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.
Raziyabee Wo Shaikh Sattar Vs. Surrendra So Shivajirao Sangle.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2011
1. Admit. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this appeal is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award, dated 22.3.2010, passed by Civil Judge Senior Division & Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act, Hingoli in F.A. No.3 of 2009, thereby dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellants seeking compensation under section 4 (1) (a) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 3. This being an appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act (to be treated as a second appeal and) substantial question of law under section 30 of the said Act is framed as follows :- Whether the Civil Judge Senior Division and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act has erred in law in not holding the parents of the deceased as dependents in view of section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ? Ans : Yes. 4. Appellants/original claimants are parents of deceased Shaikh Mukhtar, who died in an accident which had taken place on 6.3...
Smt. Yashoda Sambhaji Sawant Vs. Smt. Savitra Sambhaji Sawant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2011
1. Notices issued to the sole Respondent is awaited. However, by my order dated 2/9/2011 I had called upon the learned Advocate for the Appellant to address the Court as to whether the Second Appeal would lie or not. Accordingly, arguments have been advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellant on that issue. 2. The original proceedings namely Civil Misc. Application No. 62 of 2001 was filed by the Respondent in the Court of learned C.J.S.D. Satara under section 373 and 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Part 10 of the said Act containing Section 370 to 390 deal with succession certificate. Section 373 deals with the procedure to deal with an application for grant of succession certificate. Section 383 provides for filing of an application to revoke succession certificate. Section 384 and 388 read thus :- "384. Appeal.-(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Part, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of a District Judge granting, refusing or revoking a certi...
The State of Maharshtra and ors Vs. Santosh Manohar Chavan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2011
1. These references for confirmation under Section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code (the Code for short) arise from the separate order of conviction and sentence passed on 26/5/2009 by the learned Additional Session Judge, Sindhudurg at Oros in Sessions Case No. 3 of 2005 and Sessions Case No. 5 of 2005. In the said Sessions Case in all seven accused came to be tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 364A, 394, 397, 404, 201(I), 201(II), 212, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 5, 6 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by his order dated 25/5/2009, was pleased to acquit accused nos.4 and 7 on all the charges and on 26/5/2009, he passed an order convicting accused no.1, accused no.2, accused no. 3 and accused no.6 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364A read with Section 120B of IPC for having murdered four members of Mali family i.e. Sanjay Kerubhai Mali, Rajesh Kerubhai Mali, Anita Kerubhai Ma...
Deepak Dwarkaprasad Gupta and anr Vs. Ms. Sitaram Enterprises.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2011
1. Heard Mr. D.R. Singh, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Girish Lodha, partner of the Respondent(Plaintiff) firm. Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith and Petition is taken up for hearing on board. 2. Original Plaintiff had filed R.A.E. Suit No. 615 of 1995 for eviction on the ground of default, permanent construction and change of user etc. Subsequently, present Respondent M/s. Sitaram Enterprises a partnership firm, was substituted in place of and instead of the original Plaintiff. The Defendant filed Written Statement on 18/7/1996 and paragraph-1 thereof indicates that the Defendant did not admit the status of the Plaintiff as owner/ landlord and the Defendant had also disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant. Various other defences were also raised. After the amendment of the plaint additional written statement was filed on 24/3/2004. Issues were framed on 3/1/2003. Additional issues were framed on 5/5/2005. Thereafter the trial commenced. The Respondent exam...
All Residents of Balaji Ward Vs. State of Maharashtra, and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2011
1] Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2] The petitioners are owners of Survey No. 34/3, area 0.41 ares situated at Mouza Chandrapur, Rayatwari, Patwari Halka No. 8, Bandobust No. 29, Tq. & District Chandrapur. The land is situated in the area called Ram Nagar. Acquisition proceedings were initiated under Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in respect of the said land for the purpose of construction of a primary school. The adjoining land, i.e. Survey No. 34/1 was also made the subject of the acquisition for the same purpose. Apparently, on 4.9.1997 after the award was passed, the Municipal Council, Chandrapur passed a Resolution that it does not wish to proceed with the acquisition of adjoining Survey No. 34/1 admeasuring 2387 sq. meters and demanded a sum of Rs. 5.32 Lakhs back from the Land Acquisition Officer who had been earlier given that amount for the acquisition of land. Relying on this Resolution, Shr...
Yash Raj Films Private Limited. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2011
1. The challenge in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening the assessments for Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07. 2. On 10 September 2009 a survey was conducted under Section 133-A of the Income Tax Act 1961, in the course of proceedings for Assessment Year 2007-08. The Assessing Officer issued a notice on 29 March 2010 proposing to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2005-06. Before the Court it is not in dispute that a similar notice was issued on the same day, by which the assessment for Assessment Year 2006-07 was sought to be reopened on the ground that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147. On the request of the assessee, the reasons on the basis of which the assessment was sought to be reopened have been disclosed under a communication dated 8 April 2010. Those reasons are extracted herein below for convenience of reference : "In this case the assessme...
Jet Airways (India) Limited, a Co. and ors Vs. Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2011
1. The fight over ownership of the shares of an airline, whose aircrafts ply at high altitude at sub zero temperatures, has generated a lot of heat and litigation which has led to the filing of these appeals. Both the Appeals are filed for challenging the Judgment and Order dated 4th May, 2011 passed by the Learned Single Judge (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J) in Execution Application No. 161 of 2009 with Chamber Summons Nos. 551/09, 729/09, 603/10 & 477/11 and Notice No. 734 of 2009 in Arbitration Award dated 12 April 2007. The Appellants in Appeal No. 345 of 2011 (Jet Airways (India) Limited) was the first Claimant, whereas the Appellants in the cross-Appeal No. 456 of 2011 (Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara & ors.) were the second Claimants in the proceedings of Arbitration to which a reference would be made in due course. 2. Initially, the second Claimants being the Appellants in Appeal No. 456 of 2011 (Appeal (Lodg.) No. 293 of 2011) had alone filed their Appeal and on 6th May, 2011, we had passed ...
Bhausaheb Shivaramji at Francis Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner is a original complainant and has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of The Constitution of India, questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon in Criminal Revision Appl.No.54/2010, dated 21/03/2011 allowing the criminal revision and setting aside the order of issuance of process passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Rahata in STC No. 460/2010 vide order dated 03/08/2010. 3. Heard respective counsels for the parties. 4. The facts which gave rise to file the criminal writ petition can be summarized as : The complainant herein has filed a report before J.M.F.C. Rahata on 02/08/2010 against the respondent no.2 complaining that the respondent no.2 is the son of his sister Philominabai Joseph. The said Philominabai has one more sister by name Monikabai Shivraj. This Monikabai owned agricultural property in Survey No.320 admeasuring about 83R. It...
Ramesh Laxman Sonawane Vs. Mrs Meenaxi Ramesh Sonawane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2011
1. The appellant filed petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as HMA) for divorce against the respondent in the District Court at Pune being Hindu Marriage Petition No.207 of 1998. The appellant shall hereinafter referred to as the husband. The respondent shall hereinafter referred to as the wife. The said petition was assigned to learned 6th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune. Learned 6th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune (hereinafter referred to as learned Trial Judge) conducted the trial and by Judgment and Decree dated 28th August, 2002 dismissed the said petition with costs. Being aggrieved by aforesaid Judgment and Decree dated 28th August, 2002, passed in Hindu Marriage Petition No.207 of 1998, the husband has filed this Family Court Appeal. 2. The marriage between the husband and the wife was solemnized on 12th February, 1987 as per Bauddha rites and rituals. Out of the aforesaid wedlock, the wife gav...
Devrao S/O Kisan Lad and ors. Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-14-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. All the petitioners are challenging the directions of the respondent no.1-State of Maharashtra issued vide Government resolution dated 21.03.2007 whereunder the pension granted to them under the scheme called as "Swatantrya Sainik Pension Scheme" has been withdrawn. 3. All the petitioners claim that they were underground freedom fighters who have fought for the freedom of the Marathwada region from the rule of the Nizam of Hyderabad. Arrest warrants were issued against them. They were duly granted the pension as per the scheme framed by the respondent no.1-State of Maharshtra. The same however came to be withdrawn in the following background : 4. On 16.10.2001 a news item was published in Daily newspaper, wherein it was published that one Sherkhan Walikhan Pathan was arrested for preparing forged arrest warrants to substantiate the claim of various persons as freedom fighters. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »