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.
Salim @ Raju Karamali Ansari and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2011
1. This appeal was preferred by original accused Nos. 1 and 2 challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay at Sewree in Sessions Case No. 648 of 2007 whereby both the accused were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 392 r/w. Section 397 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. During the pendency of appeal, the accused No.2 Dhaneshwar @ Dharmesh Manilal Soni has died and the appeal to that extent is abated, and therefore, this appeal is now pending only in respect of the accused No.1 Salim @ Raju Karamali Ansari. 2. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the appellant / accused No.1 made a statement that he would not challenge the conviction of the accused for the offence of robbery under Section 392 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but according to him, the conviction of the accused No.1 under Section 39...
Forbes and Co Ltd and anr. Vs. the Official Liquidator of the Swadeshi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2011
1. This Company Application invokes the powers of this Court under section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 ("Act" for short). The Application is by the Applicants who are a Public Limited Company, namely, Forbes & Company Ltd and a Private Limited Company Grand View Estates Pvt Ltd, both registered under the Act. They have prayed that order dated 5th September 2005 passed by this Court of winding up the Swadeshi Mills Company Ltd (company in liquidation), be permanently stayed and the applicants be permitted to deposit with the Official Liquidator attached to this Court an aggregate sum of Rs.86 crores as per the chart at Annexure A to the application. Then, there are further prayers for making payment of this sum to the secured creditors, workers and employees of the company. After such payment, the applicants pray that the assets and properties of the company in liquidation be handed over to them and the Official Liquidator to stand discharged. 2 An affidavit in support of this co...
Syed MuzaffaruddIn Khan Mohd. Abdul Qayyum Vs. Mohd.Abdul Qadir Mohd. ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-14-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. This criminal writ petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.05.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-7, Aurangabad in Criminal Revision No.227/2010 thereby setting aside the order dated 05.03.2009 passed by CJM, Aurangabad in RCC No.2264/2008. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Such of the facts, as are necessary for the decision of this petition, may briefly be stated thus-The petitioner is the original complainant, who had lodged a report in the month of October 2008 in CIDCO police station, Aurangabad in respect of the incidents of cheating by respondents No.1 to 4 during the proceedings pending on the file of CJJD, Aurangabad i.e. MARJI (Miscellaneous Application Requiring Judicial Inquiry) No.663/2002. It appears that though the report was lodged with the police, no action was taken by the police. Thereafter, it appears, o...
Mrs. Geeta Ramesh Agrawal Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
1. By this Petition, the Petitioner, who is a legal representative of a judicial officer, challenges the order dated 28 October 2003 by which the original Petitioner Mrs. Geeta Agrawal was compulsorily retired from the judicial service. At the time when that order was made, she was holding the post of Metropolitan Magistrate. She was compulsorily retired by giving her three months pay. There are three challenges raised to the order of compulsory retirement : (i) That as per the service rules the appointing authority of the Petitioner being a promotee Metropolitan Magistrate is High Court and, therefore, the order of compulsory retirement could not have been issued by the Governor of Maharashtra; (ii) That payment of three months salary was not tendered to the Petitioner along with the notice of compulsory retirement but that payment was made subsequently and (iii) There was no material before the Authority for compulsorily retiring the Petitioner on completion of 50 years of age. 2. So...
Madhukar Govindrao Thaware and ors. Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
1. Taken up for hearing by consent of learned Advocates appearing . Heard submissions. This Writ Petition is preferred in respect of an order dated 5th January 2011 passed by Debts Recovery appellate Tribunal , Mumbai and an order dated 17th March 2009 passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur whereby it is held that the provisions of Limitation Act are applicable to an appeal under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and financial Institutions Act ( Briefly referred as RDDBFI Act ). The question raised is as to whether the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act or its principles are applicable to appeal filed under section 30 of the RDDBFI Act. 2. The facts which gave rise to filing of the writ petition may be summed as under:- The Petitioners are owners of Apartments in the building known as 'Jupiter Complex' Situated at Vaishali Nagar, Binaki, Nagpur. The Petitioners claim that they were handed over possession of their respective apartments in the building pursua...
Vilas Shankar Dhande Vs. the Commissioner of Police, Pune.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.):- 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Detention Order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune City, dated 2nd August, 2011 bearing D.O. No. 19-Crime/ PCB-1/4358 of 2011, in exercise of powers under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981, read with Government Order, Home Department (Special) No. DDS-1211/CR-114/SPL-3B, dated 26th July, 2011 for breach of discipline laid down in the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates (Conditions of Detention) Order, 1981. 2. In the petition, broadly, four points have been taken to challenge the impugned Detention Order: The first is regarding subjective satisfaction recorded by the Detaining Authority; the second is regarding variance of purpose in the Groun...
The Manager, Adarsh Mahila Nagri Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. the State of M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 3. By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing and heard finally. 4. This writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 15/01/2011 passed by respondent No.2 Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad on the revision filed by respondent No.4 bearing No. 23/2010. This revision was filed under the provisions of Section 154 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (Henceforth referred as "the Act"). The facts leading to the litigation are as under : 5. Respondent No.4 availed loan from the petitioner in year 2004 but despite of demands, did not repay the same fully. So, the petitioner Bank started proceeding under section 101 of the Act for getting certificate of recovery. Accordingly, on 29th September, 2006 a certificate under section 101 was issued against respondent No.4 directing her to pay a sum of Rs. 31,77,6...
New India Assurance Co Ltd, Through Divisional Manager, Pune Vs. J K T ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
Per Mr. Narendra Kawde, Member, J. 1. Heard Adv. Rajendra P. Bafna on behalf of the Appellant/ original Opponent and Adv. Ashutosh Marathe on behalf of the Respondent/original Complainant. [2] This appeal is directed against an order dated 30/11/2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur (the District Forum in short) in Consumer Complaint No.475 of 2010, J. K. Transport Corporation Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [3] With the consent of the parties heard the appeal for sometime on the point of admission and an order to dismiss the appeal was pronounced in open Court on 13/10/2011 for the reasons summarized here-in-below:- [4] Admitted facts on record are that the Respondent/original Complainant subscribed to insurance policy No.151104/31/06/01/ 00000418 issued by the Appellant/original Opponent to provide insurance cover to his truck No.KA-35-7417 owned by the Respondent/original Complainant for the period commencing from 22/4/2006 to 21/4/2007. Du...
Orange City Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Commissioner of Central ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
1. These Appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act 1944 are directed against a common order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated 28 February 2011 on an application for waiver of pre-deposit. 2. The CESTAT had before it a batch of matters in which the allegation is that the assessees, who manufacture and sell M.S. ingots, had clandestinely cleared manufactured goods by suppressing the actual production. In each of the cases a notice to show cause was issued to the assessees. The main demands for duty, as the Tribunal noted, were by and large based on the consumption of electricity which was found to have been suppressed by the parties. The demand for duty was based on the consumption of electricity in the manufacture of one Ton of M.S ingots, a norm of consumption being applied. Upon adjudication, differing amounts of duty and penalty were demanded in all the six cases. 3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants has placed on the recor...
Narsinha Pandurang Garkhedkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsel for the parties heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. As the common question is involved in both these Petitions, both the Petitions to be disposed of by the common judgment. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both these Petitions, followed by the submission of learned counsel for the respondent-original complainant and the learned A.P.P.. 4. Such of the facts which are necessary for the decision in these Writ Petitions can be summarized as follows. For the sake of clarity, the respondent-Arjun will be referred to as "the Landlord" and respondent-Santu will be referred to as "the Tenant". This Santu is the petitioner in Writ Petition no.206 of 2005. It is not under dispute that the landlord-Arjun executed the lease deed in favour of tenant-Santu of the share of his agricultural land vide lease deed dated 26th November, 1986. It appears that this Santu-tenant filed an application under Section 32-O...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »