Mumbai Court July 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.
Ashok Bansilal Mutha, Aged About 49 Yes, and ors. Vs. the State of Mah ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2010
Date of Reserving Judgment 16th June, 2010 Date of Pronouncement of Judgment 29th July, 2010. : (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) These petitions take exception to the Resolution dated 06/11/1993 passed by the respondent No. 3 and the notification dated 01/03/1994 issued by the respondent No. 1, 3 thereby increasing the cess and the additional cess leviable Under Section 144 & 155 of the Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti Act, 1961.2. The petitioners are the residents of Ahmednagar District and owners of agricultural lands. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have unlawfully increased additional cess on land revenue under the provisions of Section 144 and 155 of the Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti Act, 1961 (Here-in- after referred to as "Act,1961). According to them a cess is collected on the land revenue under Section 144 of the Act of 1961, to augment the said income and to meet the additional expenditure and a machinery was created Under Section 155 of the ...
Prof.Shri.Mansoor S/O KarimoddIn Kadri Age48 Years, Vs. the State of M ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2010
1. By the present revision application, the applicant accused in Sessions Case No.301/2009, has challenged the order dated 01.02.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge1 Aurangabad below Exhibit6 in Sessions Case No. 301/2009. By the impugned order, the application filed by the applicant seeking discharge, came to be rejected.2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP. Perused the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation and filed along with the charge sheet so also the impugned order.3. Rule.4. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties heard finally at the stage of admission itself.5. The said offence was registered at CR No.15/2009 with Sillod police station on the complaint of respondent No.2. It appears that during a public speech given by the applicant, he has used indecent language in respect of the elected candidate of the opposition party and when the complainant along with his associates ...
Ghanshyam Kisan Ukirade. Vs. Sou. Suman Krishna Pawar and Another.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2010
1. Heard learned respective counsel for the parties.2. This is an application preferred by the applicant, seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 22.09.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmednagar, acquitting the respondent No.1/original accused for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.3. I have perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 22.9.2009 and record and proceedings with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.4. In short, it is the case of the complainant that he gave amount of Rs.1,40,000/ to the husband of the accused towards sale transaction on 24.1.2005, of land bearing gat No.160, situated at Kukan, at the residence of the accused and thereafter they went to the office of SubRegistrar for registration of the sale deed, but it was revealed that since said land was of new tenure, sale deed could not be executed and thereupon husband of accused assured that he would ...
Sau. Asha Sopan Maithane, Aged 36 Years, Vs. Deorao Ramkrishna Wanare ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-29-2010
1 With the consent of Shri Khapre, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for respondents No. 7, 8, 10 & 11, writ petition is heard finally by making rule returnable forthwith.2. The petitioner plaintiff has challenged the order dated 02.09.2009 passed below Exh. 93 by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon, upholding the objection to the valuation of Court Fee raised by the respondents and directing him to pay deficit court fee stamp as per provisions of Section 6(iv)(ha) and 6(iv)(d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).3. Shri Khapre, learned counsel has contended that the objection raised before the trial Court is misconceived. The suit as valued at Rs.4,60,000/ is proper and provisions of Section 6(iv)(d) have been satisfied in the matter. The plaintiff has sought 1/4th share after the partition of agricultural land and its possession. The relief of cancellation of sale deed and declaration and ownership is in rel...
Dr.Shaheen W/O Shaikh Imran Age35 Years, and ors. Vs. the State of Mah ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2010
1. By both these criminal applications, the applicants accused No.1 to 4, have prayed for quashing of the FIR at CR No. 158/2009 registered on the complaint of respondent No.3. As both these applications arise out of one crime, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Rule.3. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission itself.4. Brief facts of the case may be stated thusa) Respondent No.3 is the second wife and applicant Abeda is the first wife of applicant Ramzan Shaikh. Applicants Shaheen and Imran are daughter in law and son of applicants Ramzan and Abeda.b) Respondent No.3, has filed a complaint in MIDC CIDCO police station on 06.12.2009 for an offence punishable u/s 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused. Pursuant to the said complaint, the applicants were arrested and subsequently are released on bail 5. By these applications u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicants have approac...
M/S. Associated Constructions. Vs. Mormugoa Port Trust.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-2010
1 This is an application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 for the appointment of an Arbitrator.2 There is no dispute that the parties had entered into an agreement which contains an arbitration clause and that the disputes raised by the Applicant fall within the purview thereof.3 The only contention raised on behalf of the Respondents is that the arbitration clause ceased to have any effect as pursuant to an earlier invocation thereof an award had been made but was set aside. It is necessary therefore to state only a few facts. 4 The parties had entered into a construction contract dated 8th October 1996. An Arbitral Tribunal, consisting of three learned Arbitrators, was appointed by the parties in accordance with the arbitration clause contained therein read with the said Act. The Arbitral Tribunal made and published an Award dated 24th September 2004. The award grants four claims, two of which pertain to interest. One is in the nature of damages and the o...
Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur Vs. M/S Shree Chatrapati Shah ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-2010
Per: Shri P. Karhikeyan The impugned order disposed of four appeals filed by the respondents as per the following details: - Sr. No. Appeal No. Order-in-Original No. and date Period involved Credit amount involved (Rs.) Penalty imposed (Rs.) 1. 247/08 ADJ/114/KOP-I/ 2008 dated 29.7.08 March, 2007 3,29,326/- 20,000/- 2. 295/08 ADJ/229/KOP-I/ 2008 dated 29.10.08 April, 2007 4,33,916/- 50,000/- 3. 296/08 ADJ/230/KOP-I/ 2008 dated 29.10.08 March, 2007 4,33,916/- 50,000/- 4. 297/08 ADJ/231/KOP-I/ 2008 dated 29.10.08 April, 07 to Sept. 2007 1,47,756/- 10,000/- The Orders-in-Original deal with common issue of the eligibility of the respondent to take capital goods credit on items such as HR Plates, Channels, Hot Rolled Steel Plates, M.S. Angles, H.R. Coils, H.R. Chequred Coils, M.S. Channels, M.S. Flat bars, M.S. Joists, Flange Beam etc. during the period March, 2007 to September, 2007. Four show-cause notices were issued to the respondent proposing to disallow and demand CENVAT credit of Ex...
Aditya Bahuddeshiya Sanstha, and anr. Vs. the Union of India, and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioners applied for starting B.A.M.S. Course. By a communication dated 12/17042007, addressed to Chairman, Aditya Bahu Uddeshiya Sanstha, Talegaon Road, (Kala Hanuman Thana), Beed (Maharashtra), Under Secretary to the Government of India intimated that he was directed to say that after careful consideration of the second visitation report of the Central Council of Indian Medicine ( For short "C.C.I.M.") in terms of the provisions of The Indian Medicine Central Council ACT, 1970 (For short " Act of 1970") and relevant regulations of the C.C.I.M., the Central Government has decided that the permission may be accorded to the Aditya Bahu Uddeshiya Sanstha, Beed, Maharashtra with the annual intake capacity of 50 seats in Ayurvedacharya (B.A.M.S.) Course from the session 200708 under the provisions of section 13A of the IMCC Act, 1970 subject to certain conditions and removal of deficiencies. Clause3 ...
A2z Maintenance and Engineering Services Limited. Vs. Maharashtra Stat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
This appeal at the instance of original plaintiff, is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.10.1996 passed by learned District Judge, Bhandara in Regular Civil Appeal No.108/1994 whereby the learned District Judge set aside the decree passed by the trial Court and ordered dismissal of Special Civil Suit No. 27/1993.2. Facts briefly mentioned are :The plaintiff had filed Special Civil Suit No. 27/1993 in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Dn. Bhandara for declaration that sale deed dated 23.11.1992 between defendant no.1 and 2 be declared null and void and cancelled; and for direction against the defendant no.1 to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as per terms of agreement to sell dated 16.10.1992 by accepting balance amount. First defendant owned agricultural land Gut No. 196 H O = 98R at village Pardi. On 16.10.1992, the plaintiff had entered into an agreement whereby the first defendant had agreed to sell the suit land at the rate of Rs. 12500/ per acre, having a...
Murlidhar Atmaram Wani Age 61 Years, Vs. D.D. Shankarwar, Inspector of ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-28-2010
1) The present writ petition is filed with prayer for issuance of directions to respondent Nos. 4 to 6 to take deterrent action against respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 i.e. the Inspector of Police, Shri D.D. Shankarwar, Dharangaon police station, S.N. Pardeshi, (Police Head Constable), Dharangaon Police Station and Mr. Vitthal Sonwane, Tahsildar, Dharangaon. It is further prayed that the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 be directed to pay compensation to the petitioner for their illegal act of harassing and torturing the petitioner. Thus this petition is filed with twofold prayers. This petition was heard by this court at admission state on 15.12.2003, when "Rule" was issued. Now, matter is taken up for final hearing.2) It is the case of the petitioner that he retired as driver from Municipal Council, Dharangaon. He has subscribed a cable connection. One Jagannath Bansilal Shirsath, Aged 22 years, on 13.4.2003 at about 6.30 p.m. went on the roof of the petitioner's house with an intention to commi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »