Mumbai Court April 2011 Judgments
Santosh Raghunath Patil. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-2011
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.2. Heard rival arguments of the parties at length. Perused the accompanying documents to the present Writ Petition. Also perused the affidavit filed by Deputy Commissioner of Police, ZoneII, Panvel, District Raigad who has passed the externment order.3. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the externment order passed against him dated 20th September,2010 externing him from the territories of Districts Raigad, Thane, Greater Mumbai and Mumbai Subarban District for the period of one year. By the present writ petition the order of the Appellate Authority is also challenged. The order of the Appellate Authority was passed on 31st December, 2010.4. Certain factual position, as emerged out from the documents produced in the Writ Petition and the affidavit filed by the Externing Authority Ankush R.Shinde, can be narrated in order to have proper perspective of the matter and to decide the challenge to t...
Tag this Judgment!Smt.Shireen Sami Gadiali, and ors. Vs. Spenta Co.Op.Hsg.Soc.Ltd. and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2011
1. The questions of law that have been referred by the learned single Judge in these two petitions relates to the provisions of Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co.operative 2Societies Act therefore, they can be conveniently answered by a common judgment.2. The questions of law referred in Writ Petition No. 6403 of 2010 are1. Whether Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co.operative Societies Act, 1950 gives concurrent jurisdiction to the Registrar and the State Government to exercise power/2. Whether the power of revision under Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the said Act can only be exercised once and cannot be exercised twice over?3. The questions of law referred in Writ Petition No. 7293 of 2010 are,1. Whether the remedy under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co.operative Societies Act, 1960 is available to an aggrieved party as a matter of right?2. Whether the remedy available under Section 154 of the said Act can be said to be efficacious and adequate remedy?3. The que...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Farooque Yusuf Chaiwala, and ors. Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2011
1. The Appellants were the accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 10 respectively in Sessions Case No.582 of 2002. By his judgment and order dated 21st February, 2005, the 11th AdHoc Additional Sessions Judge at Sewree, Mumbai, convicted the Appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge imposed a sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of `10,000/ with a default sentence of R.I. for three months with respect to the offence punishable under Section 439B of the IPC and a sentence of R.I. for seven years and fine of `10,000/ with a default sentence of R.I. for three months with respect to the offence punishable under Section 489C of the IPC. The Appellants had been charged also with respect to offences punishable under Sections 489A, 489D and 120B of the IPC, but the learned Judge acquitted them of the charge of the said offences. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, as passed by the learned AdHoc Additional...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Viswas Pandurang Mokal, and ors. Vs. Group Gram Panchayat Shihu, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2011
1. The question of law which has been referred to us in Writ Petition No.4601 of 2001 is "Whether the provisions of the Meeting Rules and in particular Rule 17 thereof, will apply to the meeting convened specifically for considering the motion of no confidence moved in accordance with sub section 1 of section 35 of the said Act and the No Confidence Motion Rules?"2. In Writ Petitions Nos.7854 of 2010 and 7899 of 2010, the issue or the question of law which has been referred to us is "Whether in proceedings under Sub-Section 3-B of section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 a direction can lawfully be issued for convening a new meeting after expiry of the period of seven days provided under sub-section 2 of section 35 of the said Act on the basis of a motion of no confidence which is held to be illegal?".3. Both questions referred to us relate to the provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act in general and provisions of Section 35 in particular and therefore both these ...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay S/O Madhavrao Suryawanshi. Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 28.2.2001, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2000, thereby convicting the appellant herein i.e. original accused no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for one month with fine of Rs.300/, in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for seven days; and also convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer S.I. till rising of the court with fine of Rs.50/ and for non payment of fine amount further to suffer S.I. for one day, and also directing that both the substantive sentences to run concurrently, and the appellant herein questioned the said convictions and sentences in the present appeal. 2. In fact, the appellant herein (original accused no.1) and his wife, namely Kachrubai i.e. original accused no.2 faced the trial for the off...
Tag this Judgment!Smt.indubai Arjun Wagh. Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
1. This appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed on 18th February, 2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Vasai in Sessions Case No.65 of 2009 and by the said order the appellant-original accused has been convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. The appellant has been in jail from 13th June, 2009.2. This aplpeal was admitted on 18th March, 2011 and when Criminal Application No.355 of 2011 filed for being released on released on bail came up for hearing, the parties agreed to hear the appeal finally. The record and proceedings has been received and private paper book has been supplied.3. As per the prosecution case the appellant-accused along with her son Pravin are residents of village Khandicha Pada in Vasai Taluka and deceased Ganesh was their relation. He was staying with them at the relevant time. In the early morning on 13th June, 2009 the app...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Ganesh Bhumesh Gaikwad. Vs. the Principal Secretary of Home Depar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. Writ Petition is heard finally. Perused the accompanying documents to the present Writ Petition.2. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the externment order passed against him dated 18.08.2010 passed by the Externing Authority DCP ZoneI, Pune City and the order dated , 31.12.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the externment order.3. By the externment order the petitioner was externed for the period of two years from Pune City and Pune District.4. Certain factual position, as emerged out from the documents produced in the Writ Petition, can be narrated in order to have proper perspective of the matter and to decide the challenge to the impugned orders.5. Proposal was submitted to DCP ZoneI, Pune City for initiating ,actions under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Mumbai Police Act, 1951 against the present petitioner mainly alleging that his activities are injurious to the public at larg...
Tag this Judgment!Shankarlal Ganulal Khandelwal Vs. Balmukund Surajmal Bharuka, and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-20-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.2.1983, passed by the District Judge, Buldana in Regular Civil Appeal No.271/1979 by which the first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree dated 10.12.1979 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malkapur in Regular Civil Suit No.50/1977.FACTS :2. Appellant - Shankarlal filed a civil suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.50/1977 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malkapur contending therein that he executed a nominal sale-deed on 23.11.1972 of plot No.14 admeasuring 2,000 sq. ft. owned by him in favour of the respondent/defendant for an amount of Rs.10,000/- because he badly needed the money for his business and treatment. The respondent had given a promise that the respondent/defendant would cancel the nominal sale-deed and re-execute the sale in favour of appellant/plaintiff upon repayment of Rs.10,000/- with 6% interest. He then stated that on 7.3.1977 however the respondent tried to take poss...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Pundlikrao Patil, and ors. Vs. Shashikant S/O Sidram Patil, and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-2011
1. Heard Advocate Mr. Salunke for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.2 and 3 and Advocate Mr. G.V. Patil for respondent 2. Acceptance of nomination paper of respondent no.1 in election of respondent no.4-sugar factory by returning officer by one word order thereby overruling the objection of respective petitioner is questioned in present matters.3. By inviting attention to the provisions of bye-laws no. 17-A r/w 27-A and 29-GH, Advocate Mr. Salunke has contended that supply of sugar cane by aspirant continuously for three years prior to holding of election is must to cloth him with eligibility to contest the election. Here, he points out that respective respondent no.1 has not supplied sugar cane to respondent no.4 in the year 2007-2008 and he relies upon certificate issued by the Managing Director of respondent no.4 for said purpose. He points out that sugar factory did not function in 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 season and hence, even if it is presumed the respondent no.1 did ...
Tag this Judgment!Marten Borchert and anr.Vs. Arzan Khambatta and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-2011
1. The Petitioner No.1 is the father of Petitioner No.2. He is the brother of one Ursula Dara Mistry, the Testatrix who executed a Will dated 7th February 2004 and Codicil dated 29th November 2004 which have been probated. Respondents 1 and 2 are the executors under the said Will and the Codicil of the Testatrix. The Respondents have administered a large part of the estate of the testatrix as per the mandate contained in her Will. 2. The Petition is filed for removal of the Respondents as the executors and appointment of other executors in their place. The Petition is, therefore, essentially filed under Section 301 of the Indian Succession Act. The Petition is also filed for directing inventory of the estate of the Testatrix, information of the steps in administration, handing over of certain property being the Rural Electrification Corporation (REC) bonds, implementation of the Will, appointment of receiver and appointment of Petitioner No.1 as the sole trustee of the trust directed t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »