Mumbai Court October 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.
Ms. Vilas Transport Co. Vs. the Divisional Joint Registrar.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-04-2011
ORAL ORDER:- 1] By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge orders dated 25th June 2010 and 7th June 2011 Annexures N and S to the petition, which orders have been made on an application bearing No.2 of 2010. 2] The petitioners are a partnership firm carrying on business as Transporters and Carriers. The first respondent is a cooperative bank registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 whereas the second and third respondents are the Special Recovery Officer and Sales Officer, so also the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies who have passed the orders impugned in this petition. 3] It is the case of the petitioners that they have filed an application bearing No.2 of 2010 for marking the Recovery Certificate Nos.101/Sangli/1588 of 2002 and No.101/Sangli/1589 of 2002 both dated 13th September 2002 as satisfied and for refund of excess amount to the extent of Rs.2,80,16,156/-. 4] It is the case of the petition...
Sau. Ashabai Wife of Sopan Bhate Vs. Raosaheb Son of Dadarao Nirmal
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-04-2011
JUDGMENT [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Admit. The Appeal is heard for final disposal with consent of the learned counsel. 2. The Appellants submit that Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 were elected as members of Grop Grampanchayat Kukkadgaon-Khundras-Chavanwadi. The Appellant No.1, namely, Mahadeo Rambhau Athawale got elected as Sarpanch of Group Grampanchayat in the election meeting held on 11th October, 2008. The Respondent No.3 Tahsildar and Returning Officer called the meeting to elect Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch of the Group Grampanchayat. The Appellant No.1, namely, Mahadeo Rambhau Athawale and Respondent No.5, namely, Ashok Sitaram Misal, had submitted their nominations for the post of Sarpanch. It is contended that Appellant No.1 secured five votes and Respondent No.5 secured 4 votes. Respondent No.3 Tahsildar, declared Appellant No.1 as elected Sarpanch of Group Grampanchayat. Appellant Nos. 4 and 5 sought permission to take assi...
Sheikh Rashid Son of Sheikh Yakub Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-04-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.B.DESHMUKH, J) 1. The appellant, who stands convicted for the offence punishable under sections 302 and 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation (for the offence under section 302 IPC) and for three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation (for the offence under section 498A IPC), is in appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Judgment of conviction and sentence has been rendered by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Session Trial No. 67/98 on 9.8.2005. 2. Prosecution case, briefly stated, is that, on 15.8.1997 Shaikh Ibrahim lodged an oral report at Police Station, Narkhed that his sister-in-law viz. Rehana died on account of burn injuries at her house in zopadpattti Narkhed, which was reduced into writing by P.S.I., Mahatale. The First Information Report lodged by Shaikh Ibrahim has set the ...
Tanaji S/O Keshavrao Bhoite Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-03-2011
01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard, by consent. 02. Petitioner herein is an elected director of Respondent No.5-Bank. He is under detention since 10.1.2011 in furtherance of the order passed by the Collector, Jalgaon under Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities and Slumlords and Bootleggers Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act 1981 ("MPDA Act" for short). While under detention, the petitioner received agenda of elections for the Chairman and Vice Chairman of Respondent No.5-Bank, scheduled to be held on 5.10.2011. 03. According to the petitioner:- (a) He is an elected member of the specified society (b) The elections for Chairman and Vice Chairman of the society - Respondent no.5 are to be held by the Collector or his nominee. (c) The Presiding Officer has issued the agenda to hold the said meeting on 5.10.2011. (d) He is entitled to attend the said meeting and vote at the said elections. (e) The petitioner, however, is unable to attend the meeting due to hi...
The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Nav Bharat Trading Co. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-2011
By this Appeal, the Original Plaintiffs in Suit No.2527 of 1989 challenge the judgment and decree passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 11 July 2008. The learned Single Judge has 2 app-47-09.sxwdismissed the Suit.2 The Appellant is a statutory corporation constituted under the provisions of The Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The Appellant has filed Suit No.2527 of 1989 for money decree in the amount of Rs. 4,90,024.38 with further interest on the sum of Rs.4,88,618.77 at the rate 15% per annum from the date of the Suit till payment. 3 According to the plaint allegations, the first defendant Nav Bharat Trading Company imported consignment of goods. The consignment imported was carried on vessel "s.s. Dhaulagiri" of which the second defendant was the agent. According to the Plaintiffs, after the goods were unloaded on the docks of the Plaintiffs, the first defendant who was the importer of the goods did not take steps to clear the goods. Therefore, to recover the dock charges t...
Harish Gokuldas Kalantry and ors. Vs. Deepak Manohar Patil.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-03-2011
Judgment : ( Per: A.H.Joshi, J.) 01. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard, by consent. 02. Heard both sides, and perused the record. 03. The parties herein have been litigating for considerably long time. The circumstances which are undisputed and disputed, are narrated in summary in two paras to follow:- 04. Facts not in dispute:- (i) Respondent is an employee of M/s Presto Export Limited. One Dr. Prithvi Paul Singh Sethi is the Director of M/s Presto Export Ltd. (ii) M/s Presto Export Limited engaged services of the petitioners herein for certain purposes, namely, acquisition of certain assets of Devgiri Textile Mills Limited, a subsidiary company of Maharashtra State Textile Corporation Limited. (iii) Some written arrangement has been arrived at between the parties and the terms thereof are not explicitly brought on record, as admitted-stipulations. (iv) Whatever be the terms, the petitioners herein undertook the bidding for the assets of the Devgiri Textile. (v) The am...
The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Nav Bharat Trading Co.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-03-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per D.K. Deshmukh, J.): 1. By this Appeal, the Original Plaintiffs in Suit No.2527 of 1989 challenge the judgment and decree passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 11 July 2008. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the Suit. 2. The Appellant is a statutory corporation constituted under the provisions of The Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The Appellant has filed Suit No.2527 of 1989 for money decree in the amount of Rs. 4,90,024.38 with further interest on the sum of Rs.4,88,618.77 at the rate 15% per annum from the date of the Suit till payment. 3. According to the plaint allegations, the first defendant Nav Bharat Trading Company imported consignment of goods. The consignment imported was carried on vessel "s.s. Dhaulagiri" of which the second defendant was the agent. According to the Plaintiffs, after the goods were unloaded on the docks of the Plaintiffs, the first defendant who was the importer of the goods did not take steps to clear the goods. Therefore,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›