Mumbai Court November 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.
Ramarai Rammilan Rai Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. Ms. Cardozo, learned AGP waives service on behalf of the Respondents. 2. Heard Mr. Kansara for the Petitioner and Ms. Cardozo, AGP for the Respondents. 3. The Petitioner claims to be one of the partners of the establishment of an eating house known as "Missile Restaurant and Bar", Goregaon (W), Mumbai. A license to keep a place of public entertainment has been given to the Petitioner and one Yar Mohammad Kallan under Section 33(1) (w) & (y) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 subject to the Rules framed under the said Act. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 33, the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai has framed "Rules For Keeping Places Of Public Entertainment in Greater Bombay, 1953" (hereinafter referred to as the "said Rules" for short). 4. The place of eating house of the Petitioner was inspected at 23.05 hours on 12.11.2009 by the Senior Inspector of Police, Social Service Bra...
Chaudhary Transport Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The Petitioner has invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act) and challenged Award dated 25 February 2009 whereby all his claims and the counter laims of the Respondent have been rejected. 2. The basic facts are as under : On 19.05.2003, the Petitioner and Respondent entered into a Transport Agreement for a period of two years from 1/9/2002 till 31/08/2004. On 30/12/2003, the Respondent received a notice under Section 39 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 to pay all the amounts due to the Petitioner to Sales Tax Authorities. On 29/01/2004 the Respondent received a letter from Sales Tax Officer to handover cheque to Sales Tax Inspector. On 03/02/2004 the Respondent wrote to the Petitioner informing about the notice received by them on 30/12/2003 and 29/01/2004. On 15/03/2004 the Respondent wrote to Sales Tax Authorities enclosing a cheque of Rs.7,01,216/-. On 23/06/2004, the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax wrote to...
Jotiram Shiva Patil and ors. Vs. Dwarkabai Yashwant Mardane and ors
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-2011
1. Rule. With the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above Petition takes exception to the Order dated 1-4-2011 passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Kolhapur by which Order, the Application Exhibit 43 and 43A in Regular Civil Appeal No.126 of 2007 filed by the Original Defendant came to be allowed. 3. The brief facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above Petition are stated thus: The Petitioners herein are the original Plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No.294 of 2002, filed by them for specific performance of the contract, for a direction that the Defendants be directed to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit property in their favour, and for a further declaration that the sale deed executed by the Defendant Nos.1 to 5 in favour of the Defendant No.6 is not binding upon them. 4. The Respondents herein are the original Defendants who had filed the said applications Exhibit 43 and 43A. The parties went to trial and the said su...
Sau. Kasabai Wo. Jagannath Kondke Vs. Sau. Chandrabhagabai Wo. Ramrao ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2011
1. Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties, finally. 2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant (original complainant) challenging the order of acquittal dated 14th July 2010, rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Phulambri (District : Aurangabad), in Regular Criminal Case No. 499/2008, thereby dismissing the complaint filed by the complainant and acquitting the accused i.e. respondent nos.1 to 7 herein, for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 379, 427, 504, 506, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The appellant i.e. original complainant, namely, Sau. Kasabai w/o. Jagannath Kondke, had filed private complaint against the accused i.e. respondent nos.1 to 7 herein, in the court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Sillod, for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 379, 427, 504, 506, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The said complaint was subsequently transferred to the court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Phulam...
Shri D.R.Bondre Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges two circulars dated 14.06.1994 and 07.10.1994 issued by the Government of Maharashtra regarding the service conditions of Librarians. A few facts of the matter are as under: 3. The petitioner joined as Librarian with G.K.Gokhale College, Kolhapur respondent no.4 with effect from 1st May, 1961 and worked for more than 25 years as Librarian and retired from the same College. The pay scale of Librarians and the Directors of Physical Education were on par with the Lecturers. The revisions were effected during the year 1960-65. The University Grant Commission appointed an independent committee to recommend the scales of pay for Librarians and Directors of Physical Education. Both the Committees unanimously recommended that the Librarians and the Directors of Physical Education scales of pay ought to have been on par with that of the Lecturers. The...
Vodafone Essar Ltd Vs. Raju Sud
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2011
JUDGMENT: The Plaintiffs who is service provider has filed this Summary Suit by invoking Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code (for short, CPC) based upon computer generated itemized mobile bills. THE RELEVANT BACKGROUND AND POLICY OF COMPUTER GENERATED ITEMISED BILLS: 2 The Plaintiffs are engaged in the business of providing Mobile Telephone Services under a Licence Agreement dated 29-11-1994, issued by the Government of India (as amended from time to time), under the terms and conditions set out thereon. Under the provisions of the Indian Telegraphs Rules 1951, and more particularly Rule 439 thereof, the charges for usage become payable on presentation of a bill. It is necessary for the service provider that the billing system of the licensees should generate the billing information, in adequate details, to ensure satisfaction to the customer about the genuineness of the bill. The bill represents the true extent of the service actually provided by the service provider and also the...
Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2011
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 notice dated 25 March 2011 by which an assessment for Assessment Year 2004-05 is sought to be reopened by the Assessing Officer. 3. The Petitioner filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2004-05 on 31 October 2004. As the book profits under Section 115 JB were higher than the tax on the total income, the total income was computed under Section 115JB and a tax of Rs.10.12 lakhs was paid. On 7 January 2005, a revised return of income was filed by which an amount of Rs.1.10 crores representing a loan which was remitted by an Overseas Lender was reduced from the total income declared by the Petitioner. 4. The Petitioner had in 2001 obtained a loan of Swiss Franc one million from a Company based in Switzerland, George Fischer A.G. The loan was availed of for...
international Asset Reconstruction. Vs. the Registrar, Debts Recovery ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud,J.) :- 1. The Petitioner had filed an application for sale of immovable property that was mortgaged in its favour by the borrower on a pari passu basis with the other banks. The Application was filed before the Recovery Officer in the recovery proceedings which were pending before him. It has been averred that the borrower made a submission to the effect that there was a stay with respect to the recovery proceedings against certain other banks having a pari passu charge on the immovable property and hence, the Petitioner also stood prohibited from proceeding with the recovery. It has been averred that the Recovery Officer agreed with the view of the borrower and did not permit the Petitioner to proceed with the recovery. The Petitioner filed an Appeal against the order of the Recovery Officer before the Presiding Officer of the DRT in January 2011. The pleadings were complete and the hearing was concluded on 6 May 2011. When the Appeal was reserv...
Ms. Shah Jayshree Manilal. Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar,J.): 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the respondent no. 2 on 12.9.2008 and 17.4.2009 on the ground that the said orders are illegal and contrary to law. The Petitioner is a student of law and she appeared for her First Semester examination of 1st Year LL.B. in the month of November, 2007. Thereafter, she appeared for the two papers i.e. Labour Law on 21.4.2008 and paper of Contract-I on 23.4.2008. While writing the paper of Labour Law on 21.4.2008 she was warned by the Junior Supervisor, Senior Supervisor and by the Principal i.e. Respondent no. 4, that she should not talk with the other students who were sitting behind her. Despite, she repeated the act and was caught thrice. Since the aforesaid acts of the petitioner constitute misconduct, the petitioner was called in the chamber of the Principal i.e. respondent no. 4 and in the presence of Junior and Senior Supervisor, she tendered written apology...
Narmadabai Baburao Harde and ors. Vs. Sau. Meera Pankaj Bhujadi and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. All writ petitions raise only point that, whether in view of the loss of opportunity to file written statement since the defendants in respective matters were not present on the date when the matter was fixed for filing written statement can be deprived from cross examining the plaintiff on the ground that, the matter proceeded exparte against respective respondents. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, though the petitioners did not file written statement and the matter proceeded exparte against the petitioners, however, they have right to cross examine the 5 wp2496.11 plaintiff restricted to the examination in chief. Learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Suryabhan Ranuba Wagh vs. Shobha Bhimrao Pawar reported in 2002 Mh.L.R-4-10 and submitted that, these writ petitions may be al...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »