Mumbai Court November 2011 Judgments
Ms. Eva Drdakova, Consul General Vs. Ms Khemka Exports Private Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of the learned Counsel for the Applicants and Respondent and the Intervenor. 2. The learned Advocate for the Respondent and Intervenor waives service of Rule. 3. The original Defendants in R.A.D. Suit No. 1913 of 2007 have filed this Revision Application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Respondent has filed the said Suit in the Court of Small Causes Court for a declaration of alleged tenancy, alleged to have been protected under the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and for consequential relief of mandatory and permanent injunction. The Trial Court by its Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2007, rejected the Plaint by exercising powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by relying on the provisions of Section 86 of the Code. Appeal No. 24 of 2008 filed by the Respondent/ Plaintiff has been allowed by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 6.5.2009. The ...
Tag this Judgment!imtiyaz A. Rahiman Inamdar, Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-2011
JUDGMENT (PER M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.) :- 1. The appellant has been convicted by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, for the offences punishable u/ss. 302 and 324 of IPC. He has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, sat in default, to suffer RI for one month for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of IPC. As far as offence punishable u/s. 324 of IPC is concerned, he has been sentenced to suffer RI for one month. The substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently. This judgment was delivered on 15th February, 1991 in Sessions Case No.186/1990 of Solapur District. 2. The appellant was in custody after the judgment and he has been released on bail pursuant to the Order dated 13th March, 1991 passed by this Court. As such, at present, he is on bail. 3. Learned Counsel Mr.Prakash Naik is heard on behalf of the appellant and learned Additional PP Mr.Kharge on behalf of the State. 4. Before we deal with the submissions made by the learned Counse...
Tag this Judgment!Aurangabad Zilha Krushi and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-29-2011
ORAL JUDGEMENT (PER : B.R. GAVAI, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, by consent. 2. The petitioner had initially approached this Court for a direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to withdraw the Public Tender Notice, published in Daily Sakal, Aurangabad dated 27th May, 2011, for the property bearing CTS No. 9233, admeasuring 685.75 sq. mtr. and 963.80 sq. mtr., situated at Jinsi Market Yard, Aurangabad, owned and possessed by the Respondent No. 5 Society, which is under liquidation. 3. This Court, vide order dated 17th June, 2011, had issued notice before admission. The matter was thereafter listed before this Court (i.e. the Bench consisting of Hon'ble Shri Justice D.B. Bhosale and Hon'ble Shri Justice S.B. Deshmukh) on 15th July, 2011. It appears from record that when the matter was heard on 15th July, 2011, a statement was made on behalf of respondent No. 6 - M/s Abbas Transport Company that their offer of Rs. 73 lakhs...
Tag this Judgment!Shaikh Gulab Shaikh Ahmed Vs. Mr. Birendra Kumar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2011
JUDGMENT : [ PER T. V. NALAWADE, J. ] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of both the sides. Heard all the sides including advocates appearing in intervention proceedings. 2. The petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India to challenge the orders made by the Recovery Officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "D.R.T." for short) on Exhs. 117 and 127 in Recovery Proceeding No. 31/2007. Under the orders, the Recovery Officer has confirmed the sale made in recovery proceeding (private sale) and the possession of immovable property is given to the purchaser. A relief of direction to sell the same property, which belongs to respondent No. 5 - Deogiri Co-operative Sugar Factory (hereinafter referred to as the "debtor" for short) by public auction is also sought in the writ petition. Some civil applications are filed for intervention by persons having interest as shareholders in the property as they want to object to the sale and som...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Navnit Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.) : 1. The Sales Tax Tribunal by its impugned order dated 18 April 2011 has declined to make a reference to this Court under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1959. The Tribunal has held that its judgment in the present case delivered on 19 November 2010 follows the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ekram Khan & Sons v. Commissioner of Trade Tax1. Hence, according to the Tribunal no case was made out for making a reference. The Applicant is an authorized dealer of Maruti Udyog Limited and Eicher Motors Limited and engages in the business of selling vehicles and spare parts purchased from both the manufacturers. Under the dealership agreement the Applicant replaces defective parts which 1 (2004) Vol. 136 Sales Tax Cases 515. cannot be instantly repaired with new onces from the ready stock without any cost consideration or charge to the customer. This obligation is assumed by the Applicant in respect of vehicles which are under ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Vijay Son of Shridhar Alsi.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2011
Judgment : 1. The Resident Deputy Collector & House Rent Controller, Akola, granted permission to the respondent No.1-landlord to terminate the tenancy of the petitioner-tenant under clauses 13(1) and 13(3)(ii) and (vi) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short, "the Rent Control Order") in R.C. Case No.BRA 13(3)/AKL/1/2008-89. This was the subject-matter of challenge in Appeal No.BRA-13(3)/Akola/1/2009-10 filed under Section 21 of the Rent Control Order before the Additional Collector, Akola, as an Appellate Authority, and the same was partly allowed by an order dated 30-9-2010, maintaining the permission granted under clause 13(3)(ii) of the said Order. Hence, both these orders are subject-matter of challenge in this petition at the instance of the tenant. The subject-matter of dispute is the portion of 10,710 sq.ft. of Plot No.2, Nazul Sheet No.55, situated at National Highway No.6 at Akola, and another portion of the said plot admeasuri...
Tag this Judgment!Devidas Son of Ragho Koli Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2011
JUDGMENT : - 1. Heard respective learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant (original accused) challenging the conviction and sentences imposed upon him by way of judgment and order, dated 28.4.2011. 3. It appears that by the said judgment and order, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner, in Sessions Case No. 30 of 2010, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for six months; and also he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for three months; as well as he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Nilesh Balwant Gourshettiwar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud,J.) :- 1. Rule, by consent returnable forthwith. With the consent of Counsel and at their request the Petitions are taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. This Judgment would govern a batch of nine Petitions, all of them filed by Doctors who seek to challenge a communication issued by the National Board of Examination on 14 June 2011 holding that they could not be considered for registration as DNB trainees for the session commencing from July 2010 in the specialties of Radiology, ENT and Paediatrics. 3. Prior to June 2010, certain guidelines have been framed by the National Board of Examinations, the Second Respondent, for admission to the post graduate DNB programme. Under the earlier guidelines, aptitude assessments were required to be conducted by the institute granting admission after inviting applications in a transparent manner upon wide publicity. Each institute was required to evaluate objective skills for assessing the professional...
Tag this Judgment!Sadiq Colony, Barshitakli, District Akola Vs. Smt Shabana Anjum Dought ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-28-2011
Oral Judgment 1. By this application, revision petitioner (husband) challenged legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati on 23.1.2004 in Criminal Revision No. 10 of 2003 whereby the revision application was allowed and the respondent- wife was granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 750/- from the date of application plus costs of Rs. 250/- for the proceedings. Earlier, learned trial Magistrate who heard an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Misc. Criminal Application No. 231 of 2002, claim of respondent-wife for maintenance for herself was rejected. However, claim for maintenance for child was granted in the sum of Rs. 350/- per month from the date of application plus Rs. 1500/- towards costs of the proceedings. Aggrieved by refusal to grant maintenance to wife, wife had challenged refusal to grant maintenance in Criminal Revision No. 10 of 2003 which was decided by the impugned judgment a...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Jonko Vs. the Superintendent of Police
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant, an Assistant Collector of Central Excise, for offence punishable under Section 12(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the PC Act, 1988 ) and sentence of RI for 4 years with fine of `5,000/- or in default further imprisonment for 6 months inflicted by the learned Special Judge, Mumbai. 2. It was alleged that the appellant had received towards pay and allowances from 15-11-1979 to 12-11-1987 a sum of `1,40,034.45, interest from Banks amounting to `57,672.51 and had borrowed `65,600/- from State Bank of India. He thus had amount of `2,63,306.96 available to him. His expenses for the period were quantified at `82,207.04 and thus was likely to have saving to the tune of `1,81,099.32. But as on 12-11-1987, the appellant was possessed of assets worth `6,42,882.42/- and thus the assets were disproportionate to the tune of `4,61,783.10 to his known sources of income. These conclusions w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »