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.
Dhanraj Gulabrao Deoke and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-17-2011
ORAL :1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the application is heard finally by consent.2. Heard learned Adv. Mr. S.M. Puranik for the applicants-petitioners, learned APP Mr. C.N. Adgokar for respondent no.1 and learned Adv. Mr. P.S. Tiwari for respondent no.2.3. Petitioners pray for quashing of Special Case No. 25 of 2010 pending before Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur.4. Facts, in brief, are that:- [a] On 25th August, 2010, respondent no.2 herein lodged a complaint relating to the incident which had allegedly occurred on or about 11th August, 2008, attracting commission of offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.[b] Admittedly, petitioners as well as respondent no.2 are involved in active politics.[c] Petitioners submitted an application to the Superintendent of Police, stating that the complaint was lodged on account of being instigated by a Member of Legislative Assembly etc., and requested for withdrawal.[...
Mr. Sahadat HussaIn Rahimat Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-2011
ORAL JUDGEMNT:1. This appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr. P. C. is directed against the order of conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 396, 449 and 324 of IPC passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gr. Bombay, in Sessions Case Nos. 504 of 1997 and 579 of 1997. Initially accused no. 4 was absconding and, therefore, the charge- sheet was filed only against accused nos.1 to 3 and on committal, Sessions Case No. 504 of 1997 came to be registered. However, accused no. 4 was arrested on 5/2/1997 and a supplementary charge-sheet was filed and thus one more case i.e. Sessions Case No. 579 of 1997, arising from the very same CR No. 2 of 1996 came to be registered. Both the cases have been decided by the impugned common judgment and order and only accused no.1 has been held to be guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. During the trial, accused no.3 died on 6/7/2001 and accused nos.2 and 4 came to be acquitted. We are, therefore, require...
M/S.Advani Oerlikon Ltd. Vs. Machindra Govind Makasare and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-2011
:1. The issue whether an appeal can lie under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against a decision of a Single Judge rendered in a Petition invoking Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution has defied conclusive judicial pronouncement. In a sense, this is reflective as much of the ingenuity of the Bar as it is of the expansive constitutional philosophy of vesting jurisdiction in the High Court to issue writs that remedy injustice. The ruling, which this Full Bench is called upon to render, is guided by pronouncements of the Supreme Court, of Special Benches as well as Full Benches of this Court. That the question of the maintainability of an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent in such cases continues to arise with such persistence provides a sobering reflection of the limits of the law in providing black letter solutions. We must recognise that the broad and wide categories that the founding fathers of the Constitution created while conferring jurisdiction on constitutional ...
Bhagwan Chellaram Chellani Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
1. This Petition was heard along with Criminal Writ Petition No.1924 of 2010, which is being disposed of by separate order today. This Petition has been filed by the son of co-accused Nanki Chellaram Chellani. His mother is accused in Crime registered as C.R.No.214 of 2009 at Mahim Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 470 r/w 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.2. The petitioner states that his mother Nanki Chellani has since expired after she was released on bail. By this Petition, the petitioner prays that the investigation of C.R.No.214/2009 be transferred to any other Police Station and to register criminal case against respondent No.4 Inspector Shri Sunil Chandugude and other police men and their associates who were investigating the crime registered as C.R.No.214 of 2009, as they are responsible for the death of his mother, who was falsely implicated, notwithstanding the fact that she was almost 84 years of age. This Petition is another attempt to ...
M/S. Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent, petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the CESTAT dated 11/5/2010 as also the larger Bench decision of the CESTAT dated 18/1/2008, wherein it is held that the licensing authorities do not have the power to amend the licence with retrospective effect. 3. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of yarn. The petitioner had applied for and obtained Export Promotion Capital Goods licence ('EPCG licence' for short) dated 14/1/1998, with obligation to export goods 6 times the CIF value of the capital goods imported. At the relevant time, there were two types of EPCG licences namely 10% basic duty EPCG licence (10% Basic duty + Nil CVD) and zero duty EPCG licence ('Nil' Basic dty + 10% CVD). The petitioner opted for zero duty EPCG licence. Para 6.3 of the Foreign Trade Policy as well as condition No.5 of Notification No.29/97 governing zero duty EPCG licence provided that the...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Prashant S/O Pritamkumar Shegaonkar
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
ORAL ORDER : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J.)1 The learned Principal District Judge, Aurangabad has forwarded this reference under section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The points formulated by the learned District Judge in the statement submitted to High Court are as noted below :I Whether the interpretation of term "instrument" used in section 147 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 made in the case reported as AIR 1991 SC 401 ( between Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Pramod Gupta) can be extended to the provisions of Bombay Stamp Act viz. for clause no. 16 from Schedule I annexed to Bombay Stamp Act.II Whether in view of the interpretation of term, "instrument" made by Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid case law, said clause of Schedule I of Bombay Stamp Act needs to be treated as invalid.III Whether due to interpretation of provisions of Order 21 Rule 94 of Code of Civil Procedure in relation to the provisions of Indian Registration At made in 2007 SCW 4080 ( B. Arvindkumar v. Gov...
Meena Kamal Saigal Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-2011
:1. This Petition has been filed by the wife of the petitioner Kamal Saigal, who is accused in Crime registered as C.R.No. 214 of 2009 at Mahim Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 470 r/w 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for four reliefs. The first relief is to direct the Commissioner of Police and the doctors at K.E.M. Hospital to produce the petitioner's husband before the Court along with medical papers of Bhabha Hospital dated 22nd and 25th June, 2010 and all papers of K.E.M. Hospital, I.C.U. and M.I.C.U. where the petitioner's husband was undergoing treatment at the relevant time.3. The second relief is to direct the Respondent No.2 (Commissioner of Police) to register a criminal case against Respondent No.4 (Inspector Sunil Chandgude) and other police men who have used third degree methods resulting in petitioner's husband becoming unconscious in the ...
Ramila Kilachand Vs. Harsh Rajnikanth Kilachand and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2011
ORDER :1.The suit of the Plaintiff is inter alia for partition of several properties listed in Exhibits A, B, D, F and K to the Plaint and for various other reliefs in respect of various properties of the joint family of the parties as also the properties alleged to be belonging to such joint family.2.This Notice of Motion is for partition of one of the suit properties listed in Exhibit-A to the Plaint and for certain movables therein. The immovable property is a dwelling house of the parties called Kilachand bungalow at Nepeansea Road, Mumbai, upon CTS Nos.234, 236. 341, 342, 343 and 344 of Malabar Hill Division, Mumbai.3.This Notice of Motion is taken out by Defendant No.33. Defendant No.33 is one of the members of the HUF, initially formed by one Kilachand Devchand, who left behind four sons. The relationships of the four sons with Kilachand as their predecessor-in-title as also their successors-in-title are admitted. Joint family of the parties, therefore, admittedly consists of fo...
Shri Eknath Shankarrao Pagar Vs. Bar Council of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-2011
ORAL :-1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the decision taken by the Bar Council of India in Revision Petition No. 27 of 1996. By the impugned order, the Bar Council of India, while exercising the powers under section 48A of the Advocates Act, 1961 allowed the revision petition by exercising suo motu powers by the Secretary,Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, which was amounting to cancellation of the decision taken by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa granting Sanad to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner at the relevant time was discharging his duty as part time Law Professor in T.Y. B.Com faculty. He had applied for Sanad as he wanted to practice as an Advocate. The Enrollment Committee of the Bar Council of State of Maharashtra and Goa admitted the petitioner on the roll. The Bar Council of Maharashtra while taking decision of enrollment of the petitioner on the roll of Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa further resolved that the Secretary may file revision ...
Praful S/O Mulchand JaIn Vs. Abdul Sameer S/O Abdul Sajed and anr.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2011
ORAL :1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and with consent, the petition is taken up for final hearing.2 This petition is filed by the petitioner (original accused) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that the order dated 9.9.2010, passed by the learned 6 District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, regarding nonregistration of Criminal Revision Application be set aside and the said learned Judge be directed to register the said Criminal Revision Application.3 It is the contention of the petitioner that he is dealing in electronic goods as well as development of properties at Aurangabad and was having friendly relations with respondent no.1 i.e. original complainant. Respondent no.1 gave hand loan of Rs. Five Lacks to the petitioner on 15.12.2008 for the short term of 15 days on the request of the petitioner to overcome the financial needs and personal problems of the petitioner. Accordingly, after lapse of 15 days, r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »