Court : Mumbai
1. Heard. Admit. By consent of parties, appeal is taken up for final disposal. 2. The appellant/ original plaintiff is taking exception to the order passed in Notice of Motion No.2214/2009 in L.C.Suit No. 2635/2009 by the Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Bombay on 17 th March 2010. The appellant is the co-operative housing society and its membership consists of the occupiers of the flats in Rachana-1 building constructed and developed by the defendants/ respondents herein. The defendant Nos.1 to 7 are the partners of the firm and are the builders and developers. Respondent Nos.12 and 13 are the Municipal Corporation and the Executive Engineer of the Corporation. Defendant Nos.1 to 7 developed the plot situated at village- Bhandup, taluka- Kurla and constructed Rachana-1 building which consist of two wings "A-Wing" and "B-Wing". The defendants secured proper permission and got the plan sanctioned and sold the flats to the prospective purchasers. The flat purchasers who are the occupants...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respective respondents. 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent, heard finally. 3. Short point is raised in this petition whether the order passed by the Tribunal to hear the application under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "said Act") at the time of final hearing of the main claim petition, is sustainable in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivaji Dayanu Patil and another vs. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More, reported in A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1769. . Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the application was filed by the petitioner herein under section 140 of the said Act. It was incumbent upon the Tribunal to decide the said application, however, by the impugned order, hearing of the said application is deferred and it is observed that, the said application to be heard at the time of final hearing of the main claim petition. Such order is i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1 By order dated 16th September, 2011, notice for final disposal at the stage of admission was issued. Accordingly, S. K. Legal Associates have filed appearance on behalf of Respondent No.1. 2 RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of the parties. 3 I have heard Mr. Borkar for the Petitioner, Mr. Patil for Respondent No.1 and learned AGP for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. 4 The Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co- operative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune had issued circular dated 5th March, 2007 thereby informing all the subordinate Officers not to forward any proposals for opening of bank account and name reservation. Respondent No.1 filed an application for name reservation and opening of bank account. The Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Karad rejected the said application by relying on the circular dated 5th March, 2007. Aggrieved by this order, Respondent No.1 filed Appeal No.26 of 2009 before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Kolhapur Division, Ko...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Appellant is the original accused No.2. He has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appellant has preferred this appeal in this court. 2. Brief facts are as under:- 3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10/4/1989, at about 5.00 P.M., accused Nos. 1 to 5 entered the house of deceased Apparao and all of them assaulted the deceased with knife in his house situated at Warad Chawl. According to prosecution, brother of Apparao was also assaulted with knife and, thereafter, the accused ran away. Apparao and Mallinath were taken to the General Hospital, Solapur where Apparao was pronounced to be dead and, thereafter, Mallinath was treated in the hospital and he was discharged on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The Petitioner - Societies are the Co-operative Societies. The petitioners applied to the respondent no. 4 - Sangh for membership on 14/06/2002. They also paid share deposit amount and the entrance fee on 14/06/2002. 3. On 21/10/2011, respondent no. 2 published the programme for publication of the voters' list for the election of respondent no. 4 - Sangh. The petitioners raised objection as the names of the petitioners did not appear in the provisional voters' list. The said objection came to be rejected by respondent no. 2. The said order is assailed in the present Writ Petition. 4. Mr. V.D.Salunke, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even respondent no. 2 in its affidavit in reply has accepted the fact that the petitioners have deposited the share deposit amount and the entrance fee on 14/06/2002. There is no dispute in regard to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Heard. Perused. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by mutual consent. 3. Worth of the judgment and order dated 18-08-2011, passed by the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 in Appeal No. EXT-2011/133/VS-3(A), confirming the externment order dated 03-03-2011 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistate, Selu, District Parbhani, is in question in the present petition. 4. A show-cause notice dated 17-04-2010 seeking explanation regarding the allegations made in the said notice was issued as per the provisions of Section 59(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (for short 'said Act, 1951'). This notice was replied by the petitioner with his reply dated 15-01-2010. The petitioner was heard, and thereafter, the order of externment dated 03-03-2011 was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Selu, District Parbhani. 5. An appeal under Section 60 of the said Act, 1951 against the said order of externment was preferred before the Principal Secr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1 Heard respective learned counsel for the parties. 2 This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/State i.e. original complainant challenging the judgment and order of acquittal, th dated 1.12.2000, rendered by the learned 4 Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nanded, in Regular Criminal Case No. 541 of 1998, thereby acquitting the respondent i.e. original accused for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 3 The factual conspectus and shorn of details of the prosecution case are as follows:- The complainant, namely Mohammed Shahed s/o Abdul Shakur returned from his work place to his house, situated at Lalwadi, Nanded, at about 3.30 to 4.00 p.m. on 26.10.1997 and cleaned Nali situated in front of his house, since it was blocked. After cleaning the said Nali, while washing his hands and legs in front of his house, the accused Iqbal Karim Ansari closed the said Nali by cutting a Babhul tree. Thereafter he started abusing. Hence, the complainant's father asked th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant (original accused) challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by way of judgment and order dated 8th February, 2011, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No.91 of 2009, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months; and also convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 452 of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months; and also directing both the sentences to run concurrently. 3. The factual conspectus and shorn of details of the prosecution case, are as follows: The complainant Vandana Dabhade, who is a v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard for final disposal by consent of parties. 2. The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to challenge the orders made by Sugar Commissioner in matters of grant of Aerial Distance Certificate for starting private sugar factories. Copies of relevant record are produced by both the sides. Advocates of both the sides are heard. 3. The petitioner is a Sugar Factory registered under the Companies Act, 1956. For starting another sugar factory at Sonegaon, Yamainagar, Tahsil Jamkhed, District Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, the petitioner obtained Aerial Distance Certificate from Survey Office of Government of India on 10.6.2008 and on 21.6.2008 it applied for getting Aerial Distance Certificate from Commissioner of Sugar, Pune. As per Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 the aerial distance between two sugar factories is prescribed as 15 k.m. On 12.7.2008 respondent No. 2 Sugar Commissioner issued proclamation in "Daily Lokmat" newspa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1 The Union of India has preferred this application for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent nos.1 and 2, who are the original accused by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Pune in Customs NDPS Sessions Case No.18 of 2011. 2 Prosecution case in brief, is that, one Satish Kulkarni, Inspector, Customs (Preventive) Narcotic Cell at Pune received intelligence on 19.11.2010 at about 13.30 hrs. that two persons namely, Ambalal Srilalji Ahir and Kailashchandra Mallara would be coming opposite Modern Cafe, Shivajinagar, Pune in a Maruti Alto at about 4 p.m. on the same day with about 15 kg of opium. After completing the other formalities, officers of the Narcotic Cell took position near the relevant spot. At about 4 p.m. one Maruti Alto car bearing registration no. RJ-27-CB-3899 arrived and stopped in front of Modern Cafe. The officers of the Narcotics Cell surrounded the car and introduced themselves to the occupants of the car and enquired about the identity of the occupants of ...
Tag this Judgment!