Mumbai Court March 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.
Vivek Bhaiyasaheb Deshmukh and anr. Vs. Returning Officer Cum Collecto ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
ORAL RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.1. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.2. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Collector, Yavatmal postponing the election to the respondent no.3 Society from the Cotton Growers Constituency. The Collector, Yavatmal had invoked the provisions of Rule 29 of the Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies Election to Committee Rules, 1971 as, one of the candidates, who had filed his nomination form, had expired on 08.03.2011.3. The respondent no.2 had published the election program for electing the Board of Directors of respondent no.3Sut Girni. The petitioners and certain other persons had filed their nomination papers from Cotton Growers Constituency as seven directors were to be elected from Cotton Growers Constituency. According to the election program, the nomination forms were to be filed on or before 23.02.2011 and the dates for withdraw...
Dr, Arup Kumar Banerjee Vs. Neena Amar Chaudhari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
ORDER:1. The Plaintiff has sought to probate the Will of his mother Gouri Banerjee dated 30th July 1978 as the last Will and testament executed by the deceased on that day. The deceased died on 11th February 1996. The Plaintiff is the son of the deceased. The Plaintiff's sister was the other heir of the deceased. She died soon after the deceased on 23rd February 1996 leaving behind her daughter as her only heir and legal representative. The said daughter is the Defendant in this suit.2. The only essential property of the deceased is a flat in which she resided being Flat No.1A, Evergreen, 1st floor, Perry Coop. Hng. Society Ltd., Perry Road, Bandra, Mumbai400 050. There is a dispute with regard to the title of the flat in the Civil Court between the parties with which this suit is not concerned.3. It is the Plaintiff's case that the deceased bequeathed the said flat and all her other movable and immovable properties to him under the aforesaid Will. The Plaintiff is appointed executor u...
Yashwant Son of Devidas Vaidya Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
Oral Judgment.1. Respondents no. 2 to 6 were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 304B read with Section 34 and alternatively, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Applicant is brother of deceased Anjali who has filed present revision application. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor makes a statement that the State of Maharashtra has not filed appeal against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.2. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned counsel for respondents no. 2 to 6. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that deceased Anjali suffered cruelty at the hands of her inlaws which led to her death. According to learned counsel, close relatives of the victim on parental side did not take recourse to police machinery because of their hope of reconciliation between deceased Anjali and her husband. It is further submitted that the evidence in the form of postmortem notes was not properly appreciated by the learned trial...
Sampat Niyati Bahadur Shilpa Vs. University of Mumbai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
1. Not on Board. Upon mentioning, taken on Board.2. By this Petition, the petitioner, who is a student of Respondent No.2 College, has prayed for direction against the respondents to permit her to continue her Bachelor of Commerce (Financial Markets) Degree Course and allow her to appear in the ensuing 4th Semester examination to be conducted by the respondent No.2 college commencing from 21st March, 2011. The petitioner has been informed by the College vide communication dated 5th March, 2011 that she was ineligible for admission in B.Com. (FM) Degree Course, for which reason, consequent to discussion with the petitioner, her admission was transferred to B.Com. (General).3. In the present Petition, the petitioner has already completed substantial portion of the B.Com. (FM) Degree course. In that, she has already passed out three out of six semesters with flying colours and was expected to appear in the examination of 4th Semester commencing from 21st March, 2011, but would be denied e...
M/S.J.K. Sons Vs. M/S.Parksons Games and Sports and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
ORAL :-1. This is the defendants appeal against the order of the learned single Judge granting interlocutory reliefs in the respondents action for infringement and passing off.The learned judge restrained the appellants from infringing the respondents' word mark "MERELANE" and from passing off their goods viz. playing cards for and as those of the respondents. The appellants have also been restrained from infringing the respondents' copyright in the following labels :-1) Trade Mark No.318995 in respect of `555' (Label) ; 2) Copyright of Plaintiff in the `555' Label ; and 3) Copyright in the `555 MERELANE' Premium Label including its outer (dozen) carton ,4) Copyright in the `555 MERELANE' Deluxe Label including its outer (dozen) carton ,5) Copyright in the `MEREDIAN 555' Original Label, 6) Copyright in the Spade Ace inside face design label.Mr.J.J. Bhatt, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants did not press the appeal, as regards the grant of reliefs qua the w...
Mr.Vinoskumar Ramachandran Valluvar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
:1.A short point of law under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) is a part of this reference. The movable property being a bank account which a Police Officer is entitled to seize during investigation is the subject-matter of the reference. The learned Single Judge (Bobde, J.) has formulated the question for reference thus:Whether section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires the issuance of a notice to a person before or simultaneously with the action of attaching the Bank account?2.The case of State of Maharashtra vs. Tapas D. Neogy, (1999)7 SCC 685 has settled the law relating to seizure of bank accounts. The bank accounts are held to be property capable of seizure. We are called upon to answer the question under reference as to when the bank account is seized or sought to be seized, whether a notice to the person who is the account-holder, is required to be given before or at the time of such action of seizure.3.The main contention on behalf of the perso...
Ramesh Gopinath Jadhav and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
J U D G M E N T :1 Heard Shri Joydeep Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri V.G.Shelke, learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 2 The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 7.5.1999, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No. 276 of 1993, thereby convicting the accused nos. 3 to 6 i.e. appellants herein, for the offences punishable under Sections 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ with default condition for nonpayment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.3 In all, seven accused faced the trial in Sessions Case No. 276 of 1993 before the Sessions Court for the offence punishable, under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. All the accused were acquitted for the ...
High Court on Its Own Motion Vs. Dnyandev Tulshiram Jadhav and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
:- 1. This is one of such cases in which there is unfounded malicious attack on the character of a Judicial Officer, by a party who had been directed to pay the maintenance allowance to the wife and minor child. At the threshold, prior to discussing the facts of the present matter, the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.R.Parashar v. Dr. Farooq Abdullah, AIR 1984 SC 615: can be mentioned with advantage as under:"The Judges cannot defend themselves. They need due protection of law from unfounded attacks on their character. Law of Contempt is one of such laws.We would like to remind those who criticize the judiciary that it has no forum from which to defend itself. The legislature can act in defence of itself from the floor of the House. It enjoys privileges which are beyond the reach of law. The executive is all powerful and has ample resources and media at its command to explain its actions and, if need be, to counter-attack. Those, who attack the judiciary must remember that...
Mr.Suryakant Jayram AnarThe and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
ORAL ( Per P.V.Hardas, J )1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.2. It appears that this is a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the Petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus directing transfer of investigation from Ambarnath police station to State-CID or to Central Bureau of Investigation or to any other competent and independent agency. The Petitioner also prays for issuance of writ of mandamus directing transfer of investigation from Ambernath police station to the Central Bureau of Investigation. A reference at this juncture, may usefully be made to the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 9th February,2011. It appears that the Petitioners in this Petition had earlier filed Public Interest Litigation No.10 of 2009 and alleging that officials of Ambernath Municipal Council were siphoning away public funds and were indulging ...
Mr. Jambu Kumar JaIn and anr. Vs.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Respondent No.1 filed the complaint under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai against the present petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Respondent No.2 is a private limited company and respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5 as well as the present petitioners are said to be the directors of the said company. The accused persons had taken credit facility to the tune of Rs.10 crore by way of term loan as well as by way of purchase invoices discounting facility and by way of sales invoice discounting facility. On 5.8.2009, the accused issued a cheque for payment of Rs.8,48,500/- to the complainant. The cheque was drawn by the accused No.1 Company against the account maintained with Andhra Bank , Jawahar Marg, Indore Branch. The cheque was deposited by the complainant with its banker HDFC Bank Ltd. at Indore Branch for presentation to the drawee ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »