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.
Ms. Orange City Alloys Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1) A Division Bench of this Court at Mumbai by its order passed in these group of appeals on 12th October, 2011 has found it difficult to agree with the decision of the Aurangabad Bench in the case of M/s. S.R.J. Peety Steels Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Union of India dated 20th July, 2011 in First Appeal No.706 of 2011 with Civil Application No.5013 of 2011 and formulated a question for consideration by a larger Bench. Accordingly, this larger Bench is constituted to consider the question framed by a Division Bench of this Court. The question framed by the Division Bench (Coram Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Mr. Justice A.A. Sayed) reads thus :- " Whether the decision of the Division Bench in SRJ Peety Steel Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Union of India (First Appeal 706 of 2011 with C.A. 5013 of 2011) delivered on 20th July, 2011 remanding the proceedings back to the Tribunal requires reconsideration since the Division Bench did not express any view prima facie that the decision in Nasik Strips Pvt. Ltd. and M...
Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1. These two applications for bail have been filed by two persons arrested and chargesheeted in connection with bomb blasts at Malegaon, District Nasik on 29th September, 2008, for their alleged involvement in offences punishable 120B, 302, 307, 326, 324, 153-A, 427 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Explosive Substances Act read with Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(4) and 3(5) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Act (hereinafter referred to as MCOCA ) and read with Sections and Sections 3, 5 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act read with Sections 16, 18 and 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as UAPA ). The applicants were arrested on 5th November, 2008 and 2nd November, 2008 respectively. 2. Facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding these two applications and which may, for the sake of arguments, be taken to be not in serious dispute are as under :- Applicant Lt. Colonel Prasad Purohit is a serving Army officer, who was also...
Sangita Bala Jadhav Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1. By this common judgment, we intend to finally dispose of all three petitions challenging the Orders of Detention together, as the background in which the respective Detention Orders were issued against the concerned detenues is common and arising out of the same transaction and more so, the issues raised are overlapping. In other words, the facts and events as disclosed in the respective petitions as also the reply-affidavits and the original record of the respondents, i.e., the Sponsoring Authority and the Detaining Authority are broadly identical. 2. The first petition is filed by the wife of Bala Baburao Jadhav (hereinafter referred to as Detenu Jadhav), challenging the Order of Detention dated 20th July, 2011 bearing No. PSA-1211/CR-17(4)/SPL-3(A) issued by the Detaining Authority in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), upon recording satisfac...
Both Ro at Bhendkhal Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1. This is an appeal against the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC ) and sentence of RI for five years and fine of `500/-, or in default RI for three months, inflicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad in Sessions Case No.111 of 1993. 2. The appeal was dismissed by Judgment dated 15-11-2010 after perusing the record, as the learned counsel for the appellants stated that the appellants had taken away the brief. One of the appellants carried the matter to Hon ble Supreme Court. The Hon ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal by Order dated 15-4-2011 to the following effect: Leave granted. We have learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant as well as standing counsel appearing for the State. The High Court vide its impugned order dated 15.11.2010 disposed of the Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant herein against his conviction for the offence punishable under Section ...
Anil Vishwanath Pathwe Vs. D.i.G. Prison, Western Region, Pune.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1. Heard learned amicus curiae as well as learned A.P.P. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent. The learned A.P.P. waives service for the State. 3. As short question is involved, the petition is taken up forthwith for final disposal. 4. This letter-petition is received through jail. 5. The petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment in connection with offence punishable under Sections 302 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 17th November, 2005 in connection with the said case, and is in jail since then. It is stated that, in 2007, the petitioner had applied for furlough leave. That application was granted on condition that the petitioner must furnish cash security and surety of Rs.10,000/- each. The petitioner filed Writ Petition, being Criminal Writ Petition No. 2581 of 2008, for dispensing with the condition so imposed for release on furlough leave. In the said Writ Petition, it was ordered that the petitioner ...
Hemantkumar Sadashivrao Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1] Heard Shri Mardikar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Joshi, learned AGP for respondents 1, 2 and 4. No body has appeared for respondent no. 3 though served. 2] Shri Mardikar learned counsel at the out set points out that one of the prayer in the petition is to direct the respondent no. 3 to pay to petitioner his salary from May 1995 till the date of filing of petition and to continue to do so during its pendency. However, he fairly pointed out that respondent no. 3 School is already closed down. It is, therefore, obvious that no such relief can be given in present writ petition against respondent no. 3 atleast at this stage. 3] The other contention of Shri Mardikar, learned counsel for the petitioner is though school is closed down, benefit of provisions of Rule 25(A) of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules 1981, is not extended to petitioner on the ground that his petition was pending. Petitioner holds qualification of Diploma in Plant ...
Kokan Unnati Mitra Mandal and ors Vs. Bennet Colemna and Co. Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1. The Plaintiff No.1 is a registered society having Plaintiffs 2 to 13 as its trustees. Plaintiff No.2 is the Chairman of the Society and served as the Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra immediately prior to the cause of action having arisen in this suit. Defendant No.1 is the owner of the newspaper "Times of India" and its Marathi publication and Defendants 2 to 4 are the Editor, Printer and Photographer respectively of the publications. The Defendants together shall be referred to as the Defendants. 2. The Defendants published an article and two photographs in its newspaper publication dated 3rd April 1982 which the Plaintiffs claim as defamatory per se. The Plaintiffs also claim that the article carries an innuendo with regard to certain activities alleged to have been carried out by the Plaintiff No.2 in the capacity as the then Chief Minister. 3. During the tenure of Plaintiff No.2 as such Chief Minister there were certain allegations made and petitions filed by certain p...
Chintaman Sitaram Kedari Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the convict, who is in jail in connection with offence punishable under Sections 452, 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, undergoing term of life imprisonment. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the said offence on 18th November, 1995. He was convicted by the Sessions Court, Raigad, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. According to the petitioner, he has completed actual 14 years of sentence on 1st June, 2010. His request for premature release should have been granted by the Authorities, more so because the co-accused in the same case, Shankar Ram Mhatre, was ordered to be released on completion of 14 years of actual imprisonment vide order passed by the Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, dated 4th January, 2011. 2. Considering the limited controversy brought before us, it is not necessary to advert to other factual matrix leading to the filing of this petition. The pet...
Shivaji Vishnu Kshirsagar and ors Vs. Sayaji Vitthal Kshirsagar and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
1 Rule, by consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 21-9-2010 passed by the Learned District Judge Satara, by which order, the application filed by the Respondents herein under Order 26 Rule 10A read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, was allowed. 3 Shorn of unnecessary details, a few facts which are necessary to be cited for the adjudication of the above Petition can be stated thus: The Respondent No.1 is the original Plaintiff and the Petitioners herein are the original Defendants. The Respondent No.1 filed Regular Civil Suit No.134 of 1990 for partition and possession. The subject matter of the said suit are 10 agricultural lands and two houses at Village Dhamner, Taluka Koregaon, District Satara. It is the case of the Respondent No.1 that the said suit properties are ancestral properties of the joint family and the same was with the common ancestor...
Branch Manager Bank of India and Another Vs. Jyoti Mujumdar
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-2011
P.N. KASHALKAR PRESIDING MEMBER 1. This is an appeal filed by Bank of India against the judgement and award passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune in consumer complaint No.562/2006 decided on 06/05/2009. By allowing the complaint partly filed by the complainant, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed the Bank of India to pay jointly and severally to the complainant an amount of Rs.38,250/- within two months from the date of order else to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till realisation. As such org. opponent-Bank of India has filed this appeal. 2. The facts lie in narrow compass. The complainant-Mrs.Jyoti Jayant Mujumdar is house-wife and resident of Pune. She had opened an account in the Bank of India, Shankar Nagar Branch, Near Dashbhuja Ganpati, Pune. She was account holder in the said branch from 18/10/1996. She was operating locker No.1304 jointly with her son and after marriage of her son, she had taken a separate locker bearing No...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »