Mumbai Court May 2011 Judgments
Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-13-2011
1. Heard finally. Rule, made returnable and heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel for respective parties, in view of noting dt.14th Feb.,2011. 2. The detenue, a law graduate, is Secretary of an Educational Institution at Jalgaon, pleads that he has social standing at Jalgaon and is associated to redress cause of gullible or unorganised class. ALLEGATIONS: 3. The allegations against the detenu are, he has been continuously engaged in commission of violent and desperate activities, giving rise to at least 20 cases against him. He has a violent character, indulges in terrorizing activities. He has been a habitual criminal, Goonda on the record of various Police Stations of Jalgaon district. The detenu's activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and he is a "dangerous person" within the meaning of Section 2(b1) of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drugoffenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 ( in short, "MPDA Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through the Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-13-2011
1. Heard finally.Rule, made returnable and heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel for respective parties, in view of noting dt.14th Feb.,2011.2. The detenue, a law graduate, is Secretary of an Educational Institution at Jalgaon, pleads that he has social standing at Jalgaon and is associated to redress cause of gullible or unorganised class.ALLEGATIONS:3. The allegations against the detenu are, he has been continuously engaged in commission of violent and desperate activities, giving rise to at least 20 cases against him. He has a violent character, indulges in terrorizing activities. He has been a habitual criminal, Goonda on the record of various Police Stations of Jalgaon district. The detenu's activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and he is a "dangerous person" within the meaning of Section 2(b-1) of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 ( in short, "MPDA Act,...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Lokhandwala Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Om Dattaji Rahiwasi Seva ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-2011
1. These appeals are against two judgments and orders dated 5th April 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court declining to grant ad-interim relief in the notices of motion taken out by the appellant in Suit (L) No. 814 and 813 of 2011. 2. The property in question is one single property which consists of a sensused slum on the land owned by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. 753 families (678 residential, 142 commercial, 25 R/C and 8 others) are in occupation of the slums in these two appeals. Out of these occupants, about 500 occupants are held to be eligible for allotment of the premises in the slum rehabilitation scheme by the Competent Authority. 3. The occupiers of huts in the slum are divided into two groups. One group has formed an association which is respondent no.1 in the first appeal and the other group has formed an association which is respondent no.1 in the other appeal. They have also proposed to form two different cooperative societies which are resp...
Tag this Judgment!Mr.Goolam E. Vahanvati Vs. Mr.Anil Gulabrai Gidwani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2011
1 This is a petition filed by the Advocate General for the State of Maharashtra under Section 2(1) of the Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1971, praying that the Respondent be declared as a vexatious litigant and that he be restrained by an order of this Court from initiating any fresh proceedings against one Smt.Shanta Mhatre (mentioned as "the victim lady" in the petition) and from initiating any further application in any pending matters, without seeking prior permission of this Court. 2 This petition is based on the information received by the Petitioner from the said Smt.Shanta Mhatre (hereinafter referred to as "the victim lady") that the victim lady is being continuously harassed by the Respondent who is habitually and without any reasonable ground, instituting various vexatious proceedings, civil as well as criminal, against her. The petition in paragraph No.1 itself gives the details of the proceedings initiated by the Respondent against the victim lady. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Mr.Prakash Alumal Kalandari Vs. Mrs.Jahnavi Prakash Kalandari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2011
1. This appeal takes exception to the Judgment and Decree passed by the Family Court No.3, Pune dated 31st March, 2009 in Petition No.A-877/2007. The respondent/wife filed Petition for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The said Petition was contested by the appellant/husband by filing written statement and counter claim. The appellant also prayed for custody of children. 2. The marriage between the appellant (husband) and respondent (wife) was solemnized on 12th August, 1993 at Pune as per the Hindu Vedic rites. After their marriage, they lived and cohabited together initially at Moscow, then at France and lastly at Pune. Two children are born out of the said wedlock namely; daughter Lavanya born on 22nd June, 1995 and son Rahul born on 11th January, 1999. The children are in the care and custody of the respondent mother. The parties started living separately since June, 2006. Since then, there has been no cohabitation between them. 3. During the pendency of the abovesaid P...
Tag this Judgment!Rupam Pralhad Bhartiya Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2011
1. Heard rival submissions at length. Also heard learned Advocate Shri Aabad Ponda who was appointed as an amicus curiae to assist the Court considering the technicalities in the matter. Perused the various documents annexed to the present Revision Application including the notes of evidence as to the substantive evidence of of nine prosecution witnesses examined before the J.M.F.C. Thane. 2. Vide order dt. 10.4.2008 the J.M.F.C. at Thane convicted the present applicant-husband for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 323 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo SI for three months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. The applicant/accused was sentenced to suffer RI for three months for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. He was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. The said judgment and order of conviction dated 10th April, 2008 passed by the J...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeev Sawhney Vs. State Bank of Mauritius Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The Revision Application is filed by the original complainant challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, on 13.8.2008 whereby he allowed the Revision Application Nos.449 of 2007, 460 of 2007 and 853 of 2007 filed by the different accused persons/respondents and whereby he set aside the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai on 18.1.2007 of issuance of process against all the accused persons for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 403 read with Sec. 120B of IPC. 3. To appreciate the controversy, it will be useful to state the facts in brief. For the sake of convenience, the revision applicant may be called as complainant and the respondents as the accused persons. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are original accused Nos. 1 and 3 respectively while accused Nos. 3 to 6 are original accused Nos. 4 to 7 res...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Pandurang Jadhav Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2011
1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar in Sessions Case No.143 of 2002, convicting the Appellant, who was the sole accused in the said case, of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default sentence of R.I. for three months. The prosecution case before the trial Court was as follows : The Appellant, (hereinafter referred to as "the accused"), was the second husband of Sangita Jadhav, the deceased. On 12th June, 2002, at about 10:30 p.m., the accused came home drunk. Sangita, at that time, remarked that the accused was not doing any work, and that he would only consume liquor and come home, on which the accused became angry. He, therefore, picked up a kerosene can, which was in the house, poured the kerosene contained therein on the body of the Sangita and set her on fire by a lamp which was burning in th...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Vishwanath Salunke Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2011
1. This appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 21 of 2009 by the learned Sessions Judge, Nashik on 10/12/2010. The appellant-accused came to be tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504 and 506 of IPC as well as Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. He came to be acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC, but has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo further SI for 15 days. He also has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and sentenced to suffer SI for four months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo further SI for 15 days. 2. As per the prosecution, the accused is the husband of PW 7 - Hema, who is the daughter of the deceased Damodar Hage. The deceased was a patient...
Tag this Judgment!R.B. Shreeram Religious and Charitable Trust and ors. Vs. the Nagpur I ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-06-2011
1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. Taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.1.2011, passed by the 3rd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, below Exh.5, in Special Civil Suit No.1186/2010, rejecting the said application for grant of temporary injunction, the present appeal against order has been filed by the original plaintiffs- appellants herein. FACTS : 5. The appellants are the original plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No.1186/2010 for declaration, permanent injunction and damages in which they filed application (Exh.5) for grant of temporary injunction pending decision of the suit. In the suit, they have prayed for a decree to declare order dated 30.9.2010 passed by defendant No.2 Chairman of defendant No.1 Nagpur Improvement Trust (for short, hereinafter referred to as the N.I.T. ) as illegal, mala fide and in collusion with defendant No.4 Corporator of Nagpur Municipal Corporation (for short, herei...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »