Mumbai Court May 2011 Judgments
Dhanusingh S/O Bhivsingh Naik Anjd ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra a ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-06-2011
1) Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of Shri Mirza, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Fulzele, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1, Shri Tajne, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 4, and Shri Padhye, Advocate for the respondent no.3. 2) Shri Mirza, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the petitioners are elected members of respondent no.2 Panchayat Samiti, Mahagaon and respondent no.3 is Chairman thereof. The grievance of the petitioners is against the communication dated 23/12/2010 issued by the respondent no.2 Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Mahagaon whereby Collector, Yavatmal was informed that resignations tendered by the petitioners as members of the Panchayat Samiti have been accepted by the Chairman of Panchayat Samiti and, therefore, their posts fell vacant, hence, appropriate steps to fill up vacancies according to law should be taken. It is submitted that acceptance of resignations...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Rahul Ramchandra Taru
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2011
1 This appeal under section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short, "MCOCA") is directed against the order dated 21.08.2008 passed by the Special Judge, Special Court, Pune in Special Case No. 2 of 2007, whereby, the learned Special Judge discharged the respondent- accused for the offence under MCOCA. 2 Special Case No. 2/2007 is arising out of Crime No. 562/2006 registered with the Kothrud Police Station, Pune under sections 302, 307, 143, 148, 149, 120-B and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/25 spb/- of Arms Act, The incident occurred on 14.10.2006. It is alleged that one Sachin Pote and his associates attacked one Sandeep Mohol (since deceased) while latter was proceeding in his Scorpio Jeep. The firearms and other deadly weapons were used by the accused while assaulting the deceased. Sandeep Mohol succumbed to the injuries which resulted in registration of the crime as indicated above. 3 The investigation revealed that the accused are the per...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Monica Matani Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2011
The Public Interest Litigation was filed, complaining about the construction method adopted by respondent No. 3 in respect of Versova - Ghatkopar Section of the Metro. The reliefs claimed in the petition are as under:- "a. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the record of the case and be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the appropriate authorities to take strict disciplinary action against respondents-2 - 5 & 8 and their officials, as well as the management for the omissions and negligence shown by them. b. That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State of Maharashtra along with the Bombay Municipal Corporation and Police, to enforce these vital protocols and safety measures in Public Interest and interest of Environment as given in different standards. c. That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus to the State of Maharashtra to set some strict guidelines at par with those countries abro...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Atmaram More Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2011
1 Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 3/4/2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.563 of 2005, whereby the accused was convicted for the offences punishable under sections 342, 506(II), 376(2)(a) & (b) of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced as under: (i) for the offence punishable under section 342 of I.P.C. he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- i.d. to suffer imprisonment for 15 days; (ii) for the offence punishable under section 506(II) of I.P.C. he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- i.d. to suffer further imprisonment for 30 days; (iii) for the offence punishable under section 376(2)(a) and (b) of I.P.C., he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period of 12 years and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- i.d. to suffer further imprisonment for a period of one year; however, he was acquitted of the charge of an offence punish...
Tag this Judgment!B.Y. Chavan and anr. Vs. Association of Tenants of the Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2011
1. The preliminary issues were raised on 15th April, 2011. I rejected the preliminary issues before proceeding to hear the parties on the merits of the matter. I heard the parties on merits from 20th April, 2011. However, both the parties stated that they had no objection to my dealing with the preliminary objections and the Notice of Motion by a common order and judgment. 2. The following preliminary issues have been framed :- ISSUES I) Whether the suit is maintainable in the absence of a notice under section 164 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 ? II). Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit in view of sections 91 and 163 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 RE. : SECTION 164 : 3. Defendant No.71 is the Bombay Catholic Co-operative Housing Society Limited (hereafter referred to as "the society"). Defendant No.2 to 70 are tenants, tenant-members and members of the society or occupants on the property of the society. Defendant No...
Tag this Judgment!Gayabai Hemlal Jadhav Vs. Hiraman S/O Rama Chavan
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-05-2011
1 Heard Shri K.C.Sant, learned Counsel appearing for Revision Petitioner and Shri S.D.Dhongade, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is served. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 The petitioner - original opponent in Probate Application No.1/2008 before the trial Court is raising exception to the order passed below Exhibit-28 on 13th August, 2010 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amalner. Respondent No.1 herein presented Probate Application before the trial Court requesting for grant of probate in respect of will deed executed by Baburao Zendu Chavan (Dhobi) on 25.04.2011. In the application presented to the trial Court, Respondent No.1 contended that his father had a brother by name Baburao Chavan (Dhobi), who did not have any male successor. Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 herein, being the daughters of deceased Baburao, after solemnization of their marriage, went to reside w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›