Mumbai Court July 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.
Ammu Shah Rahamtulla Shah Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1] Rule. By consent of Mr. N.S. Bhat, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. T.A. Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents, rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally. 2] The petitioner is a convict undergoing life imprisonment in Central Prison, Amravati. The case of the petitioner is that as per the guidelines for premature release, he is placed in Category 3(b), i.e. he is entitled to be released on completing 24 years with remission provided he has completed 14 years of actual imprisonment. According to the petitioner, as he has undergone more than 14 years of actual imprisonment, he should be released forthwith. 3] The affidavit filed by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Amravati shows that the petitioner was released on furlough for a period of two weeks by order dated 18.3.1992. However, the petitioner did not surrender to prison in time and he was absconding for 789 days. The petitioner had to be arrested and brought back to...
Kisanrao S/O Deomanji Bhamudre and ors. Vs. Balu S/O Deomanji Bhamudre
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1) Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) This petition takes exception to the order dated 13/12/2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Achalpur whereby the application (Exh. 103) filed by the petitioners herein for being permitted to lead secondary evidence in respect of two documents, i.e. Gift Deed dated 27/12/2006 and Relinquishment Deed dated 24/11/2006 came to be rejected.3) The petitioners are the original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.36/2007. The said suit has been filed for a declaration that the petitioners have no concern whatsoever with the suit property and that the alleged partition effected by the petitioners was illegal. In the said suit, the petitioners filed their written statement along with their reply to the application for grant of temporary injunction. The petitioners have also filed their counter claim. In the said counter claim, the petitioners have laid a claim to the prope...
Deepak Dashrath Chahande and ors. Vs. Civil Judge, Junior Division and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1) Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) The above petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and order dated 28/4/2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sindewahi whereby the Election Petition bearing No.2/2010 filed by the respondent nos. 3 to 5 came to be allowed and resultantly the elections to Ward Nos. 4 and 5 of Gram Panchayat, Nawargaon, Taluq Sindewahi, District Chandrapur, which were held on 22/8/2010, came to be set aside. 3) The facts, in a nutshell, can be stated thus : The petitioners and the respondent nos. 3 to 5 herein were the contestants in the elections for the Gram Panchayat, Nawargaon, Taluq Sindewahi, District Chandrapur, which were held on 22/8/2010. The said Gram Panchayat comprises of 17 members and the area is divided into six Wards. Ward No.1 consists of 2 seats {1 OBC and 1 Ladies (Open)}. Ward No.2 consists of 3 seats {2 Men, 1 Lad...
Dhondiba Nagoba Ladke Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing. 3. At the outset, revisional applicant/original accused has preferred revision application challenging the legality and correctness of the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by way judgment and order rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parbhani in Regular Criminal Case No.642/2003, thereby convicting him for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One thousand) in default of payment of fine amount to suffer further S.I. for 15 days and also assailing the legality and correctness of judgment and order rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Criminal Appeal No.24/2006, thereby dismissing the said appeal filed by the applicant herein and confirming the conviction and sentence inflicted upon...
Shri Shankar Appa Mali and ors. Vs. Shri Ananda Mahadeo Mali and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants. None appears on behalf of the Respondents, though they were served. 2. The Second Appeal was admitted by this Court on substantial questions of law, which are framed at Serial Nos. 2,3 and 5 read as under: "(2) The substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal is that whether the learned Judge of the Appellate Court acted in accordance with the provisions of law in framing different issues than that of the trial court and answered it correctly without any opportunity to lead evidence on the said issue. (3) Further question of law is that whether it was necessary to review and the matter to the trial court to answer the issue framed by the appellate court or was it necessary to call for the finding on the said issue from the trial court. (5) Another question of law is that the reliance placed on the documents produced in appeal without considering whether any appeal is produced or not treating it as final ...
Amrish Arora Vs. Rameshkumar Sachdev
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the parties. Perused the record and proceedings and the relevant documents. 2. This Contempt Petition is filed by the petitioner, who was defendant No.2 in Short Cause Suit Nos.272/2008 and 273/2008. The said suits were filed in the City Civil Court, Mumbai by the respondent restraining defendant No.1 - Kaloomal Shorimal Sachdev Rangwala Pvt.Ltd. and other defendants from calling Extraordinary General Meeting on 9.2.2008 and from restraining the present petitioner from acting as Chairman of the EGM. On 7.6.2008, the suit was disposed of and decreed as per the consent terms filed by the parties. According to the petitioner, i.e. original defendant No.2, the respondent herein failed to comply with the consent terms and has committed breach of undertakings given to the Court and thereby has committed contempt of the Court. The respondent has filed affidavit in reply denying that he has committed any breach of the said undertaking or has intentionall...
Akola Zillah Dudh Utpadak Sangh Vs. Sheshrao Ramchandra Mhasaye and an ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 28/01/2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Akola, who is the Appellate Authority, in so far as the Workmen's Compensation Act is concerned, by which order the Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.21/2006 came to be dismissed and the order passed by the Controlling Authority came to be confirmed. 3. The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above petition can be stated thus. The respondents herein were working with the petitioner Society, which is a Federal Society of the Milk Societies in Akola District. The respondent No.1 was working as a Senior Clerk and the respondent No.2 was working as a Milk Tester-cum-Senior Clerk. According to the petitioner, the remuneration of the said respondents was Rs.840/- p.m. and Rs.960/- p.m. respectively. The respondents filed a common applicat...
Rajkumar Shivhare Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
1 The issue which arises before the Court in these proceedings is whether an Appellant who files an appeal before the High Court under Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 can seek an exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 2 A notice to show cause was issued to the Appellant on 12 January 2005 under Section 3(C) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 ("the FEMA"). Upon adjudication, a penalty was imposed on the Appellant under Section 13(2) by an order dated 29 February 2008. The Appellant moved the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 19. The Tribunal dismissed an application for dispensing with a pre-deposit of the penalty by its order dated 17 July 2008. The Appellant thereupon instituted proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court dismissed the Petition by a judgment dated 24 September 2008 holding that it had no territorial jurisdiction and that by virtue of the provi...
Shri Tarachand S/O Chandrasen @ Ramchandra Shinde and anr. Vs. Shakunt ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
1) Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 29/1/2011 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Chandrapur whereby the application for stay pending Appeal filed by the petitioners came to be rejected. 3) The petitioners had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 12/1997 for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property, which is an open plot. The said civil suit was dismissed on 18/11/2010 and while dismissing the said suit, the trial Court has recorded a finding that the petitioners have failed to prove their ownership and possession of the suit property. However, the issue no.4, which was framed by the trial Court, and which was to the following effect: "4. Do the defendants prove that, the suit property is Abadi Land and defendants acquired title by adverse possession ?" The same was answered aga...
Shri Ashok Bhimrao Mahure Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
1) Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) The above petition takes exception to the order dated 31/1/2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati whereby the Appeal filed by the respondent no.3 herein came to be allowed and the order dated 29/5/2009 passed by the Additional Collector came to be set aside. 3) The facts involved in the above petition can be, in brief, stated thus : The petitioner is an elected member of the Gram Panchayat, Shendurjana Khurd, Taluq Tiwasa, District Amravati. The said Gram Panchayat has seven members. In the nomination form, the petitioner had given his address as Field Gat No.2, Taluq Tiwasa, District Amravati. After the elections, the respondent no.3 herein, on 8/7/2008, filed an application before the Additional Collector for taking action against the petitioner under Section 14(h) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »