Mumbai Court October 2011 Judgments
Padmakar Vinayak Deshmukh and ors. Vs. Union of India, Thr. Its Secret ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, which is filed in public interest, the petitioners have challenged the public hearing conducted by respondent no.3-Regional Officer, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) under a notification issued under Rule 5 (3) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 for granting environment clearance to certain new projects or activities covered by the said notification. The hearing, which is challenged, took place on 17.09.2010. According to the petitioners, since hearing was vitiated by ruckus since the Regional Officer, MPCB did not hear all the villagers, who wanted to raise objections and even when the villagers wanted to object, could not express their objections since they were hustled out of the meeting and suppressed by officers of respondent no.6-Company from expressing themselves. 3. After this petition was filed on 22.12.2010, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) grante...
Tag this Judgment!Dudhnath at Ajay Baburam Harijan. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
1. Original accused No.2 in Sessions Case No.193 of 2007 has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 14.09.2007 passed by the 1st Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Bombay, whereby the appellant / accused No.2 and another accused No.3 Durgesh Panchlal Harijan were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 394, 450 and 342 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- on first two counts and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.500/- on the third count. 2. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the appellant made a statement that he would not challenge the conviction of the accused for the offence of robbery, house-trespass and wrongful restraint, but, according to him, on the basis of the prosecution story, the conviction under Sections 394 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code cannot stand and the sentence awarded by the trial Court is also excessiv...
Tag this Judgment!Shivaji Vasang Bagale Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
1. The appellant Shivaji Vasant Bagale has filed this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sawantwadi, Sindhudurga, dated 13th December, 1990. By the said judgment and order the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I. P. Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default in payment of fine to suffer further three months simple imprisonment. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the I.P. Code and sentenced to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-; in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts in nutshell are as under- . The deceased Sudha was residing at village Terse- Bambarde, taluka Kudal. She was wife of Arjun Puralkar who was residing in Mumbai. On 7-11-1988 deceased Sudha left her house to purc...
Tag this Judgment!Kailas and All Ro Sonegaon, Tq.Jamkhed. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
1) The Appellants were tried in Sessions Case No.199/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 148, 149, 302, 341, 201 of IPC read with Section 149 and also under Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(ii) r/w section 149 of IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. 2) The trial ended in conviction of the accused persons for all the offences, except offence under Section 120-B of IPC and they have been ordered to undergo life sentence. 3) Heard learned Senior Advocate Shri Shirish Gupte with Smt.Jadhav and Shri Satej Jadhav and learned Advoate Mr.R.N.Dhorde, for the respective appellants/accused; learned APP for State; and learned Advocate Mr.VD Sapkal for Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.27/2011. 4) Facts of the case, as have been gathered from the rival submissions, judgment etc., can be summarized as follows :- (i) The incident had occurred at about 6.00 p.m. on 5.7.2008. (ii) ...
Tag this Judgment!Hansa Bhaskar Dave, Adult Vs. Harihar Himmatlal Mehta, Adult
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
1 This Writ Petition was placed at Serial No.925 i.e. on the supplementary Board of today's Board. Since the Court was busy in hearing matters from the regular Board and earlier matters from the supplementary Board, this Petition could not be taken up till 5 p.m. today. Considering the urgency, the Petition was mentioned at 5 p.m. and the learned Advocates for the Petitioners and Respondent have agreed to advance their arguments /submissions beyond normal working hours of the Court after 5 p.m.. I have accordingly heard the Petition. 2 Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3 The Petitioners are original Plaintiffs in R.A.D. Suit No. 1094 of 2011 filed in the Court of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai for declaration of tenancy in respect of the suit premises. Written statement has been filed by the Respondent-Defendant and the written statement has been subsequently amended by allowing the Applications of the Respondent- Def...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakant Baburao Kendre. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks leave to delete Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Leave to delete Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 is granted. Amendment be carried out forthwith. 2. Learned Government Pleader Mr. S.V. Kurundkar waives service of notice for Respondent No.1/State. Learned advocate Mr. S.S. Thombre waives service of notice for Respondent No. 2. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, by consent. 4. By way of present Writ Petition, the petitioner impugns the judgement and order dated 14th October, 2011, passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 456/2011 filed by the present petitioner. 5. The petition arises out of certain glaring facts which are capsulized in nutshell as under. The Respondent No. 2, namely, Vishwanath Babunath Nath, was working as Executive Engineer, Majalgaon Canal Division No. 10, Parbhani. Undisputedly, Respondent No. 2 had not completed his three years' tenure on the said post at Parbhan...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Hamsukhray Mansukhlal Shah Vs. Prakash Sahkari Upasa Jal
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
1. Heard Adv. D. M. Dhavate on behalf of the Appellant/ original Complainant and Adv. K. C. Dudhgave for the Respondent /original Opponent. 2. This appeal is directed as against a decision given on 5/3/2011 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli in Consumer Complaint No.289 of 2010. The consumer complaint which was filed by the Appellant/original Complainant has been dismissed by the District Forum. 3. The Respondent/original Opponent is a lift irrigation society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 for Village Malgaon, Miraj Tehsil, District Sangli. Said Society is providing lift irrigation water to its members. It appears that under the said lift irrigation scheme, the Society was possessed of excess water, and therefore, the Society decided to supply said excess water to other agriculturists who are in need of water by making them an associate member of the Society and accordingly, share-capital was contributed by the Appellant/origin...
Tag this Judgment!Smt Angha Anil Joshi and Another Vs. the Manager, Ratnagiri Dist Co Op ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
S.R. Khanzode, Judicial Member. [1] This appeal is filed by original Complainants for enhancement of compensation awarded in their favour as per order dated 21/11/2008 passed in Consumer Complaint No.63 of 2008, Smt. Anagha Anil Joshi and Anr. Vs. Manager, District Central Co-operative Bank, Ratnagiri and Anr., passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ratnagiri (the Forum in short). [2]It is the grievance of the Appellants/original Complainants (hereinafter referred to as the Complainants for the sake of brevity) that they tried to avail an education loan of Rs.10,60,000/- for the Complainant No.2, namely Mr. Anand Anil Joshi from the District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Ratnagiri (hereinafter referred to as the Bank for the sake of brevity). On 12/8/2006, the Bank informed about sanction of loan subject to fulfilment of conditions. It is further submitted on behalf of the Complainants that they have fulfilled those conditions except that one No Objection Letter f...
Tag this Judgment!Bahubali Zilla Nagari Sahakari Pathsantha and Others Vs. Krishnaji Yas ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2011
Justice S.B. Mhase, President. 1. Heard Adv. Manoj A. Patil, learned counsel for the Appellants. 2. This appeal is directed as against an order dated 12/7/2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur in Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2010. By the impugned order, the Appellants/original Opponents have been directed to jointly and severally pay to the Respondent/original Complainant an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- against the Fixed Deposit Receipt No.7894 and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- against the Fixed Deposit Receipt No.7895 (08 times of the principal amount). Said amount was directed to be paid together with interest thereon @ 6% p.a. as from 26/4/2009 till realization of the amount. The Appellants/original Opponents have been further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- by way of compensation towards mental harassment and an amount of Rs.1,000/- by way of costs. Since these fixed deposit amounts were not paid by the Appellants/ original Opponents on the date of...
Tag this Judgment!Royal Carbon Black (P) Limited and Another. Vs. Chief Commissioner of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2011
1. The Petitioners have a factory at Raigad which manufactures carbon black, fuel oil and other products. The raw material in the manufacturing activity is stated to consist of 'used cut' rubber tyres. The Petitioners claim to have the permission of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board issued on 14 January 2011 (Exhibit B to the Petition). According to the Petitioners, under the customs tariff rules, import of used tyres with one cut falls under Open General License (OGL) and such goods are freely importable; the relevant entry being Item 4004 of Chapter 40 of the Customs Tariff. However, according to the Petitioners, tyres with multiple cuts and/or shredded tyres are restricted items which require a licence from the Director General of Foreign Trade. A copy of the licence issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade to the Petitioners is annexed to the Petition as Exhibit D. The licence which has been issued on 20 April 2011 inter alia contains the following endorsement :- "This...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »