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.
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Shrikrishna Jagannath Laskhare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
Judgment:1. Heard Mrs.Thakur, learned AGP for the petitioner and Mr.M.S.Karnik, learned counsel for the respondent.2. Rule. Respondent waives service.3. Petition is heard finally.4. This petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 10.9.2009 passed by the Vice Chairman of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short "the MAT") in OA No. 816/09 which was filed by the respondent. The respondent joined the government service as Sales Tax Officer Class II on 5.12.77 and has retired on attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Palghar, District Thane on 31.3.09. His date of birth in the service book at the time of joining service, was recorded as 16/3/1951. It appears that a few months before his date of superannuation i.e. 4.12.2008 he submitted a representation based on a copy of the birth date extract and school leaving certificate dated 22.10.2008 issued by the Head Master of C...
Shri Ramesh Tarachand Dhelwan Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
JUDGEMENT :1.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgement and order dated 17.4.2003 passed by the III Ad-hoc Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Pune, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer R.I. for six months.3. The circumstances which have given rise to the prosecution of the appellant in a nut-shell are as follows:-The appellant, at the relevant time, was residing in chawl no.1 of Kamble Coach in house no.10 at Camp. The appellant was residing with his wife Vimal, father, mother, two daughters and a son. Rohini (P.W.1) is the daughter of the appellant and, at the relevant time, was seven years of age. On the date of the incident at about 10 a.m., the appellant asked dec...
Ramu Appa Mahapatar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents State.2. The appellant has challenged the validity of the findings of conviction recorded by the Ad-hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thane, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide a impugned judgment dated 25th October, 2004, whereby the appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:- The appellant was living with deceased Manda, it was a live-in relationship. Both of them were living in chawl of one Ravindra Gopal Jadhav, who was the landlord. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant informed Mr. Jadhav that his wife has expired and he was going to her parents house at Dipchole Village. The appellant along with his son left for village Dipchole. The a...
Bharat Biotech International Ltd. Vs. Directorate of Medical, Educatio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-2010
:1. Rule, by consent returnable forthwith. With the consent of Counsel and at their request the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The Directorate of Medical Education and Research of the Government of Maharashtra invited bids in September 2009 for a rate contract for the supply inter alia of Anti Rabies Vaccine (ARV) to all State run hospitals for the period from 2010 to 2012. Five bidders submitted offers including amongst them the Petitioner and the Second to Fifth Respondents. The Government of Maharashtra has issued a resolution on 27 March 2000 to streamline and regulate the purchase of drugs and medicines by government following upon the recommendations of the Lentin Committee. The resolution requires invitations to tender to be processed on the basis of a two bid cover system. The first envelop is to contain documents certifying the eligibility of the bidder while the second envelop is to contain the commercial bid. The commercial bids of only those bidders...
Smt. Simantabai Bhimrao Waghmare and ors. Vs. Apparao S/O Sadhuji Gaik ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
Heard Counsel for the parties, Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent matter is taken up for final hearing. This Writ Petition takes exception to the order dated 11th September, 2009, passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur region, Latur.The brief facts of the case as disclosed are as under :- 3The petitioners are the members and trustees of Shri Sant Kabir Bahu-Udeshiya Shishan Prasarak Mandal, Sirol (Va), Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. The said Trust is registered as educational trust. Earlier in the year 2005 elections of the trust were held. The said elections were held for one term which is of three years. Though the Committee was elected but two groups had filed change reports bearing No. 494 of 2005 and 558 of 2005. The dispute between the parties came up before this Court in Writ Petition No. 4969 of 2007. This Court directed the petitioners and the respondent No. 3 that they should remain present before the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Latur region, Latur ...
Kum. Varsha D/O Mahadu Wagh Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
Judgment:01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of parties and taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 202. By the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prayed that; "A. To grant Rule and allow this petition.(B). To quash and set aside the order of Committee dt. 17/3/2007 and declare that petitioner belongs to Malhar Koli Scheduled Tribe, by issuing appropriate writ, order or directives, as the case may be.(C). To quash and set aside impugned order of Committee dt.17/3/2007 & remand matter to Committee, and direct Committee to decide claim as per the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, in Kum. Madhuri Patil's Case [AIR 1995 SC 94] and [{1997} (5) SCC 437], by issuing appropriate writ, order or directives, as the case may be."03. The petitioner claims to be belonging to Koli Malhar Scheduled Tribe and contends that Respondent No.3-The Sub Divisional Officer, Sillod, Taluka Sillod, District Auran...
M/S. Inteltek Automation Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
:The First Respondent filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Pune against the petitioners for the recovery of an amount of Rs.2.12 crores together with future interest. On 3 February 2010, the First Respondent moved an application under Rule 12(5) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 on the basis that in their balancesheet for the year ending 31 March 2005, the Petitioners had admitted an outstanding liability of Rs.1.58 crores to the First Respondent. Consequently, an order was sought that pending hearing and final disposal of the Original Application, the Petitioners be directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1.58 crores, failing which a Recovery Certificate for the admitted amount be issued. The Petitioners filed a reply to the application. In the reply, the Petitioners specifically set up a defence that the notes appended by the Auditors to the balancesheet clearly showed that there was a dispute on the liability of the Petitioners, both with respe...
Smt. Mandodari Jawaharlal Pandit Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
:1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 26th October, 1990 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Jalgaon in REV.TRB.48 OF 1989.2. The facts of the case which are incorporated in the writ petition are as under:The suit land in Survey No.44/1 and 44/2 admeasuring 1 hector and 17 R. assess as Rs.9-31 paise, situated at village Kochur, taluka Raver, District Jalgaon. The suit land was previously held and owned by some of the respondents and that the deceased Gundu Ramu Pandit had purchased the suit land from the respondents in the year, 1963, for a consideration of Rs.7000/- under a registered sale deed and from the said consideration the respondents bought another big piece of land. It is further case of the petitioner that when his father purchased the suit land, it was barren, dry land and that he himself and his father spent more than Rs.20,000/- and converted the dry land into a Bagayat land.3. The Assistant Collector, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon st...
D.M. Pradhan Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
Per: Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Heard both sides. 2. The learned Advocate, Ms. Lalita Phadke appearing for the appellant, states that the appellant has passed away on 8th September 2010 and she also submits a copy of the Death Certificate along with the original for verification. In view of the demise of the appellant, the penalty imposed on him abates and consequently, we dismiss the appeal as infructuous....
The Commissioner of Customs (imports) Mumbai Vs. Hindustan Rubber (Sil ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2010
Per:Dr.Chittaranjan Satapathry, Member (T) 1. Heard both sides. 2. The lower appellate authority has decided that the principles of unjust enrichment do not apply for refund of fine and penalty. He has also held that the incidence of fine and penalty has not been passed on by the respondent. 3. The ld. DR also states that the principles of unjust enrichment are applicable to the case of refund of duty alone and not for refund of fines and penalties. As such, we find no substance in the stay petition filed by the department or in the appeal filed by the department. Hence, both the stay petition and appeal are dismissed....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›