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.
Sayyad Nazar Abbas @ Kaiffi and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-2011
1. Both these appeals can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment, as the appellants in both these appeals were, all, accused in Sessions Case No. 141 of 1999, decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay. The appellant in criminal appeal No. 1269 of 2004 was the accused No.2 in the said Sessions Case, while the appellants in criminal appeal No. 508 of 2005 were the accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 respectively in the said case. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the appellants shall be referred to by the position held by them in the trial court. 2. There were two more accused in the said Sessions Case (i.e. original accused Nos. 5 and 6). The allegation against the accused persons was in respect of offences punishable under Sections 302 of I.P.C. r.w. 34 of I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay, convicted the appellants of the offences punishable under Sections 304 of I.P.C. r.w. Section 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced them (each of...
.Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai and anr. Vs. Municipal Mazdoor Uni ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-2011
1. Heard Mr.A.V.Bukhari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.U.Kamdar, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents at length. Rule. Mr.M.D.Nagle waives service on behalf of the Respondents. By consent of the parties and in view of the order dated 26.10.2011 passed in Letter Patent Appeal, Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard finally. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short 'the Corporation') being Petitioner No.1 and the Municipal Commissioner being Petitioner No.2 have challenged the judgment and order dated 20.10.2011 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai (for short 'the Tribunal') below Exhibit U-2 in Complaint (U.L.P.) No.326 of 2011. By that order, the Tribunal has allowed the application Exhibit U-2 made by the Municipal Mazdoor Union, Mumbai, Respondents herein (for short 'the Union') and directed the petitioners to pay ex- gratia amount of Rs.11000/- as per the ...
Kanhaiyalal Kisan Pardeshi Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-02-2011
1. Heard learned counsel Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, instructed by Advocate Mr.Salgare for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. Mrs.B.R.Khekhale for the State. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The legality, correctness and propriety of the order passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule on 31st August, 2009 in Criminal Appeal No.91 of 2008, in relation to present petitioner is questioned in this revision petition. 4. This revision petition, has been filed by the petitioner on 2nd September, 2009. This petition was listed for admission before this Court on 4th September, 2009. This Court has issued notice returnable on 8th October, 2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to produce copies of depositions and documents exhibited during the trial. Such permission was granted by this Court, by the order passed on 20th November, 2009. Hearing of the petition was adjourned to 18th...
Navneetdas Narayandas Barshikar Vs. Bacchubhai Mulji Tanna and anr.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-01-2011
1. Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties. 2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant (original complainant) challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 16th August 2000, rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Court No.3, Ahmednagar, in Summary Criminal Case No. 1093/1998, thereby acquitting the respondent (original accused) for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their original status i.e. complainant and accused. 4. The factual matrix of the matter is as mentioned below: The appellant (original complainant), namely, Navneetdas s/o. Narayandas Barshikar, is resident of Ahmednagar and carries on business there, whereas the respondent (original accused), namely, Bacchubhai s/o. Mulji Tanna, is resident of Mumbai, and is proprietor of B.M.T. Industries. It is alleged that the accused purchased goods worth Rs. 2,00,000/- from the complainant on credit, on 11-6-...
Santosh Tukaram Chavan Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2011
1. This letter petition is received through jail. It challenges the order of detention passed against the petitioner under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug- Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). The Detaining Authority after considering the material placed before it recorded his subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is a dangerous person as defined in Section 2(b-1) of the Act, as he had unleashed a reign of terror and has become a perpetual danger to the Society at large in the localities of Vaibhav Chowk, Jockim Compound, Jamil Nagar, Pratap Nagar, Utkarsh Nagar, Kokan Nagar, Samarth Nagar, Nardas Nagar, Sarvoday Nagar, Gamdevi Road, T.P.Road, Jangal Mangal Road, Bhandup (West), Mumbai - 400 078 and areas adjoining thereto in the jurisdiction of Bhandup Police Station in Brihan Mumbai. The Detaining Authority has noticed from the material placed before him that the people ...
Ms. Crawford Bayley and Co. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.) 1. Rule. Learned Counsel for the Respondents waives service. By consent taken up for final hearing on the request of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner, which is a firm of Solicitors, has challenged a communication dated 21 March 2011 by which a return of income filed in the electronic format has been treated as invalid on the ground that the ITR-V form had not been received by the Central Processing Centre of the Income Tax Department at Bangalore. 3. For the Assessment Year 2009-10 the Petitioner uploaded its return of income on 27 March 2010 on the official website of the Income Tax Department. The Petitioner received an electronically generated mail from the Department acknowledging the e-filing of the return of income. An acknowledgment number was electronically generated and furnished to the Petitioner (acknowledgment number 115760720270310. On 5 April 2010 in accordance with the Dmt 3 wp2004-11 instructions of the Depa...
Al Zubair Exporter Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.) 1. The Petitioner has sought to challenge a notification issued by the Union Government in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry on 31 October 2011. By the notification which has been issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 read with Para 2.1 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014 as amended from time to time the Central Government has substituted Chapter - 2 of Schedule 2 of the ITC (HS) Classification of Export and Import Items, with a fresh provision. Chapter - 2 deals with "Meat and Edible Meat Offal." Note 6 to Chapter - 2 is to the following effect : "Note 6. Export of meat and meat products will be allowed subject to the exporter furnishing a declaration, attached with copies of valid APEDA Plant Registration Certificate(s) to the customs at the time of exports that the above items have been obtained/sourced from an APEDA registered integrated abattoir or from A...
Rajan Son of Manoharlal DhaddhA. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-01-2011
Oral Judgment 1. By this application, petitioner prays for to quash FIR registered by respondent PSO, Police Station, Khamgaon in Crime No. 254/07 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the application and reply filed by respondent-State. 3. Applicant claims that he is a renowned and reputed Government contractor and transporter carrying on his business in the name of Shri Ganesh Carriers. He also claims that he is a registered Government contractor for transporting food-grains to all 14 tahsils of Nagpur district and has reputation in the Department as to his integrity and honesty with unblemished character. He was awarded contract since 1996 by the Government for transportation of food-grains. He also enjoys good social status. He is President of Mahavir Jain Yuvak Mandal, Nagpur; office bearer of several social organizations of ...
Manrajsingh Hardevsingh Sandhu Vs. Maharashtra University of Secondary
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2011
JUDGMENT :- ( PER : P. D. KODE, J) 1. Heard. 2. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Mr. Anand Parchure and Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, learned counsel respectively waive service for respondent no. 1 and 3. Considering the main relief prayed, service upon respondent no.2 dispensed with. 3. By the present Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-student has prayed for - a) quashing and setting aside order of respondent No.1 Board dated 14th March,2011 cancelling Higher Secondary Certificate Examination (February-March 2008) given by him and so also provisional result of the same declared on 7th July, 2008 and further debarring him for once appearing at said examination. b) directing respondent No.1 for declaring himself having successfully passed said Examination with 63% marks i.e. as per the provisional declaration made by board on 7th July, 2008. c) saddling cost of Rs.5 lacs upon respondent No.1 for having acted in defiance of order passed on 22.2.2011 disp...
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ro.Tadgaon, Tal.Kallam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2011
JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge in this appeal by original respondent no.2, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is to the judgment and award passed in W.C.A.No.28 of 2005 by the learned Jt.Civil Judge, S.D. 2 on 26/06/2009, by which the appellant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.3,26,140/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a., from 22/05/2003 i.e. after one month of incident till its realization. 2. Admit. By consent of the parties, heard finally at this stage. 3. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision in this appeal can be summarized as : Shahu Jadhavar was serving with Terna Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Terna Nagar, Dhoki, Tal. And Dist.Osmanabad as a watchman. (hereinafter referred to as "sakhar karkhana"). Respondent no.1 is wife of Shahu while respondents no. 2 to 4 are his sons, respondent no.5 is his daughter, while respondent no.6 is his mother. On 22/04/2003, Shahu Jadhavar was supposed to be on duty from 3.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. He was r/o.village Tadgaon, Tal....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›