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.
Somling Ramanna Patrigida Vs. the State of Maharahstra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in both these appeals and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. Both these appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment since both these appeals are arising out of the judgment by which the appellants have been convicted by the Sessions Court. 3. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1314 of 2003 are original accused Nos. 2, 4, 9 and 10 and the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1321 of 2003 are original accused Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6. The appellants shall be hereinafter referred to as "original accused". 4. The original accused/appellants are challenging the judgment and order passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur who, by his judgment and order dated 3/10/2003, was pleased to convict the appellants for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and were d...
Basawesar Son of Chandrashekhar Tambakhe Vs. the Gram Panchayat and or ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner, who is citizen of India and resident of village Silewada within the jurisdiction of respondent no. 1 Gram Panchayat, has challenged Resolution No. 6 dated 30th July 1994 passed by respondent no. 1 whereby it called for information from house owners about valuation of their houses and provisions of rule 7 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Taxes and Fess Rules, 1960 (for short, the "1960 Rules") in so far as the same permits levy of property tax by respondent no. 1 on the basis of capital value of the lands/buildings. 2. This Court had issued rule on stay while admitting petition on 25.10.1996. On 24.2.1998 that rule on stay was discharged, with the result, there is no interim order operating in the matter. 3. We have heard Mr C.N. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr T.R. Kankale, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no. 3 State Government. Nobody has appeared for res...
Soni Jivram Jayram and ors. Vs. the Board of Trustees and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
Top of Form 1. By way of this Petition, the Petitioners, who have already been evicted from the premises in question in execution of the decree passed against them in the year 1996, have prayed that as per the policy of the Respondents, their lease should be continued as they are ready to pay rent and the Respondents be directed to accept the Petitioners as their direct tenants in respect of Plot No.24, situated at Mazagaon Tank, Bunder Estate, Mumbai. 2 The disputed portion of land was originally let out by the Respondents-BPT to one Ishwarlal G Desai. The said I G Desai sub-let the portion of the plot to one M L Patel who in turn inducted the present Petitioners as his sub-tenants. The status of the Petitioners accordingly was a sub-tenant of a sub-tenant and there was no direct relationship as tenants and landlord between the Petitioners and the Respondents-BPT. It seems that in the year 1996, the Respondents-BPT filed a suit being BCCC Suit NO.4576/66 against the heir of original l...
Batliboi Limited Vs. Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
1 The Petitioner-Company is a manufacturer of Industrial Package Air-Conditioners. The cause of filing the above Petition was detention of consignment of its air-conditioners which arrived at Dahisar Check Naka in three different trucks. The said trucks carrying assessable goods were detained as the goods were undervalued by classifying the goods under Entry No. 52 of the Octroi Rules which attracts rate at 4%, the invoice value of the goods being Rs.1,64,000/-though the goods had passed the octroi limit and part of the consignment was already delivered to one Precision Components Pvt. Ltd. for whom they were meant. However, a part of the said consignment was detained by the Respondents. A Stop Delivery Memo was issued under Rules 15 and 16 of the Octroi Rules 1965 and the Petitioner was called upon to produce relevant documents octroi receipt/import invoice/goods consignment notes. On receipt of the said stop delivery memo dated 3.9.1997, the Petitioner placed before the concerned off...
Basawesar Son of Chandrashekhar Tambakhe. Vs. Silewada, Tahsil Saoner, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2011
Oral Judgment (Per B. P. Dharmadhikari, J) 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner, who is citizen of India and resident of village Silewada within the jurisdiction of respondent no. 1 Gram Panchayat, has challenged Resolution No. 6 dated 30th July 1994 passed by respondent no. 1 whereby it called for information from house owners about valuation of their houses and provisions of rule 7 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Taxes and Fess Rules, 1960 (for short, the "1960 Rules") in so far as the same permits levy of property tax by respondent no. 1 on the basis of capital value of the lands/buildings. 2. This Court had issued rule on stay while admitting petition on 25.10.1996. On 24.2.1998 that rule on stay was discharged, with the result, there is no interim order operating in the matter. 3. We have heard Mr C.N. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr T.R. Kankale, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no. 3 St...
The Nashik Merchants
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2011
1. The above appeals have been admitted on 7th April, 2011 and the hearing was expedited. Considering the limited issue involved, this Court thought it fit to hear the appeals finally. 2. The facts necessary to be cited can in brief be stated thus: 3. The appellants are the original petitioners in the above mentioned writ petitions. The appellant No.1 is a multi-State Co- operative Bank having its branches in Maharashtra as well as Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat. The respondent No.1 in each of the above appeals (hereinafter "the respondents") was working as a Branch Manager in the branches of the Appellant No.1 Bank. The transfer order came to be issued transferring the respondents on 22nd May, 2010. The respondent No.1 in LPA No. 62 of 2011 came to be transferred to Hyderabad as a Branch Manager whereas the respondent No.1 in LPA No. 85 of 2011 was transferred to Surat as a Branch Manager. Both the respondents protested against the said transfers. However, the said protestations were repl...
Divisional Controller Vs. Mohd. Khan S/O Jabbar Khan
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-16-2011
01) Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard Shri V.G.Wankhede, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Pathak, Advocate h/f Shri S.N.Dandekar, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 02) This petition challenges the order dated 3.3.2008 passed by the Second Labour Court, Nagpur in IDA Case No.265 of 2005 filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.03) The petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,93,775/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of order till its realization to the respondent/applicant, within a period of two months from the date of order. The amount directed to be paid, is towards arrears of the difference arising out grant of regular time-scale. It is for the period from 1994 to 2005. 04) The contention of Shri V.G.Wankhede, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/non- applicant, is that on 16.10.1999 the settlement has been arrived at and as per the said settlement, the earlier regular time-scale h...
The Nashik Merchants' Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Madhukar Bhaurao Hingmire.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per R.M. Savant, J.) 1. The above appeals have been admitted on 7th April, 2011 and the hearing was expedited. Considering the limited issue involved, this Court thought it fit to hear the appeals finally. 2. The facts necessary to be cited can in brief be stated thus: 3. The appellants are the original petitioners in the above mentioned writ petitions. The appellant No.1 is a multi-State Co- operative Bank having its branches in Maharashtra as well as Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat. The respondent No.1 in each of the above appeals (hereinafter "the respondents") was working as a Branch Manager in the branches of the Appellant No.1 Bank. The transfer order came to be issued transferring the respondents on 22nd May, 2010. The respondent No.1 in LPA No. 62 of 2011 came to be transferred to Hyderabad as a Branch Manager whereas the respondent No.1 in LPA No. 85 of 2011 was transferred to Surat as a Branch Manager. Both the respondents protested against the said transfers. Howe...
Great Pacific Navigation (Holdings) Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. V. Tongli ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2011
1. The appellant (the Plaintiff in the Suit) has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 12 July 2011 raising the arrest of the respondent-ship, Tongli Yantai in the Notice of Motion taken out by the respondent for such relief. The respondent has filed cross- objections inter alia with regard to the issue of jurisdiction, the parties to the Suit, the maritime claim made for arrest of the ship by way of security of an arbitral award as an action in rem and the interpretation and applicability of the Geneva Convention of 1999 relied upon by the appellant. 2. The appellant's claim arose from an agreement entered into by the appellant with one Tongli Shipping Company Ltd. Samoa (hereinafter referred to as "Tongli Samoa") under a charterparty agreement with the appellant in respect of a ship, Nasco Diamond. The appellant had chartered the ship from one Da Sin Co. Ltd. (hereafter referred to as "Da Sin"). The ship sank. Da Sin raised the claim upon the appellant ...
Ramsukh S/O Mishrilal Jadiya and ors. Vs. Smt.Hangamabai Wd/O Jawaharm ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 23/12/2010 passed by the learned 4th District Judge, Amravati, by which order the application filed by the respondent no.2 being Exh.46 for dismissal of the Appeal, as being abated, came to be allowed and the Appeal filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed as being abated. 3. The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above petition can be stated thus - The petitioners herein are the heirs of one Ramsukh Mishrilal Jadiya, who was the original plaintiff along with one Sau.Sitabai and Sau.Kamalabai, who were his sisters and who had filed Small Cause Civil Suit No.189 of 2002 for ejectment and possession against the respondents under Section 16(1)(g) and (i) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 in respect of the ground floor shop. The said plaintiffs had succeeded to the said shop in question and other properties upon the death of o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »