Mumbai Court August 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.
In the High Court of Judicature and ors. Vs.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
Judgment (Per : Mhatre, J.) 01. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. 02. The issue involved in both these petitions is, whether the students, who appeared for the 10th standard and 12th standard examination i.e. Secondary and Higher Secondary Board Examinations in the State, are entitled to allocation of 25 additional marks for having participated in sports tournaments which are recognized by the authorities at the State, National or International level. 03. The policy for allocation of 25 marks additionally to such students, has been stipulated in a letter dated 4.6.2007 from the State to the Secretary, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Pune (for short 'the Board'). The policy envisages that students, who participate in sports which are recognized by the associations and federations running the various sports, are entitled to 25 additional marks at the 10th standard and 12th standard Board examinations for having participated in such spo...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagan Gagansingh Nepali.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
JUDGMENT : (Per B.R.Gavai, J.) 1. Since the Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 26th April 2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No.20/2011 has disagreed with the view taken earlier by two Division Benches of this Court in Sherbahadur Akram Khan v. State of Maharashtra,2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1 and Madan Ramkisan Gangwani v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 1447 that the term "other advantage" used in section 2(e) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 ("MCOCA" for short) has to be read ejusdem generis with the words "for pecuniary benefits and undue economic", the matter is placed before us. 2. The question, therefore, that we are called upon to answer is "as to whether the term "other advantage" has to be read as ejusdem generis with the words "gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic advantage" or whether the said term "other advantage" is required to be given a wider meaning". 3. We have heard Mrs.A.S.Pai, learned Addl.P.P. and Mr.Amit Desai, l...
Lakhichand Alias Lakhamichand Vs. Kewalram Hariyani.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of wp264.11.odt 3 the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 19/11/2010, pertaining to the document styled as 'Sammati Patra' in respect of which document evidence was recorded on the said day. It has been held that in the absence of registration the said document is not admissible in evidence and hence it cannot be exhibited. 3. The issue as regards the exhibition of the said document had reached this court earlier against the order which came to be passed by the Trial Court on 21/1/2011. By the said order, it was held that the said document is not a Relinquishment Deed and therefore it need not be registered. It was further held that the registration of the said document was not mandatory. In so far as the rests of the objections were concerned, it was held that the said objections can very well be considered on merits...
Dr.Mrs.Seema Ajay Bhoosreddy Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
JUDGMENT : 1. Leave to amend prayer clause of Criminal Application No.621/2011. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 3. By way of present revision application and criminal application, the applicants have approached this Court being aggrieved by the common order passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nasik dated 12th May 2011. Both applicants are accused in Sessions Case No. 46/2007. The applicant in Revision No.265/2011 is accused No.2 whereas applicant in Criminal Application No.621/2001 is accused No.1. They are facing trial for the offence punishable under section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). The applicants had filed application for discharge before the Sessions Judge. However, the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 12th May 2011 has rejected the said application. 4. The applicant- Dr.Mrs.Seema Ajay Bhoosreddy is working as Professor in MGV Dental College and ...
Retailers Association of India and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.) : Service tax on renting: 1. In 1994, Parliament legislated to provide for the imposition of a service tax. Section 65 of the Finance Act of 1994 defined taxable services, among other things. Section 66 provided for the charge of service tax on taxable services. Section 67 dealt with the valuation of taxable services for charging service tax. Section 68 provided for the payment of service tax. Section 66 stipulated that there shall be levied a tax at the rate of 12% "of the value of taxable services" referred to in clause (105) of Section 65. Among the taxable services is the taxable service in sub-clause (zzzz), to which the constitutional challenge in these proceedings relates. Sub-clause (zzzz) was initially inserted by the Finance Act of 2007 with effect from 1 June 2007. Taxable service was defined to mean "any service provided or to be provided": "To any person, by any other person in relation to renting of immovable property for use in ...
Dr. Feroze Homi Duggan Vs. Jean Duggan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2011
1. The Plaintiff is a grandson of the deceased, Lady Jena Jamshedji Duggan. He has applied for Letters of Administration (L.A) with the Will of the deceased annexed thereto dated 4th April 1993 as the Executors mentioned under the Will have renounced their Executorship. The Defendant is the wife of the predeceased son of the deceased. The constituted attorney of the Plaintiff who is his mother initially applied for L.A. She has since expired. The Plaintiff himself has sued thereafter. Initially the Defendant was not shown as the heir of the deceased. L.A were granted. L.A have been revoked upon the Petition of the Defendant in that behalf. Thereafter the Defendant has filed her Caveat. 2. It is the case of the Defendant in her affidavit in support of the Caveat that the Will has not been validly executed and that there are strong suspicious circumstances casting doubt upon the genuineness of the Will. She has also contended that the deceased was not in a sound state of mind and was hos...
Shivaji Shrimant Mandale and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2011
1. Present appellants original accused Nos. 1 to 3 preferred the present appeal challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 28th October, 2003 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, District Sholapur. By the impugned judgment and order passed in Sessions case No. 97 of 2002 the appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 3 were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 323, read with section 34 of I.P.C. In the serious offence of 302 of I.P.C. each appellant - accused was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for one month each. For the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. each appellant accused was sentenced to suffer R.I.for seven years each and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default further R.I. for two months each, for the offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. each appellant accused was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer S.I.for 15 days each....
Shri Ganesh Sakharam Kamble and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2011
1. Heard rival arguments at length on this Appeal preferred by the Appellants/original accused Nos.1 & 2. Both the appellants were convicted in Sessions Case No.489 of 2002 vide order dated 30.12.2003 passed by the 3rd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. By the impugned judgment and order in Sessions Case No.489 of 2002 both the present appellants / accused Nos.1 & 2 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and were directed to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. For six months each. In the said Sessions Case, total six accused were tried. However, accused Nos.3 to 6 were acquitted of all the charges. Admittedly, since date of arrest i.e. since 14.7.2002 both the appellants / accused Nos.1 & 2 were in jail and as such after the judgment and order of conviction they are still in jail till date. 2. After the present Appeal was...
icici Bank Ltd. Vs. Jayant Vitamins Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2011
1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Defendant No.2 for discharge of the Court Receiver in respect of a part of the suit properties for which the Court Receiver was appointed with further directions to the Receiver to handover possession of the said properties to the Receiver appointed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). 2. The Plaintiff, Defendants 3,4,5 & 6 who are also banks and public sector companies and who have a pari passu charge in respect of the suit properties, have not opposed this Notice of Motion. 3. Defendant Nos.1 and 7 have opposed the Notice of Motion though under an interim order of this Court all the parties including Defendant No.1 and 7 agreed to jointly dispose off the properties for payment of the liabilities of Defendant No.1 to the Plaintiffs as also Defendants 2 to 6. 4. The Defendant No.7 is a sister concern of Defendant No.1 and is stated to have certain machinery on the properties for which the Court Receiver is appointed. 5. Mr. Andhyarujina ...
Prakash S/O Bala Dubele and anr. Vs. Janabai W/O Subhash Dubele
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-03-2011
1. Heard. Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. This Civil Revision Application is filed by the original plaintiff, challenging the Judgment and Order dated 14-03-2011, passed by the Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kannad, in Regular Darkhast No. 38 of 2004. 3. The respondent herein who is original plaintiff filed R.C.S. No. 33 of 2001 for relief of permanent injunction and declaration of partition deed as not binding on decree holder along with relief of declaration of ownership. The Trial Court decreed R.C.S. No. 33 of 2001, on 05-08-2002. The original defendant has filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 219 of 2002 before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, vide its order dated 29-011-2003, and confirm the decree passed by the Trial Court. There was another suit R.C.S. No. 117 of 2003, which was filed by original defendant No. 2 against plaintiff, and same suit was also dismissed on 22-06-2006. Thereafter, Second...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »