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.
Shri V.S.Deshpande Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-05-2011
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by Consent. 2. This Contempt proceedings are initiated on the Reference made to this Court by 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar. 3. In the proceedings for grant of succession certificate, present contemnors have made a statement on record that the Hon'ble High Court had demanded succession certificate in the appeal pending before High Court. The contemnors were not able to prove that any such order was passed. 4. The trial Court, by passing order below Exh.1, called the explanation from the applicants therein as to why action should not be taken against them for making such false and irresponsible statement. 3 CRI. CP NO.1/2009 5. The applicants therein filed written explanation in which objectionable matter was incorporated. The statements, which were objectionable, are quoted in the reference. 6. This Court had taken cognizance and ordered that notice of show cause be issued against the contemnors. 7. The contemnors r...
Mangal Son of Tularam Warkhade Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-05-2011
J U D G M E N T 1. These appeals, being disposed of by common judgment, are arising out of the judgment and order dated 15/5/2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Trial No. 18/2006. The appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 312/08 were accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3; the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 242/08 was accused No. 4; whereas the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 795/08 was accused No.5. The appellants shall hereinafter be referred to as the accused persons as per their numbers in the Sessions Trial. 2. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 were tried for offence punishable under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, I.P.C.) and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. 3. Vide the impugned judgment and order, accused Nos. 1 to 5 are acquitted of the offence under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. They are held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 395 read with Section 397 of I.P.C. and convicted ...
Shri Rajan Dhansukhlal Vora Vs. Shri Dinesh Bacchubhai Parekh
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-05-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT. : 1. This appeal from order is directed against the order passed by the Judge, City Civil Court on 3rd April 2010 in S.C.Suit No. 3203/2004 directing the counsel for the parties to make submission on the Notice of Motion No.1682/2009 on merits with a view to decide as to whether the preliminary issue can be framed at the particular stage of the proceeding. The appellant is the original defendant No.3. The respondent No.1 is the original plaintiff who presented the suit being S.C.Suit No.3203/2004 claiming following substantial reliefs: a) That this Honourable Court be pleased to declare that the occupation of the Defendant No.3 in the suit premises viz. a Garage premises admeasuring 200 sq.ft. situated on the Ground Floor of Suresh Vithal Niwas Building, L.N.Road, Matunga, Mumbai 400 019, is that of a wrongful trespasser who has been unlawfully inducted without the consent and permission of the Plaintiff and consequently the tenancy agreement, if any, executed by the Def...
Mangesh Sawant Vs. Minal Vijay Bhosale and anr.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-05-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner is invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing the proceedings of the application made by the first respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. The averments made in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the petition read thus: "3. The Petitioner states that since Shri Vijay Yashwant Bhosale harassed the Respondent No.1, the Respondent No.1 invoked the provisions of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by filing Criminal Case No.18 of 2010 under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in which the Respondent No.1 impleaded the present Petitioner in the capacity of friend of husband of the Respondent No.1. Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT-A is the copy of the said complai...
Dhunjibhoy Ice Factory Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Municipal Corporatio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-2011
1 The above Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeks the relief that the Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 be directed not to recover the Water Tax and Water Benefit Tax from the Petitioners as the reverse date as per the letter dated 9-2-2000 (Exhibit A to the Petition) and/or on the basis that the area/industry falls in non conforming zone. The Petitioners further seek the relief that the Respondent Nos.1,2 & 3 be directed to forthwith withdraw and cancel the letter dated 9-2-2000 (Exhibit A to the Petition). 2 The facts involved in the above Petition in brief can be stated thus: The Petitioner No.1 runs an ice factory at Mazgaon. The said factory is situated in a residential / commercial zone in the Development Plan of Greater Mumbai as prepared by the Respondent No.1 and as sanctioned by the Respondent No.4. The Petitioner No.1 in view of its factory is subjected to property tax under Section 140 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act 1888, wh...
Mahadeo S/O Rambhau Athawale and ors. Vs. the Additional Divisional Co ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-04-2011
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 lpa168.10 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 assistance being illiterate, to...
Shobhabai W/O Prakash Telure and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-04-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. This Civil Revision Application is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 04-03-2011 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 119 of 2007 passed by the District Judge-5 Aurangabad. The revision applicants herein filed M.A.R.J.I. No. 188 of 2006 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kannad. The facts stated in the M.A.R.J.I. No.188 of 2006 are reproduced herein below for ready reference. "1. That, the Prakash s/o Shahadu Telure (hereinafter referred the deceased) died on dt.23-10-2005 at village Kannad, Tq.Kannad Dist. Aurangabad. 2. That the ordinary and permanent residence of deceased at the time of death was at Bhimnagar, Kannad Tq. Kannad Dist. Aurangabad. 3. That the deceased had left the following members of the family :- Sr. Name of the legal heirs. Relationship with No. the deceased. Wife 1 Shobhabai w/o Prakash TelureSon 2 Siddharth s...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. Vs. Ms. Redstone Realtors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-04-2011
1. This Civil Revision Application was listed at serial no. 61 on today's Board. At 11 a.m. the Advocate for the Respondent No.2, who is assignee from Respondent No.1, mentioned the matter for being taken out of turn on the ground that Respondent No.2 and the Applicants had settled the entire dispute inter se and that they wanted to file Consent Terms. In view of this, the Petition was taken up out of turn and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 has tendered the Minutes of Order dated 4th October, 20011 signed by Shri M.N. Baid, Education Officer, M.C.G.M. for and on behalf of the Applicant No. 2 and the Advocate for the Applicants and Mr. I.E. Makani for M/s. Redstone Realtors being Respondent No. 2 and the Advocate for the Respondent No.2. Other Applicant being Applicant No.2 and Respondent No.1 have not signed the said Consent Minutes of Order. The said Minutes of Order are taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. 2. The Minutes of Order do not indicate that there ...
Johny at Abdul Rahim Khalil Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-04-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A.H.Joshi, J.) :- 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioner is a life convict. He had applied for parole. 4. The Divisional Commissioner had rejected his request, by order dated 21.6.2011. The grounds for rejection, as incorporated in the order, can be summarised as follows:- (1) Two daughters and son-in-laws of the petitioner's mother are competent to look after and attend to the petitioner's mother and her ailment. (2) Petitioner's surety is not willing to furnish surety bond and in absence of surety, the petitioner is not eligible for release. 5. In the background that the police report was adverse stating that the surety is not willing to stand surety, the prisoner had forwarded with this letter petition, the affidavit sworn by the surety, namely, Gulab Bahadur Khan. 6. After reading the letter petition and surety's affidavit annexed to the letter petition, we were curious to know whether the petitioner/life convict was any time...
Ms. Minar Exports Vs. Enforcement Committee and ors
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-04-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J): 1. Rule, by consent returnable forthwith. With the consent of Counsel and at their request the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The Petitioner has challenged a decision of the Enforcement Committee constituted under a notification issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Textiles on 12 November 1999 and confirmed in appeal by the Enforcement Appellate Committee. Under the decision, the Petitioner has been subjected to two demands; (i) A demand in the amount of Rs. 7.10 crores; and (ii) A demand in the amount of Rs. 3.81 crores on a finding of fact. The finding of fact is that (i) The Petitioner having obtained a quota and Visa under the GR I Category which was readily available without any premium, actually exported items covered under the GR II Category which was widely sought after and commanded a premium in the market by forging Visas obtained under the GR I category and making them appear as Visas obtai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »