Mumbai Court January 2011 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.
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation Vs.Gajanan S/O Dashrath Bo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
ORAL 1. Heard finally by the consent of the parties.2. The above first appeal arises out of the award of the reference Court dated 13/11/2009. By the said award the reference Court enhanced the compensation ranging from Rs.1,24,000/- to Rs.1,64,000/- per hectare.3. The land in question was acquired for the project known as Khadakpurna Irrigation Project. The land in the instant appeal is to the extent of 0.18 Hectors bearing Gat No.296 and 3.08 hectors of Gat No.206 of village Mehuna Raja, Tq. Deulgaon Raja, Dist. Buldhana which was acquired. The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 24/10/2001 and after following the the procedure mentioned in the said Act, the award came to be declared on 15/6/2005 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer granting the compensation of Rs.69,150/- and Rs.83,237/-per hector respectively in respect of the aforesaid lands in question. Being dissatisfied by the said compensation awarded to them the claimants i.e. respondents...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Sow. Ushatai Purushottam Kotalwar
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
:1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/State challenging the judgment and order dated 11th March, 1999 passed by the Court of Special Judge at Latur in E. C. Act Case No. 16 of 1991. The respondents herein who are original accused, came to be prosecuted for contravention of Clause 18 punishable under Section 26 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987 r/w Section 3 and Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.2. Briefly stated, the complainant's case is that, on 10th September, 1990 one Dr. B. V. Tote, a medical practitioner of Udgir, visited his office and gave a written complaint alleging that on 09.09.1990 amount of Rs. 7.00 was obtained excessively from his patient by name Ravindra Biradar resident of Dighol, Tq. Nilanga, in respect of six Ledermycin-300 tablets sold to him by M/s. Shrinivas Medical Stores, Udgir, under a cash memo No. 87996. While submitting such written complaint, Dr. Tote also filed copy of cash memo and copy of medical prescription. Conse...
Dr. Sau. Suryakanta Ramesh Ajmera Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
ORAL :1. Heard. Rule, made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally.2. FIR, being Crime No.06/2010, registered with Deopur Police Station, dist. Dhule, dt. 12.4.2010, under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( hereinafter referred to as SC and ST Act ) and under Section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, under Sections 504, 506 of IPC, is sought to be quashed and set aside.3. The petitioner is Principal of the college where respondent no.3 is working as a Full Time Teacher by virtue of regular appointment.4. There were alleged illegalities committed by respondent no.3 as a teacher, including misbehaving with girl students and even female colleague for which he was reprimanded, consequently, he has tendered his unconditional apologies. His services were sought to be terminated, in the year 2004, he was reinstated by virtue of an undertaking dt.29.9.2004.5. On 23.2.2010, respondent no.3 was served wit...
Madanlal Pannalal Bhangadiya Vs. Pralhad Narayan Atole
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
ORAL .1. The above Second Appeals arise out of the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.43/1992 dated 26.08.1994 (i.e. Second Appeal No. 371/1994) and judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 410/1989 dated 20.08.1994 (i.e. Second Appeal No. 396/1994). Since the substantial question of law involved in the above Second Appeals are common viz. Construction of document marked at Exh.76 in Second Appeal No. 371/1994, both the appeals were tagged together and are therefore, being heard and disposed of by this common judgment.2. The facts in nutshell can be stated thus - Respondent in Second Appeal No. 396/1994 is the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 29/1981. The appellant in Second Appeal No. 396/1994 is the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.219/1982. Both the suits involve a common property which is a Gadhi i.e. "description given to an ancestral property coming down from ages, belonging to a particular family and the land surrounding the said gadhi." The...
Mahadu S/O Pandhari Sonar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-11-2011
:-1 This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 1.11.1999 passed by the learned Additonal Sessions Judge, Parbhani in S.T. No. 6 of 1996, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C. and sentencing the suffer R.I. For three years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- i.d. To suffer R.I. for three months.2. The prosecution story in brief is as follows:-The alleged incident took place on 16.9.1996 at about 7.00 p.m. Near Chawdi in the village. It is the case of the prosecution that at the relevant time the accused was standing on the wall of his house. One Gunderao (P.W.3) had hot exchange of words with his cousin Kashiram near Chawdi. At that point of time, to avoid future quarrel one Babu s/o Rambhau Sodge intervened and started taking away said Gunderao from the said spot. When he was passing by the side of road of the house of accused, the accused called Gunderao and commented that said Gunderao had quarreled with his father and he will...
Associated Capsules Private Limited, Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Ta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2011
:1.This appeal was admitted on 23rd August 2010 on two questions of law. However, at the hearing of the appeal, the said two questions were re-framed into one question of law, which reads thus :-"Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that Section 80IA(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 mandates that the amount of profits allowed as deduction under Section 80IA(1) of the Act has to be reduced from the profits of the business of the undertaking while computing deduction under any other provisions under heading C in Chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?"2. The assessment year involved herein is A.Y. 2003-2004.3. The appellant (herein after referred to as 'the assessee') is engaged in the business of manufacture of Empty Hard Gelatin Capsules and PVDC Capsules. For the above business, the assessee has set up four industrial undertakings at Kandivali, Mumbai and two industrial units at Pune. Out of the above industrial undertakings / units, one undertaking at Kandivali, Mumbai and...
Goldie Sud Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2011
ORAL :-1 By these proceedings, the Petitioner seeks to impugn the legality of the public auction that was conducted on 15 September 2010 by the First Respondent of land and building situated on Plot No. 494, CTS No. F/366, Linking Road, Bandra, Mumbai 400 050. The Petitioner is a co-owner and was co-mortgagor. At the outset, counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner stated before the Court that in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner impugns the validity of the auction sale purely in his capacity as a bidder at the auction.2 On 21 May 2010, the First Respondent invited bids for a public auction of the immovable property in question. The notice inviting the tenders specifically stipulated that the reserve price was 14.62 crores, below which "the property will not be sold". The Petitioner submitted a bid at the auction which was held on 28 May 2010 in the amount of Rs.15.05 crores. The Petitioner, however, failed to comply with his obligati...
Mukesh S/O Kamalnarayan Tiwari Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-10-2011
ORAL (PER S.A. BOBDE, J.)1] Rule returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties finally by consent.2] The petitioner has approached this Court against the removal of his name from the panel prepared for selection of distributorship of Liquified Petroleum Gas ("LPG" for short) for Mouda. The petitioner's name has been removed from the panel on the sole ground that the site for showroom proposed by him is not located in the township of Mouda. The setting of this case is in Mouda which is a name used for a small town in the rural area, also for its Gram Panchayat and its Tahsil - all three of which are called Mouda.3] The Indian Oil Corporation which is a Corporation and which inter alia manufactures and distributes Liquified Petroleum Gas for domestic purposes issued a notice for appointment of a Distributor for LPG along with the other two Corporations, namely, the Bharat Petroleum Corporation and the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation for the location of Mouda. The advert...
Amruta S/O Shankarrao Deshmukh and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
ORAL :1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging their conviction and sentence awarded by the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No.123 of 1996. The learned trial Judge has convicted the appellants for offence punishable under Section 324 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer S.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer S.I. for three months.2. On perusal of the impugned judgment and the record and proceedings made available, the prosecution story, in nutshell is as under:The original accused no.1 Amruta is father of accused No.2 Anil and accused No.3 Digambar, who is acquitted by the trial Court. Lands of complainant Venkatrao Deshmukh and P.W.4 Nivratti are near the land of accused at village Pimpalgaon (Mahadeo), Tq. And district Nanded. The accused are from brother-hood of complainant Venkatrao. On 8.12.1994, in the noon time accused Nos.1 to 3 threatened the complainant Venkatrao in his field stating that th...
Jayantrao Amrutrao Patil and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2011
ORAL :1. Objection of petitioners to inclusion of names of Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 in voters list in borrowers constituency has been rejected by Respondent No.1 Assistant Registrar.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that the impugned order reveals total non application of mind because the non borrower members whose names are included in the list had taken loan on 15th September, 2009. In terms of section 27 (3A) of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act readFARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.WRIT PETITION NO.: 11545 OF 2010Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders.with Rule 56B (1) of the Rules framed thereunder such respondents/ members have to complete period of two years after 15th September, 2009 and thereafter only they can qualify to be borrower members eligible to caste vote in election. He strenuously attem...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »