Mumbai Court February 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.
Smt.Chaya Jagan Kale Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
:1. Rule. Mrs.M.P.Thakur, learned AGP waives service on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Aiya, learned counsel waives service on behalf of Respondent No.4. By consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally.2. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside (i) the Government Order dated 4.7.2007 thereby amending clause 30 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Food Grain Rationing (Second) Order, 1966 (for short the "Order"), (ii) the Government Resolution dated 3.11.2007 issued by the State of Maharashtra and (iii) the Judgment and Order dated 1.11.2010 passed by the Minister for Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, State of Maharashtra, in Review Petition thereby cancelling the ration shop allotted to the petitioner earlier by the then Hon'ble Minister for Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, and further alloted the same to the Respondent No.4. The fact...
Yogesh S/O Hanuman Thaokar and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
J U D G M E N T (Per A.B. Chaudhari, J.) :1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29.4.2010 passed by the Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Special Case No. 19 of 2004, convicting and sentencing the appellants in these appeals to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months, for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, so also sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten days for the offence punishable under Section 147 of Indian Penal Code, and sentencing accused no.2, 3 and 6 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one yea...
Sharda Motor Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
J U D G M E N T. 1 Rule , returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties the petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 By way of this Petition the petitioner company seeks direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash and set aside the letters dated 14/10/2009 and 13/8/2010 as well as show cause notice dated 4/2/2010 issued by the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (L.T.U.) ,respondent no.5, holding that three manufacturing units and one trading unit of the petitioner located at Nasik , Kanchipuram and Singur are not covered under Large Tax Payer's Unit ( for short LTU) scheme . The petitioner further seeks declaration that these three units and the trading units of the petitioner are covered by LTU .3 Before dealing with the submissions of learned counsel of both the sides it is necessary to state in brief the scheme of LTU which was introduced in India in the year 2006. LTU is a facility made available by the Government to facilitate ...
Jeejau Shikshan Sanstha Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
J U D G M E N T.1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Both these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.FACTS :2. In Writ petition No.1916/2010 the petitioner claims to be a trustee of respondent no.4 education society while in Writ Petition No.1261/2010 the employees of the school run by respondent no.4 education society have a grievance in the matter of transfer of management of the school to respondent no.5 society by the respondent no.4 society. SUBMISSIONS :3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both writ petitions made the following submissions :-(a) In Writ Petition No.1916/2010 Nitin Raghobaji Raut is a trustee of the respondent no.4 Matoshri Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha and the dispute amongst the trustees are pending before the Joint Charity Commissioner in the form of Application No.20/2009. Being a trustee, he obtained an order from the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur on 15th ...
Anil Shashikant Dukhande Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
Judgment1. The appeal was called out first on 26th November, 2010, but none appeared for the appellant. The learned APP was, therefore, heard on that day and matter was adjourned. On 2 nd December, 2010 when the case was called out, again none appeared for the appellant. Since it was not shown that the advocate for the appellant has ceased to practice, there was no question of issuing any notice to the appellant to engage another advocate. After matter was heard on 26th November, 2010, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, made enquiries with the investigating Officer and found that the prosecutrix had committed suicide by consuming poison on 05.01.2009, out of frustration since her marriage could not settled. The Investigating Officer, seems to have also recorded the statement of the appellant on 29.11.2010, wherein the appellant stated that he was aware that he had been convicted and appeal against conviction was pending before this Court. Thus, it was not that the appellant was ...
Arun S/O Tukaram Wahane Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
ORAL 1. By this revision application the revision applicant has challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur on 9/11/2001 in Regular Criminal Case No.12/1998 and confirmation thereof by Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No.96/2001.2. Heard the learned Advocate for the revision applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent.3. It is submitted on behalf of the revision applicant that the alleged incident of demand of dowry is stated to have occurred on 28/3/1997 but F.I.R. in respect thereof was lodged on 13/6/1997 after the delay of three months. It is further contended that the prosecution had suffered from very material improvements in its stages. The earlier charge was framed on 12/6/2000 at Exh.15 which reads as follows"That you in between the period 28.3.87 to 12.6.87 cheated to complainant Vanmala saying that, you would be married with her. Secondly you for the ...
Vijaykumar S/O.Motilal Hirakhanwala Vs. the State of Maharashtra and o ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
ORAL : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.2. By the present writ petition under Article 14, 19(1)(g), Article 226 and 300A of The Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of writ of mandamus, directing respondents to confirm lapsing of reservation and release of land from reservation no.57 over an area of 4000 Sq.Mtrs. of C.T.S.No. 6758, within the limits of Jalna Municipal Council, Jalna, under Final Development Plan in respect of Jalna City in ownership and possession of the petitioner, and also prayed for issuance of appropriate writ for the declaration that reservation no.57 over land bearing no.CTS No.6758, within the Municipal Limits of Jalna stands lapsed and the said land is released from the reservation under Final Development Plan of Jalna city and for issuance of writ directing respondent no.1 to notify the lapsing of reservation no.57 over an area of 4000 Sq.Mtrs. on...
Union of India and ors. Vs. Jagdish Singh and ors..
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
ORAL :-1. All these applications are filed by the Union of India seeking cancellation of bail granted to accused nos.1 to 6 by the learned Special Judge by different orders.2. According to the prosecution on the basis of specific information received, the officers of the Narcotics Central Bureau, Mumbai Zonal Unit, Mumbai intercepted accused no.1 Jagdish Singh, accused no.2 Harvinder Singh and accused no.3 Harjinder Ram near the Oberoi Mall, Goregaon (East), Mumbai when they arrived there in Toyota Innova car bearing registration No.PB-10- CJ-2414. They delivered the contraband to taxi driver Veer Bahadur Singh, who is accused no.4 The taxi driver had come by taxi No.MH-01-X-5483 for taking delivery of the contraband. On interception 25 kgs. of Methamphetamine was recovered. After completing the formalities it was seized, samples were taken. The statements of accused nos.1 to 4 were recorded under section 67 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short herein...
Smt.Nanda Santosh Shirke Vs. Smt.Jayashree Santosh Shirke and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
ORDER :1.The Petitioner has filed this petition for revoking the order dated 3rd October 2008 passed in Miscellaneous Petition No.31 of 2007, granting legal heirship certificate under Bombay Regulation Act VIII of 1927 to the Respondent and for other ancillary reliefs. The Petitioner claims to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased Santosh Atmaram Shirke, who expired on 21st August 2005. The Petitioner claims that the deceased died leaving behind her and her three children Shraddha, Devyani and Siddhesh Shirke as his only surviving heirs and legal representatives.2.She claims to have been married to the deceased as per Hindu Vedic rites on 8th March 1992 at Adarsha Vivaha Karyalaya above Khandelwal Sweet Shop, Opposite Station, Thane (West). The Petitioner has produced a certified copy of her marriage certificate which was issued by the Marriage Registrar, Thane. The marriage is shown to have been solemnised on 8th March 1992. The Petitioner had three children from the said marriag...
SalimoddIn Gulam Dastagir Shaikh and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-15-2011
ORAL :1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants at length and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 10th February, 1999 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Sessions Case No. 82/1998.2. It is the prosecution case that :P.W. 1 Salimoddin resident of Nashirabad was on cross terms with the accused Salimoddin and his father accused No. 2 Gulam. On 08th November, 1997 a quarrel took place between his brother Hasinoddin and daughter of accused Gulam. On 09.11.1997 Salimoddin had been to Jalgaon for some work. At about 11.30 a.m. when he was proceeding by road and reached near Nashirabad rickshaw stop the accused persons assaulted him with knives causing injuries on chest, back, thigh, right hand and both knees. They were saying that they would kill him. He raised shouts for help, on which P.W. 4 Iqbalkhan and P.W. 6 Nasirali came there and rescued him. He was sent to Civil Ho...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »