Mumbai Court August 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.
Lalsing Sutarya Pawara, Age 41 Years, Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-06-2010
1. The appellant accused herein was tried by the learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge-3, Dhule in Sessions Case No.89 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of I.P.C. The learned trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 18th March, 2008, convicted the appellant accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. The appellant was further sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 201 of I.P.C. It is against this judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the appellant accused has preferred the present appeal.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is, as under:Ramdas Kisan Pawara, the informant is brother of the deceas...
Chatrapati Coop. Sugar Factory Ltd. Vs. Amit S/O Ashok thepade .
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-06-2010
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties taken up for final hearing. 2) Heard Shri P.D.Suryawanshi, advocate holding for Shri D.N.Suryawanshi, advocate for petitioner (original complainant) and Shri A.C.Darandale, advocate for sole respondent (original accused). 3) By the present petition, filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays that the judgment and order dated 24.3.2009, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 2008, on the application for condonation of delay to file Criminal Revision Application challenging the order of issuance of process dated 13.11.2003 in S.C.C. No. 1136 of 2003, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Majalgaon, be quashed and set aside.FACTUAL MATRICS :4) The petitioner herein filed Criminal Case No. 1136 of 2003 against the respondent on 29.9.2003 under Section 138 o...
Naresh Govardhan Gandhi Aged About 40 Years, Vs. Shri Sant Gajanan Mah ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
1.Heard submissions at the Bar from learned counsel for respective parties.2. This appeal is filed at the instance of original plaintiff challenging the judgment and order dated 11.3.1998 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.24 /1990 by learned 8th Additional District Judge, Nagpur.3. The plaintiff had instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 450 /1987 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Katol praying for declaration of his ownership of the plot and possession and consequent injunction. The suit was dismissed. The dismissal of the suit was challenged by Regular Civil Appeal No.24/1990 in the District Court Nagpur. The said appeal was dismissed.4. The facts in brief are that : the plaintiff had instituted suit on the ground that defendantsociety had promised and agreed to give one plot to the plaintiff when it purchased suit field Survey Nos. 102 and 103 situated at Kondhali, Tah.Katol, District Nagpur, under the registered sale deed dated 2.12.1980. The defendant Coop. Housing Society ...
Shaikh Zakir Shaikh Nasir, Age 38 Years. Vs. the State of Maharashtra, ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing.3. By the present petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prayed for quashment of the order passed by Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge1, Dhule in Criminal Revision Application No. 225/2009 dated 14.12.2009 by releasing the cattle in favour of the petitioner and upholding the judgment passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.188/2009 dated 3.12.2009 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sindkheda.FACTUAL MATRIX :4. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is dealing in business of sale and purchase of animals since many years. Sindkheda Police Station has registered offence under CR No.19/2009 against the petitioner for offences under Sections 11 (d) (e) (f) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Under Section 5 (1) 11 of Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act,1976 o...
Smt. Laxmibai Ramkrishna Pate, Age 65 Years,and ors. Vs. Smt. Kondabai ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
This Appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, rejecting appellant's application Exhibit 5 and 37 for an injunction to restrain respondents (defendant Nos. 1 to 6 in Special Civil Suit No. 1813 of 2009) from obstructing appellants/plaintiffs possession of Survey Nos. 364/1 and 364/2 at Narayangaon, Taluka Junner, District Pune, and from creating any third party interests during the pendency of the Suit.2. By consent of parties the Appeal was taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.3. The facts which are material for deciding this Appeal are as under :The properties which are subject matter of this Appeal were undisputedly owned and possessed by Mr. Sakharam Pate. The question whether the properties were self acquired or ancestral properties of Sakharam Pate cannot be gone into at this stage, since it will have to be decided after evidence is tendered. Sakharam had three natural daughters who are respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (defe...
Sesa Goa Limited and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excis ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko: In this batch of appeals filed by exporters of iron ore, who were not agreeable for payment of export duty on the FOB value of the goods without deduction of the duty element from such value in respect of exports made after 01/01/2009, the short question which arises for consideration is whether, under Section 14 of the Customs Act, the duty element was liable to be deducted from the FOB value of the export goods in determining the assessable value of the goods for the purpose of payment of export duty during the said period. The appellants paid duty under protest on the full FOB value of the goods (iron ore) exported by them after 01/01/2009. The assessed shipping bills were taken in appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), but the appellate authority only sustained the assessments. There are three assessees before us, aggrieved by four orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority passed one order in relation to a set of shipping bills filed by one of t...
The Commissioner of Customs(imports) Mumbai Vs. M/S. Mehta Flex Pvt. L ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal The Revenue has filed this appeal against the impugned order on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Following the ratio of the Judgement of the Apex Court in the case of MIL India Ltd. vs. CCE, Noida - 2007 (210) ELT. 188 (S.C.) wherein it was observed that ‘the power of remand by Commissioner (Appeals) has been taken away by amending Section 35A with effect from 11.5.2001 under the Finance Bill, 2001’, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by way of remand. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) shall dispose of the assessee’s appeal after hearing both the sides in accordance with law as expeditious as possible. Appeal is allowed by way of remand....
Dilip S/O Narsingrao Yerewad, Aged 36 Years. Vs. the State of Maharash ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2010
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.2. By way of present Writ Petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 23092005 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as "the said Committee"), invalidating the petitioner's tribe claim as "Malhar Koli", Scheduled Tribe.3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was selected for the post of Forest Guard under the special drive on the basis of interview held on 31012004. The petitioner was selected against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe. Thereafter, his tribe claim was referred to the said Committee for the purpose of verification immediately after his selection for the post of Forest Guard vide letter dated 03022004. The said Committee by its order dated 23092005 rejected the petitioner's claim as "Malhar Koli", Scheduled Tribe.4. Shri. Mali, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the order passed by the said ...
Shri Sharan P Khanna Age 55 Years of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant. Vs. Oil ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-2010
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. To state in brief, the petitioner is the owner of certain premises. On 29.10.1983, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 in respect of the suit premises. As per that agreement, the premises were given to the respondent No.1 on license on payment of license fee of Rs. 3 lakh per month inclusive of all Municipal taxes. This agreement was to be valid for a period of 5 years. The same agreement also provided that the respondent No.1 would have an option to purchase the premises within a period of 5 years from the date of agreement. The consideration for sale of the property was to be decided mutually by negotiation. However, the respondent No.1 made payment of Rs.1,28,52,000/- to the petitioner as earnest money out of the consideration for sale of the property as could be determined later on. It was also provided that if the option to purchase the property was not ex...
Purushottam Haribhau Pijgade, Aged About 38 Years, Gopal Laxmanrao Paj ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-04-2010
1. The appeal, at the instance of original plaintiffs, is directed against judgment and order dated 23.1.1998 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 93 of 1994 by learned Additional District Judge, Yavatmal allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree granted by the trial Court.2. The substantial question of law framed in this appeal is, whether in the facts and circumstances, the lower appellate court was justified in rejecting the plaintiffs' claim based on the Will on the ground that the Will suffered from suspicious circumstances and that it was not proved to be validly executed Will. The answer must be in the negative for reasons to follow.3 At the outset, it must be stated that it is settled legal position that attestation of the will is not an empty formality. It means signing a document for the purpose of testifying of the signature of the executant/testator. The attesting witness should put his signature on the will animo attestandi. It is not necessary that more ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »