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.
Gorakh Pandurang Mare Age 20 Yrs, and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
1. Both these Appeals may be disposed of by common Judgment as the accused persons have challenged the same Judgment and order whereby the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 397 and Sec. 34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for eight years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each by the learned 13th Adhoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.174 of 2001.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that PW-1 Dattatraya Shinde was on duty at a petrol pump known as "Poonam Automobiles" situated at Mangadewadi, Katraj, Pune, during the night between 16th and 17th December, 2000. There were several staff members present at the petrol pump. At about 4 or 4.30 a.m., on 17.12.2000, a Tata Sumo of white colour bearing No. MH-15/AH-2345 came to the petrol pump. Besides the driver, two more persons were present in the vehicle. The driver asked PW-1 Dattatraya to fill in diesel of Rs.800/-. Accordingly, he filled diesel. Dur...
Shri Ganpati Panchayatan Sansthan Trust. Vs. Union of India, Though Se ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
1 Rule. With the consent of the parties Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 Ms.Masurkar waives service of Rule on behalf of the said Respondent, so also the learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 waives service of Rule on behalf of the said Respondent.2 By way of this Petition, the Petitioner, which is a Private Trust, is interested in getting Demat account opened in favour of Lord Ganpati, Chintamaneshwar Deo, Suryanarayan Deo, Chintamaneshwari Devi and Laxminarayan Deo, which deities, according to the Petitioner are having equal shares in corpus of the Trust. The Petitioner wants to open a Demat account with the Respondent No.3The Karur Vyasya Bank Limited for the purposes of share transactions. The Respondent No.2 herein i.e. National Securities Depository Limited, is the controlling authority of the Respondent No.3 in connection with transactions of shares through the DEMAT account. The Respondent No.2...
Shri Kantilal Bhanudas Dukare a/P Raogaon, Tal.Karmala, Dist.Solapur. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
1 The above Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 20/09/2000 passed by the Appellate Authority upholding the order od dismissal passed by the Summary Security Force Court (for breveties sake referred to as "the Summary Court".2 The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above Petition can be stated thus :The Petitioner at the relevant time was a constable in the Border Security Force and posted at Churiantpur which is a border post on the Indo Bangladesh Border. The Petitioner at the relevant time i.e. on 07/07/2000 was on duty at Gate No.4. It was noticed by the Commandant who was the superior head of the Petitioner that the Petitioner had allowed 8 cattle head to pass by accepting illegal gratification from one Allauddin who was said to be a cattle smuggler from India. The Petitioner was accordingly charge sheeted under the provisions of Sections 40 and 46 of the Border Security Force Act 1968. The charges level...
Shri Rajendra Aadappa Dhulasawant Vs. Assistant Engineer Maharashtra E ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-2010
ORAL ORDER :- Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member None present for the applicant/appellant. There is delay of 64 days in filing appeal. To seek condonation of delay, Misc. Appl. No.263/2010 has been filed. Applicant/Appellant has tried to explain the delay in this application. His only ground in this application is that he is financially not in sound condition and therefore, he could not file appeal in time. This is not just and sufficient ground to condone the delay. Delay is not properly explained. As such, we are not inclined to condone the delay. Hence, we pass the following order :- ORDER 1. Misc. Appl. No.263/2010 for condonation of delay stands rejected. 2. Consequently, Appeal does not survive for consideration. 3. No order as to costs 4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....
M/S in Bloom. Vs. the Commissioner of Sales Tax.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Respondent.2. This is a reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ("the BST Act" for short) made by the Sales Tax 2 STR-4-06 Tribunal, Mumbai ("the Tribunal" for short) to seek decision of this Court on the following substantial questions of law : (a) Whether, on facts and circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of Schedule entry A36 appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the 'Bouquet of fresh flowers' is not covered by the said schedule entry A36 pertaining to ' Natural flowers' but it is covered by the Residuary Schedule entry CII152 and hence liable to tax @ 13% ?(b) Whether, on facts and circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of Section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the activity of preparing bouquets from the nat...
Shyamsunder S/O Rambahor Tiwari Aged About 68 Years. Vs. Smt. Pramilab ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-15-2010
1. Considering the nature of dispute; as also pursuant to earlier order passed by this Court to call R & P in order to hear the matter at the stage of admission itself, this Appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal at the stage of admission.2. Heard submissions at the Bar. The learned counsel for the appellant raised dispute regarding identification and boundaries of the suit plot. According to the appellant (ori.defendant ), he had purchased Plot No.68 from Rewatkar Layout, situated at Mouza Dighori, Nagpur admeasuring about 2000 sq.ft. from one Ratanchand Jain, in the layout carved out in land bearing Survey No.55/2. In the same layout, the respondent/ori. plaintiff purchased plot No.64 admeasuring about 2000 sq.ft. (50' x 40') from the same lay out. It is contended that Plot No. 64 which was purchased under registered sale deed dated 15.4.1970 by the plaintiff, had boundaries as follows: On East Plot No.65 ; on West 30 ft. road; On north Plot No. 25 and on South Plot No.68....
Ratan Gaba Teli, Age About 67 Years Old, Vs. the State of Maharashra, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2010
1.Rule. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 waives service of Rule. With the consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard.2. The order of dismissal passed against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority and which is confirmed by the appellate authority is impugned by the petitioner in this petition.3. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Clerk on 19 th June, 1963. Subsequently he was promoted as a Senior Clerk and thereafter promoted as Assistant Superintendent. While the petitioner was working as Assistant Superintendent at Shahapur Court, he was subjected to a departmental enquiry on the following charges:1. "The appellant demanded and accepted Rs. 100/ fromaccused by name Hanif Memon on 2nd March 1993.2. He demanded and accepted Rs. 150/ from one surety Jayaram Vekhande on 17th February 1993 to release accused in Crime No. 7/93.3. He indulged in a act amounting to official misconduct and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant."...
Dada Ghanshyam Pathak Age 45 Years, Vs. the State of MaharashtrA. and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-15-2010
1. Heard learned respective counsel for the parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing.3. By the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for the appropriate writ, directing that order dated 11.2.2009, passed below Exh.53 in STCC No.1489/2006 by learned 5 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhule rejecting the application and also judgment and order dated 31.10.2009 rendered in Criminal Revision Application No.70/2009 by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule dismissing the said Revision be quashed and set aside. FACTUAL MATRIX :4. The petitioner is the original accused and respondent No.2 is the original complainant, who filed STCC No.1489/2006 against the present petitioner wherein she alleged that she had given loan of Rs.3,50,000/ to the petitioner/accused and in discharge of the said liability, and towards repayment of the said loan, petitioner had issued a cheque...
Mr. Masiullah Mohid Idrishi, Aged About 26 Years, Vs. the Assistant Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2010
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has challenged the externment order dated 27.11.2009 under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act passed by the Deputy " Commissioner of Police, Zone IV, Mumbai, whereby the petitioner was externed from the area of the Police Commissionerate, Greater Mumbai and Revenue District of Thane.3. On 19.8.2009, a show cause notice was served on the petitioner as to why he should not be externed from Greater Mumbai and Thane District under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act. The notice was replied denying all the allegations against him. After that, the impugned order came to be passed on 27.11.2009. The impugned order was challenged by the petitioner in an appeal before the Government. That appeal was also dismissed.4. The impugned order shows that the petitioner had the past history with five criminal cases against him registered at Wadala Police Station. Out of them, two cases wer...
Hanmant Shankar Salunkhe Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2010
1 This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, dated 29/11/2004. The appellant/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and fine. The appellant was residing with his family at village Somardi, Dist.Satara. On 5/11/2003 in the evening the appellant had returned home in drunken condition. He was habitual drunkard. His wife Kalpana (P.W.7) quarreled with him as he had consumed liquor and was demanding food. 2 The appellant and Kalpana had three children, Shailaja, the deceased, was the eldest daughter. Shailaja took side of her mother and shunned her father for drinking. Such incident was a routine in the family. The accused because of his addiction was not working regularly however, Kalpana used to earn livelihood by doing labour-work. They had two sons who were studying and they also used to take side of their mother. The accused, theref...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »