Mumbai Court March 2011 Judgments
Suresh Son of Shankarrao More Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
ORAL :1. Appellant herein was tried for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376, 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, for:- [a] Committing rape on Sau. Meera wife of Ganesh Gujram on 6th February, 1993 between 12-00 noon and 2-00 p.m., at Gawarkheda Forest Shiwar;[b] Intentionally or knowingly causing her death;[c] Hiding her dead body in shrubs on Saldhara Kaccha road with a view to cause disappearance of evidence; and,[d] Committing above offence on the victim, who was a member of Scheduled Tribe.2. Prosecution has examined following witnesses:-1. PW 4 Ganesh : Husband of deceased Champatrao : Meera, who has Gujaram. : filed FIR.2. PW 1 - Mandabai : Ambadas : Khedkar, : Eye-witnesses proving : the circumstance : of 'last seen the : accused in company : of deceased' from3. PW 7 - Shamibai : where corpse of Bhimrao : deceased was Gujaram. : recovered.4. PW 9 - Fulabai : Mother-in-l...
Tag this Judgment!Shrirampur Municipal Council Vs. Shri V.K. Barde and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
ORAL 1. Petitioner before this Court in both the matters is a local body constituted under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats & Industrial Townships Act, 1965 ( hereinafter referred to as 1965 Act) while the Trade Union of its workmen are the respondents. Basic challenge in the 1992 petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is to award-II dated 8/10/1987 delivered by Industrial Tribunal, Ahmadnagar in Ref.(IT) 6 of 1984 with prayer to quash relief granted in relation to demand 1,2 & 4.The reference was made by State of Maharashtra under S.12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 ie IDA hereafter. Demand no. 1 is about increase in sanctioned posts on establishment schedule of the Petitioner. Demand no. 2 is to grant permanency to all those who have put in more than 180 days work with consequential benefits like pay-scales, D.A.etc & to continue to confer permanency in future on all workmen completing that period. By demand no. 4 the Union sought wages...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Maruti Waghmode Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2011
: 1] Both the Appeal are filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No.126/2006 which is decided by Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar Shri M.G.Shevalikar.2] The first appeal is filed by original accused no.1 Shri Narayan Waghmode as he is convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under Section 489A of I.P.C. The second appeal is filed by the State against all the original accused as the trial Court has not convicted accused nos.1,3,10,11,12 and 13 for offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B of I.P.C. and as the trial Court acquitted the remaining accused. Accused Nos.3,10,11,12 and 13 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 489B of I.P.C. 3] The facts leading to the institution of these 2 appeals can be stated in brief as below :Police Inspector Shri Mallesh was attached to L.C.B. Ahmednagar. On 13/5/2006, he received information from his informer against accused No.1 Narayan Waghmode that Waghmode was living as a tenant in the house...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Ganpatrao Hande Alias Handege Vs.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-2011
:1. Sushila Vithalrao Hande is alleged to have executed a will on 2 October 2002. The Appellant is named as executor under the will. Upon the death of the testatrix, the Appellant filed a Testamentary Petition seeking probate of the will. The Fourth and Fifth Respondents filed a Caveat and an affidavit in support. The Appellant initiated an interlocutory proceeding in the form of a Notice of Motion for seeking an injunction restraining the Fourth and Fifth Respondents from entering upon, coming to or interfering with the immovable property of the testatrix. The motion was opposed by the the Fourth and Fifth Respondents on the ground that in view of the judgment of Mr.Justice D.K.Deshmukh in Rupali Mehta vs. Tina Narinder Sain Mehta1, the Motion was not maintainable. In that judgment it has been held that in a petition for probate, an order of injunction cannot be granted in relation to the property of the deceased since the Court in such a petition, is not concerned with the will, the...
Tag this Judgment!Sumita Pradipkumar Dixit Vs. Smt.Pushpadevi G. Makharia and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-2011
ORAL :1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.By consent of parties taken up for hearing.The petitioner challenges the order dated 29.8.09 passed in RC Suit No. 187/99 vide which the applications filed by the present petitioner for amendment of written statement and counter claim below Exhs. 223 and 225 came to be rejected.2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have filed a suit against respondent Nos. 5 to 7 for possession of the suit premises. On 27.3.2000 respondent No.5 filed written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff. On 7.4.2001 the respondent No. 5 filed an affidavit and pursis submitting to the decree of evidence in favour of respondents 1 to 4. On 30.2.2001 the petitioner filed an application for joining herself as party-defendant to the said suit. Vide order dated 1.11.2001 learned trial Court rejected the said application. The petitioner being aggrieved thereby had approached this Court by Civil Revision Application No.24/2002 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra Automobiles Vs. Navjivan Co-operative Housing Society Limi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-2011
1. The applicant challenges the concurrent orders passed by the Small Causes Court, Mumbai dated 10th December, 2010 thereby rejecting the applications taken out by the present petitioners below exhibit 23 and 27 in Execution Application No. 774/2009 and the order passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court dated 25th January, 2011 thereby dismissing Execution Appeal No. 1/2011 filed by the present petitioner.2. The facts in brief which gave rise to filing of present revision application are as under:-The plaintiff Navjivan Co-operative Housing Society Limited- respondent no. 1 herein is owner of suit premises admeasuring an area of about 10,000 sq. feet. The respondent no. 1 had initially leased out the suit land to M/s. Caltex (India) Ltd. to sub let or give a license of suit premises. Respondent No. 2 i.e. original defendant no. 1 in the suit, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation is a successor of M/s. Caltex (India) Ltd. The plaintiff had filed a suit for eviction under the prov...
Tag this Judgment!B.D. Agarwal and anr. Vs. Official Assignee, High Court and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-2011
:- 1. Admit. The respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing, forthwith.2. The appellants have challenged in this appeal order dated 1/12/2009 passed by learned Single Judge of this court. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge has disposed of Notice of Motion No.67 of 2009, Notice of Motion No.68 of 2009 and Report No.8 of 2009 submitted by the Official Assignee. The present appeal revolves around Flat No.305, Blase View 'A' Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Matherpada Road, Amboli, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 058, (for short, "the said flat").3. Notice of Motion No.67 of 2009 was taken out by the appellants - Krystal Stone Exports Limited, inter alia, praying that the Official Assignee be directed to restore the possession of the said flat to the appellants. In the affidavit in support of the notice of motion filed by one Popat Lal Kanadia, who claims to be the Director of the appellants, it is stated that the said flat is owned by Mrs. Sangeeta...
Tag this Judgment!Essop Casoojee Vs. the Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Int ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
1. This Appeal impugns the correctness of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence both, of the appellant/accused, by name Essop Casoojee a South African national dated 4th December, 2004 passed by the Special Judge, Greater Mumbai in NDPS Special Case No.78 of 2002.2. By the impugned judgment and order the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under section 21 and 29 of the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short NDPS Act) and further directed to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default of payment of fine further to suffer R.I. for three months on each count. However, both the substantive sentences to run concurrently.Facts in brief, are as follows :3. The accused is a South African national and came to Mumbai and had his stay for a couple of days at Hotel Moghal Palace. His schedule return journey to Jahannesburg was by Flight No./SA 277 on 12th June, 2002. He was suspected by Intelligence Off...
Tag this Judgment!Major Yogesh Chandra Madhav Sayanakar and anr. Vs. the Chief of Army S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner No.1 a Major in the Engineering Regiment of the Indian Army, has challenged the communication dated 8th December 2010 of Joint Director MS/Premature Retirement for Military Secretary (Exhibit "A" to the petition) informing petitioner No.1 that the application of petitioner No.1 for resignation from Army service has been rejected by the competent authority.2. The Petitioners' case is that petitioner No.1 obtained a degree in Civil Engineering in first class from the Maharashtra Institute of Technology, Pune in June 2005 and immediately thereafter petitioner No.1 joined the Indian Military Academy and underwent training from 11th July 2005 to 10th June 2006 at the said Academy at Dehradun. Upon completion of the training, petitioner No.1 was commissioned in the same regiment, 109 RAPID (Strike) Engineer Regiment which was commanded by his father Col. (Retd) M.B. Sayankar in 1990-92. On 1st July 2006, petitioner No.1 w...
Tag this Judgment!Atul Projects India Ltd. Vs. Babu Dewoo Farle and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-2011
ORAL ORDER :1. The Notice of Motion has been taken up on the request of the learned counsel for the contesting parties for hearing and final disposal since the pleadings are complete. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff undertakes to get the draft Motion registered by removing the office objections, if any.2. The Motion for interim relief arises in a suit for specific performance seeking:(i) A declaration that an agreement dated 1 December 2003 as confirmed by a Deed of Confirmation dated 24 December 2004 is valid and subsisting;(ii)A declaration that the termination of the agreement made on 22 April 2010 is invalid; and(iii) A decree for specific performance requiring Defendants 1 to 18 to perform the agreement for the sale of the property.Consequential reliefs have been sought including a declaration that the subsequent Deed of Conveyance dated 23 July 2010 is null and void.3. Defendants 1 to 18 claim ownership of certain lands in pursuance of Certificates which ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »