs. Sakchi, Jamshedpur-831001
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-2010
:1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the report dated 8th March, 2008 submitted by the three Member Committee of respondent No.1 has been brought in question. The last two concluding paragraphs of the said report read thus:- "32. Similarly the prayers for affiliation as a member of the Board made by the ABC and the CAB before us cannot be considered by us and such affiliation can only be achieved by applying to the Board in the manner prescribed under Rule 6 of the Rules and Regulations of the Board, which application would be considered on its merits in accordance with the Rules & Regulations of the Board.33. The Committee therefore concludes that the original Bihar Cricket Association with its headquarters at Keenan Stadium, Jamshedpur, subsequently renamed as the Jharkhand State Cricket Association, Kennan Stadium, Jamshedpur, is the Full Member of the Board as provided under Clause 3 of the Rules and Regulations of the Board, if the newly forme...
Shri Tryambak Shivram Gosavi and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-13-2010
:This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30th September, 1986 by the Tenancy Awalkarkun, Rahuri in Tenancy case No. 17 of 1986 and Judgment and order dated 6th July, 1987 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Rahuri Sub Division, Rahuri in Appeal No. TNC/Appeal/11/86 and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune on 7th June, 1991 in Case No. MRT.AH.X.-7/87(Tnc.B.286/87), Pune. The back ground facts for filing this Writ Petition as disclosed in the Writ Petition are as under :-The petitioners herein are the original opponents in Tenancy Case No. 17 of 1986, in a a suo- moto enquiry initiated by the Tahasildar. It is the case of the petitioners that the land Survey No. 65/1 was purchased by the petitioner No. 2 on 18th December, 1984 to the extent of 4 R of village Chinch Vihire,Tq. Rahuri. The said land was purchased for the consideration of Rs. 3,000/- by registered sale-deed and mutation entry was effected on 26th February, 1985. The said...
Shri Sunil S/O Baliram Maddewad Vs. Unknown
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-13-2010
01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties and taken up for final hearing at admission stage itself.02. By the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the decision of the Respondent No.2-Committee in Case No. DD/TCSC/NAN/EDUCATION/222/04 dated 19.5.2009, rejecting Tribe Claim of the Petitioner, and declaration that the Petitioner belongs to "Mahadeo Koli" Scheduled Tribe by issuing appropriate writ, orders or directions. The said decision of the Scrutiny Committee is produced at Exh.D to petition.FACTUAL MATRIX03. The facts and events leading to present petition are that Petitioner is resident of village Barbada, Taluka Naigaon (Kh), District Nanded and claims to be belonging to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe. Respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra represented through Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Respondent No.2 is the Scheduled Tribe ...
Maltya Michara Gavit, Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2010
JUDGEMENT :1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgement rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar, in Sessions Case No. 40/1996 whereby the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under section 376 (c) of the I.P. Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for period of five (5) years and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year.2. It is undisputed that the appellant was employed in a Basic Ashram School situated at village Bil-Manjre (Tq. Nawapur). Nawapur Taluka is in tribal belt of Nandurbar district. The Basic Ashram School was meant for benefit of tribals (adiwasis). It is an admitted fact that the prosecutrix (PW15) was the student of the Basic Ashram School. At the relevant time, during the educational year of 1996, she was studying in 5th standard. It is also an admitted fact that she was admitted in the school in or about 1991. She used to reside in a room in the hostel run by the Ashram School. Th...
Sunil Vithal Shirke Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2010
: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents State.2. The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13th April, 2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pune, whereby he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections the Indian Penal Code as well as order of imposition of fine, preferred the present appeal impugning the said judgment and order passed by the trial court.3. The prosecution case in nutshell is as follows:- Complainant Sunderabai (P.W. 1) was working as maid servant and was residing in one of the rooms in the wada at Pune along with her son Chandrakant (P.W. 2), daughter Rita, daughter-in-law Vandana and grand children. The appellant was living with his wife and children in the adjoining room. He was a rickshaw puller. On 9th April 2001 Sunderabai returned to her house at about 12.30 p.m. Her daughter-in-law also returned to the house shortly thereafter. Vandana told Sunderabai (c...
Babu Alias Ravindra Suresh Kamble Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2010
1 By judgment and order dated 5.3.2009 in Sessions Case No. 73 of 2008, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to capital punishment of death. By the very same judgment and order the accused was also convicted under Sections 363, 376(2)(f) and 201 of IPC. For the offence under Section 363 of IPC the accused was sentenced to RI for three years and fine of Rs.1000/- in default RI for one month. For the offence under Section 376(2)(f) he was sentenced to suffer RI for ten years and to pay a fine of RS.1000/- in default RI for one month and for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC, the accused was sentenced to RI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default RI for one month. The learned Sessions Judge directed that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. As sentence of death was imposed on the accused, the learned Sessions Judge made a reference to thi...
Haldiram Foods International Limited. Vs. City of Nagpur Corporation
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-09-2010
:This petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India filed by an assessee challenges the order dated 06.09.2010 passed below Exh. 14 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 167 of 2010 by District Judge 3, Nagpur, refusing to grant stay to the assessment and levy of property tax by Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The said appeal has been filed by the petitioner under Section 130 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to the Act) and is still pending. On 16.09.2010, while issuing notices, the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.18,67,320/ with the Registry of this Court and accordingly that amount has been deposited. According to the petitioner, corrected tax works out to Rs.18,67,320/ and that was already paid by it. This amount was in addition to that amount already paid.2. Shri M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior Advocate with Shri R.M. Bhangde, Advocate for the petitioner has urged that refusal to grant stay on the ground that provisions of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »