Mumbai Court December 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.
M.XIn Xiang an and ors. Vs. Sinoriches Enterprises Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2011
1. The Appellants (Defendants 1 and 2 in the original suit) have challenged the order of the learned single Judge of the Admiralty Court dated 19 October 2011 dismissing the Notice of Motion taken out by them for dismissal of the suit and for vacating the order of arrest of Defendant No.1 Vessel dated 27 September 2011. 2. The Plaintiff sued the Defendants upon a maritime claim by the Plaintiff consequent upon its rights under a charterparty executed by Defendant No.3. Defendant No.1 is the relevant vessel arrested under the aforesaid order dated 27 September 2011. Defendant No.2 is stated to be the owner of the vessel. Defendant No.2 is stated to have entered in to a charterparty Agreement dated 25 September 2009 (Time Charter [TC]) with Defendant No.3. The Defendant No.3 is stated to have sub-chartered the vessel under another TC to the Plaintiff dated 21 December 2009. 3. It is the claim of the Defendants 1 and 2 that Defendant No.2 has entered into a charterparty agreement by way o...
Achut Son of Narayan Shinde Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2011
JUDGMENT (PER A.M. THIPSAY, J.) :- 1. The appellant was the accused in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2010, in the Court of Sessions at Parbhani. The allegation against him was that he had killed his wife. The learned Additonal Sessions Judge, Parbhani, after holding trial, held the appellant guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. The appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed upon him, has approached this Court by filing the present appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. M.P. Kale, the learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. D.V. Tele, the learned Additonal Public Prospector for the respondent-State. We have been taken through the entire evidence and other relevant record. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order. 3. The prosecution case, as was before the trial court, may be stated in brief, as follows;- The appellant, (hereinafter referred t...
Ms. Hotel Suraj Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2011
1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of the the parties. The learned AGP waives service on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr. Joshi waives service for Respondent Nos.6 to 10. 2 This is a peculiar case arising out of the provisions of Bombay Police Act, 1951 and Rules For Keeping A Place Of Public Entertainment, 1953 framed by the Commissioner of Bombay Police under the provisions of Section 33 of Bombay Police Act, 1951. 3. On 11th November, 2009, the establishment of the Petitioner where it is running eating house with license for running an orchestra as also having a license under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 to serve liquor coupled with Entertainment license under section 33 (w) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 r/w 1953 rules being 'A' type license for serving liquor in a place of public entertainment. As stated above, the premises were inspected on 11th November, 2009 by Senior Inspector of Police, Immoral Trade, Social Service Branch, Bombay. 9 lady wai...
Shankar Son of Manikrao Waghmare Vs. Bhaurao Son of Bapurao Waghmare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. With the consent of both the parties, second appeal is taken up for final hearing. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that, Direction No.3 i.e. "Enquiry of mesne profit shall be carried separately under Order XX Rule 12 of Civil Procedure Code" passed by the trial Court, is in absence of any pleadings or prayers in the suit and no such direction can be given in absence of pleadings or prayers to that effect in the suit. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ganapati Madhav Sawant (dead) Through his Lrs. vs. Dattur Madhav Sawant, reported in 2008(3) S.C.C. 183 and submitted that, the point raised herein is no more res integra and is covered by the above said pronouncement. . Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants further submits that, the land which is the subject matter of this suit is purchased by the resp...
Sudha Madhusudan Lanjekar Vs. Shashikant Gajanan Pathare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-2011
1. On a reference being made by the Single Bench as per the order dated 27/7/2010, this petition has been assigned to us and as the petition has been pending for the last about more than 14 years, we deem it appropriate to decide the reference as well as the petition finally. The reference made is, "Whether a suit by landlady against a tenant protected under the Bombay Rent Control Act would be governed by Article 66 or Article 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963?" 2. The brief and disputed facts are that the plaintiff-landlady through her power of attorney and son had given on rent for the purpose of running a grocery shop, as per the agreement dated 1/5/1970, the suit premises consisting of two rooms on the ground floor and two rooms on the first floor of Municipal House No. 2437 and one room on the rear side of Municipal House No. 2438 for a period of 11 months. On expiry of the first agreement, the second agreement was signed on 1/4/1971 and the third one on 2/3/1972. The last agreement...
Rohidas Manik Kasrale Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-2011
1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 22nd August, 2003, passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No.78 of 2003, convicting the Appellant, who was the sole accused in that case, of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the Appellant to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default sentence of six months. The Appellant, being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, has appealed to this Court. 2. The prosecution case before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, was that the Appellant and his wife Lata used to reside at Room No.14, Trupti Apartment, Bhola Nagar, Kalwa, Thane, with their two daughters. The Appellant and his wife Lata, both, were working as Insurance Agents in Panaromic Company. The relations between the Appellant and his wife were not good. The Appellant used to suspect the character of ...
Nirmala Maruti Gunjal and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-2011
1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15th November, 2003, passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, in Sessions Case No.79 of 2003, convicting the Appellants, who were the accused in the said case, of offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC, Section 451 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 342 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, sentenced the Appellants as follows : (i) For the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC - Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default sentence of R.I. for two months. (ii). For the offence punishable under Section 451 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC - R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs.500/- with a default sentence of R.I. for one month. (iii). For the offence punishable under Section 342 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC - R.I. for ...
Ms. Vishnu Packaging, a Partnership Firm. Vs. Union of India, Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per P.B. Majmudar, J.) 1. Since common point is involved in all these matters, for the sake of convenience, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The point involved in Writ Petition No. 1355 of 2011 is taken as a basis for the purpose of deciding all these matters. Mr. Hidayatullah, learned Senior Counsel, has advanced arguments in Writ Petition No. 1355 of 2011. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in other matters has adopted the argument of Mr. Hidayatullah. 2. So far as Writ Petition No. 1355 of 2011 is concerned, the petitioners are manufacturers of pan masala, gutka and other allied items. The petitioners appointed dealers and vendors/pan shop owners who sell the products manufactured by the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have collected samples of the products in purported exercise of powers under Rule 12 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter "the Rules"). According to the ...
Shri Eknath Waman Jadhav Vs. Dist. Nashik and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above Petition takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 17/3/2011 by which the Executing Court by invoking the power under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure has committed the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 to civil prison for three days on deposit of the subsistence allowance by the Decree Holders. 3. The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above Petition can be stated thus : The Petitioners, who are the original Defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.210 of 1997, filed by the Respondents herein before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Sinnar. The suit was for injunction simplicitor in respect of the land bearing Gat No.386 admeasuring 4 Hectres and 38 R situated at Mauze Padali, Tal. Sinnar Dist. Nashik. The said injunction was sought to the effect that the Defendants be restrained from disturbing Plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the suit prop...
Both Ro Sawara Manchanpur Vs. Dnyaneshwar Shalikram Bhore
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. By this application, the applicants prayed for to quash and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Akot in Criminal Revision Application No.45/ 2006 and to restore the order passed by the learned JMFC Akot in Criminal Compliant Case No.21/2006 on 16.9.2006. 2. The facts in brief, are as under : The complainant- Shri Dnyaneshwar Shalikram More had lodged a complaint against one Shri Trimbak Tukaramji Khandaray and his wife Sumitrabai Khandaray. According to complainant in January 2004 Sanjay ( late son of the accused persons) was in need of loan in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- which was given by the complainant. Late Sanjay repaid the hand-loan by cheque dated 28.2.2004 which complainant had encashed. Sanjay is no more living since he died as the result of accident on 11.3.2004. Further, according to the complainant, a false suit was filed by the accused persons against the complainant taking unfair advantage of the entry o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »