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.
Manik S/O Uttamrao Solav Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-10-2011
:1. The appellant herein has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 2nd August, 1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Sessions Trial No.23/1999, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further R.I. for three months, and u/s 498-A of I.P.C. to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, I.D.R.I. for one month.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under: The appellant - original accused No.1 Manik is husband of deceased Indubai, original accused No.2 Tulsabai is mother of Manik and accused No.3 Ramchandra is maternal uncle of Manik and real brother of accused No.2. The trial Court has acquitted the accused Nos.2 and 3 of the offences charged against them.3. Deceased Indubai was married with accused No.1 - appellant herein prior to six years i.e. approximately in the year, 1992. At t...
Krishna Babu Bhoir and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2011
1. This Appeal is directed against conviction of the appellants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad at Alibaug for the offences punishable under Sections 307 read with Section 149 and Sections 147, 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for three months and rigorous imprisonment for one year respectively inflicted on the two counts. This came on the conclusion of Sessions Case No.126 of 1994 conducted before the learned Judge.2. Facts which are material for deciding this Appeal are as under :-One Vilas Gharat had allegedly neglected to help Mahadeo Kothekar and Dashrath Patil, who were injured on 13th September, 1993 and had refused to carry them in Auto Rickshaw to the hospital. It is alleged that therefore, Dashrath Patil and his friends had a grudge against Vilas. Therefore, on 1st November, 1993 when Vilas Gharat was returning with Mahadeo Kothekar from Konkan Bhavan ...
Vasant Kheraj Bhanushali and Others Vs. Goregaon Siddharth Nagar Sahak ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2011
ORAL :1. In 1948 the Bombay Housing and Area Development Board became the owner of a large tract of land at Goregaon (West), Mumbai admeasuring 40 acres equivalent to 1,65,800 sq. meters. The Board had constructed 808 ground floor structures consisting of "Patra chawls" and each tenement admeasured 220 sq. ft. The area is now known as Siddharth Nagar. The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority came into existence on 5 December 1977. In 1984 a cooperative society representing the occupants was formed comprising of 663 out of 808 tenants. The Court has been informed that the number of occupants at present stands at 672. The rest of the occupants were rehabilitated in various other schemes.2. The cooperative society representing the occupants entered into an agreement on 9 September 1986 with a developer Lokhandwalla Society and Development Company Limited to develop a gross land area of 13.18 acres. Net of reservations the area was 10 acres. On 8 February 1988 the Government ...
Mrs.Anuradha Ashok Naik Vs. Mr.Ashok Sagun Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2011
ORAL ORDER :1.Notice of this writ petition has been served through office upon the Respondent/husband on 15th November 2010. He has not signed on the notice. The Respondent/husband has remained absent despite notice. Hence only the Petitioner is required to be heard.2.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.3.The Petitioner has challenged the order of the learned Family Court, Judge, Bandra, Mumbai, dated 8th June 2010, refusing to condone the delay in filing her petition for setting aside an ex-parte decree of divorce passed by the Court. The husband obtained the ex-parte decree on 6th June 2007. On the Petitioner s own showing, she would have knowledge of the decree at least on 17th April 2009 through her uncle one Premanand Ganesh Naik with whom the Respondent/husband had a dispute in Vengurla Court. The Petitioner, however, contended that she came to know of the passing of the decree only on 16th June 2009 when the uncle came to Goregaon, Mumbai and handed over the photo copies of ...
Minoti Anand and anr. Vs. Subhash Anand and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
:1.The order of the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai dated 8th June 2004 declaring the inherent jurisdiction of the Family Court is challenged in the above Revision Application. Other interim orders dated 30th December 2003 and 9th January 2004 appointing a Commission and clarifying its ambit respectively are sought to be challenged in the above Writ Petition.2.The issue of jurisdiction is the seminal dispute between the parties and must be first decided. Based upon that decision, the other interim orders relating to commission for certain inquiries with regard to the properties of the parties to the dispute would be seen. Respondent No.1/husband herein filed a divorce Petition being MJ Petition No.A-1931 of 2003 in Family Court, Mumbai. Aside from the relief of dissolution of his marriage with Petitioner No.1/wife herein, he applied for a number of reliefs with regard to the properties standing in the names of himself, his wife, his two sons as also a Trust settled by him which are claim...
Shri Gopaldas Deosthan, Bhidi Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
ORAL 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. This appeal is preferred against judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the order of Sub Divisional Officer, Wardha refusing exemption to the appellant-Trust under Section 47 (2) (a) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (Hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The appellant holds agricultural land in villages Bhidi, Hasnapur, Fatepur, Huradapur in excess of the ceiling limit of 52 Acres. The appellant-Trust, therefore, applied for exemption under Section 47 (2) (a) of the Act for the entire land. The appellant-Trust submitted an undertaking on 04.02.1976 in accordance with Section 47 (2) (a) of the Act, that it would appropriate major portion of the income from such land within a period of two years from the date of publication of the order granting exemption. However, the Officer on Special Duty, exercised the powers of Government under Section 47 (2) (a) of the Act and rejected th...
Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Vs. M/S R.R. Omerbhay Pvt. ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-09-2011
ORAL :1] Heard learned counsel for the parties.Admit on the following substantial question of law : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CESTAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by holding that the show-cause notice issued for levying penalty under Section 11AC was itself bad in law being in contravention of Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ?2] The respondent / assessee during the period from 1.4.2003 to 30.4.2003 manufactured and cleared refined oil valued Rs.99,99,683/- without payment of duty claiming exemption under notification No.8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003. The exemption under the said notification is subject to the condition that the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for home exemption do not exceed Rs. 300/- lakhs in the preceding year. Admittedly, the value of excisable goods manufactured and cleared by the assessee during the year 2002-03 was Rs. 5507/- lakh...
Gangaram S/O Bhagwan Borkar and ors.Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-08-2011
J U D G M E N T 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 5.8.2008, passed by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharkawda (Kelapur)in Session Trial No.2/2004, convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and further convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year, the present criminal appeals have been filed by both the accused persons.2. In support of the criminal appeals, learned Counsel for the appellants in both appeals made the following submissions.(a) Admittedly, the case at hand is not based on any direct ...
Bhanudas Maroti Hujdar and ors. Vs. Baburao Maroti Hujdar and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-08-2011
J U D G M E N T :1 This is a Second Appeal filed by the appellant (original defendant) challenging the judgment and order, rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalgaon in Regular Civil Appeal No. 152 of 1983 on 31.8.1990, and also assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon in Regular Civil Suit No. 292 of 1980 on 3.11.1982, thereby decreeing the said suit in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, there are concurrent findings against the appellant herein. The parties are hereinafter referred as per their original status as 'the plaintiff' and 'the defendant'.2 The plaintiff filed suit for possession and separate allotment of 1/3rd share of C.T.S. No. 2168/110/B2 of Jalgaon. The plaintiff is the brother of the defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property bearing C.T.S. No. 2168/110/B2, situated at Jalgaon belonged to the uncle of the plaintiff and the defendant, namely Rama. A portion of the said ...
Dr. Smt. Usha W/O Dhondiram Sarwade Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2011
:-1 This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge (A.C.). Aurangabad in Special Case No. 20 of 1997, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 13(1) (d) r.w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced her to suffer S.I. for one year and pay fine of Rs.3000/-. The appellant is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced her to suffer S.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- in default S.I. for two months. The trial court has ordered that the substantive sentence shall run concurrently.2 The prosecution case, in nutshell, is as under:- The appellant accused Dr. Smt. Usha Sarwade on 6.2.1996 was working as "Casualty Medical Officer" in Government Medical College and Hospital Aurangabad and so she was a public servant. The complainant Deelip Shelar, r/o Witkheda alongwith his parents on 3.2.1996 was assaulted by one Parbhat Dapke ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »