Mumbai Court February 2011 Judgments
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Dwarkabai W/O Keshav Rathod and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-24-2011
:1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 11.03.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Criminal Appeal No. 17/1991, thereby quashing order of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate in R.C.C. No. 33/1989 dated 01.02.1991.2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under : The complainant is Murlidhar S/o Mohanlal Randad R/o Nandgaon, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed. He is agriculturist by occupation. The accused Nos. 1 to 4 are resident of village Satona and accused No. 5 is resident of village TidiPimpalgaon, Tq. Pathri Dist. Parbhani. The accused No. 1 to 5 are agriculturists by occupation. Accused No. 1 is the wife of accused No. 2. Accused No. 2 and 3 are real brothers.3. It is the prosecution case that, complainant Murlidhar is adopted son of one Rambhabai Mohanlal Randad. Rambhabai was the owner of field Gat No. 48 situated at village Aher Borgaon. She had faith on God Maroti. Hence, she gifted field Gat No. 48 to the temple of Got Maroti ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Bansilal Vaishnav Vs. Champatrao Tryambakrao Deshmukh and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
ORAL .1. Heard Shri S.N. Gaikwad, the learned Counsel for the Appellant. None appears for the respondents though served.2. The above First Appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 14.11.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Buldhana in W.C.A.No. 17/2004. By the said judgment and order, the application filed by the appellant was dismissed. The facts involved in the Appeal can be stated thus. The appellant is the original applicant in W.C. Application No. 17 of 2004. It was the case of the appellant/applicant that he was serving as a driver on Tempo Trax Jeep bearing No. MP09S1778. The said jeep belonged to the respondent to the said application, namely Shri Champatrao Tryambakrao Deshmukh. It was the case of the appellant/ applicant that he was drawing Rs. 1200/ per month as salary and Rs. 30/ per day as bhatta. The said Jeep met with an accident on 04.02.1999. In the said accident the appellant/applicant sustained injury to his right hand below wrist fo...
Tag this Judgment!World Sport Group (India) Private Limited Vs. the Board of Control for ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated December 20, 2010, passed by the learned single Judge in Arbitration Petition No. 978 of 2010 by which the learned single Judge dismissed the Arbitration Petition filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by holding that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") has failed to make out a case for interim relief.2. The petitioner is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office in Mumbai. The respondent is a Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act.3. In order to organize 20:20 over cricket matches, a SubCommittee is constituted by the respondent known as "Indian Premier League" (IPL). The said IPL consists of Chairman and Commissioner and other members. At the relevant time, one Mr. Lalit Modi was appointed by the respondent as the Chairman and ...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar S/O Ravan Kamble Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
ORAL :1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th May, 1999 passed by the Special Judge, Aurangabad in Special Case No.8 of 1993 thereby convicting the appellant - original accused No.1 u/s 248(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, I/D to undergo further R.I. for three months.The appellant - accused No.1 was however, acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The original accused No.2 was acquitted of all the offences punishable under Sections 12 r/w 7 as also under Section 109 r/w sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. The prosecutor case, in brief, is as follows:The complainant has got agricultural land at village Mahaboob Kheda bearing G.No.113 and G.No.107. Both these fields are apart from each other. The complainant intend...
Tag this Judgment!ikram Suleman Qureshi Vs. Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
ORAL :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 challenge in these proceedings is to a No Objection Certificate dated 13 June 2009 issued by the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board and to an IOD dated 28 January 2010 issued by the Municipal Corporation. The authorities whose action is challenged are impleaded as the First and Second Respondents. The subject matter of the petition is a proposed redevelopment to be carried out by the Seventh and Eights Respondents in respect of land and immovable property situated at Survey No.200 of Tardeo Division. The redevelopment is proposed under DCR 33(7) of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai.3. The Petitioner is an occupant of a residential flat in an adjoining building, which is known as Suleman Tower. The building where the Petitioner resides was also redeveloped under DCR 33(7) and the construction is...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Atesham Ahmed Khan and ors. Vs. M/S.Lakadawala Developers Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
ORAL :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 First and Second Petitioners are Chief Promoters of a proposed Cooperative Housing Society, representing slum dwellers of a plot of land bearing CTS 6/1 (part) at Mankhurd, Mumbai. The Third Petitioner is a developer. The First Respondent is also a developer appointed by the Second Respondent which is another proposed Cooperative Housing Society, representing the interest of the slum dwellers. The dispute in this case pertain to a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under DCR 33(10) of the Development Control Regulations.3. On 15 June 2006, an application for sanctioning a slum rehabilitation scheme was submitted by the First and Second Respondents to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. AnnexureI to the application provided that 1235 structures existed on the land in question. Together with the application, the First and Second Respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Mukundrao Landge and ors. Vs.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
ORAL 1 This appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No.597 of 2001 on 30.3.2005 and the appellant-accused has been convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further R.I. for a period of two months. 2 While the appeal has been pending, the accused took out Criminal Application No.234 of 2011 for being released on bail on the ground that he was arrested on 14.3.2001 and thus he has already undergone actual sentence almost close to 10 years and there was no possibility of his appeal being listed for final hearing in the next few months and more so when we are hearing the appeals (accused in jail) and the appeals filed in the year 2003 are still awaiting for final hearing though on board before us. We, therefore, with the consent of the parties took up Criminal Appeal No.596 of 2005 for final hearing. 3 As per the prosecution case, the accused is the elder...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax-ii Vs. M/S. Brahma Associates
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
1. Although this appeal was admitted on 01/12/2009 on only question, at the hearing of the appeal counsel on both sides agreed that all the questions raised in the appeal be admitted and heard on merits. Accordingly, the following questions of law are admitted and heard on merits :-(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in holding that the deduction u/s.80IB (10), as applicable prior to 1/4/2005 is admissible to a "Housing Project" comprising of residential housing units and commercial establishments ?(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that a project having commercial area up to 10% of the project is eligible for deduction on the entire profits of the project u/s.80IB(10) up to 1/4/2005 ?(iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the projects wherei...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Sahebrao Borude Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
ORAL :1. The appellant has questioned the correctness of his conviction for an offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ with default stipulation of undergoing further RI for one year, in Sessions Case No.22/2008, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur vide judgment and order dated 18.09.2009.2. The prosecution case, as unfolded during the trial, is as undera) PW9 API Hibare, attached to Sonai Police station, received a telephone message on 21.02.2008 from the Sarpanch of village Vatapur that the appellant has committed murder of his mother Sakharbai. Accordingly, station diary entry No.3 (Exhibit33) was taken and PW9 proceeded to the spot at Vatapur where he noticed that one dead body of a female was lying in a pool of blood. The appellant was present in the house. Statement (Exhibit13) of Sahebrao (PW1) was recorded on the spot, which was treated as FIR, on the basis of which offence at Crime No. 21/...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Bhimraj Panhale Vs. Kishor S. Chobe and anr.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
ORAL :01. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent at length. Present criminal appeal is filed by the original complainant taking exception to the judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rahuri in S.T.C. No. 254/1996 dated 04th September, 1999, thereby acquitting the respondent/original accused.02. The facts of the case can be stated as under : The complainant alleged in his complaint that the accused Kishor S. Chobe was carrying construction and contractor business and due to one, Anil Sarvadkar accused was conversant and acquainted with the accused. Thus, accused used to take hand loan amounts from the complainant and repay it. It is alleged that the accused came to the complainant on 08.02.1991 and demanded hand loan of Rs. 60,000/ for the period of five years. So the complainant withdrawn his balance amount from the bank and paid Rs. 60,000/ in cash to the accused.03. It is further case of the compl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »