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.
Bhagwan Trimbak Deokar and ors. Vs. Zilla Parishad
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
Top of Form 1. The Writ Petition has been filed by the workers employed with the Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar i.e. the respondent herein. Complaint (ULP) No. 141 of 1987 was filed under Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act") by the petitioners seeking permanency in service. The Industrial Court by its order dated 4th April, 1990 declared that the respondent had committed an unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. The respondent was directed to accord the petitioners the status and benefits of permanency with effect from 1st July, 1987. The Industrial Court also directed the respondent to fix the salary and allowance of the petitioners in the time scale as per the posts held by them and to further pay them all monetary benefits, including bonus on or before 30th June, 1990, failing whic...
Vikas Motiram Ghodke Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
Top of Form 1. By this revision, the revision applicant questions legality, propriety and correctness of the Judgment and order dated 29.03.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Akola in Criminal Appeal no 18 of 2009 dismissing the appeal which arose from the conviction of the applicant for the offence punishable under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code in Summary Criminal Case No. 9602 of 2006 decided by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola. 2. The facts, stated in brief, are as under :- That the first informant Ku. Swati Mhaisne lodged a report on 14.02.2006 at about 9 a.m. that she had gone to Shivam General Stores at Vardhman Nagar Kaulkhed, Akola to buy refill for the Pen. The applicant who was the shopkeeper was present in the shop. She gave Rs. 1/- to the applicant and asked for the refill. The applicant asked her name and called her inside and outraged her modesty by putting his hand on her cheek and also put his hand inside her petticoat, touching her priv...
Hasan Ali Khan S/O. GhousudIn Ali Khan Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
1. The Applicant is the Accused No.1 in Special Case No.1 of 2011. There is one more Accused in the said case, i.e. Kashinath Tapuriah, mentioned as the Accused No.2 therein. The allegation against the Applicant and the other Accused is that they have committed the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as "the PML Act"). The said case arises on the basis of a complaint filed by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India. 2. The Applicant was arrested in the said case on 7th March, 2011. He was produced before the Special Court on 8th March, 2011 for obtaining his remand in the custody of Directorate of Enforcement. It appears that, initially, the Special Court remanded the Applicant in custody, but by an order dated 11th March, 2011, rejected the prayer of the Directorate of Enforcement for remand of the Applicant in custody. The Special Court rel...
Ms National Non Ferrous Vs. Ms R.B. Patel and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent. 2. Petitioners are original Plaintiffs and Respondents are original Defendants. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiffs" and "Defendants". 3. Plaintiffs are a partnership firm. Defendants also are a partnership firm. Defendants i.e. the Petitioners herein are aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Small Causes Court whereby the suit filed by Plaintiffs was decreed and order of eviction was passed against Defendants and order was also passed for payment of mesne profits after holding inquiry under Order XX Rule 12. Against this order, Defendants preferred an appeal before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court which appeal also was dismissed and against the said two orders passed by the lower Courts, Defendants have preferred this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitutio...
Ms.Lovina Pankaj Bhatia Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present application are as under: 3. On 6th February 2008 one Shri Kunal Singh Jamwal had committed suicide by hanging on fan in his house. Since no criminal case was registered by the Oshiwara Police Station after the deceased had committed suicide, the father of the deceased, namely, Rajinder Singh Jamval filed a Criminal Writ Petition No.1576/2008 before this Court. It appears that during the pendency of the said petition, an F.I.R.No.36/2009 came to be registered by the Oshiwara Police Station under section 302 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). The investigation was also transferred to Mrs.Kalpana Ghadekar of Versova Police Station. Applicant was arrested in connection with the said F.I.R. on 23rd November 2009 and was remanded initially to the police custody and subsequently to the Magisterial Custody. Applicant was, subsequently, granted bail on 22nd February ...
Satnamsingh Son of Gurudayal Singh Sodi. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Challenge in the present appeal is to the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant (original accused), by way of judgment and order dated 27th December 2000, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Nanded, in Special Case (NDPS) No. 24/1998, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for the alleged unlawful possession of 685 gms. opium, and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for term of 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years more. 3. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is, that Police Constable Sudhir Khodve (PW 1), B. No. 1807, who was attached to Vajirabad Police Station, Nanded, at the relevant time, received a secret information on 13th May 1998, that the accused, namely, Satnamsing Sodi, was dealin...
Fakir Ahmed Mohd. Shaikh Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel. Perused the papers. 2. This is the second application for bail filed by the applicant, who was allegedly found in possession of 1.100 kg of Charas. In the previous application, he had contended that as the charge-sheet was not filed within 60 days, accused was entitled to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. It was also contended that data of the analysis was not provided by C.A., therefore, merely because C.A. Report disclosed that contents were charas, it could not be held that accused was in possession of 1.100 kg charas, which is commercial quantity. Both these objections were rejected holding that merely because data was not given, it could not be presumed that quantity of the Charas seized from accused was not 1.100 kg and the quantity, being commercial quantity, charge-sheet could be filed within 180 days. 3 The second application is filed on three grounds. Firstly, even though the charge-sheet was filed after 142 days from the da...
T.R.Ranka and Others Vs. the Chief Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
JUDGMENT: Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 1. By this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging the show cause notice dated 20.04.2011 and the order dated 04.06.2011 passed by the Chief Officer of the Ambarnath Municipal Council. 2. The Petitioners claim to be owners/tenants of the shops and they are carrying on business in the name and style as set out in the cause title of the petition. The Respondent No.1 is the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council, Ambarnath and the Respondent No.2 is the Municipal Council established under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (in short, the Municipalities Act, 1965). 3. It is the case of the Petitioners that they have constructed the shops on a piece of land which belongs to the Zilla Parishad, Thane. They have individually obtained the permissions from the Zilla Parishad as well as the Munic...
Bhau Vitthal Jagadale Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1 This appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed on 18th October, 2003 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No.140/2003. In the said case, the appellant and his younger brother sat 2 cri.appeal 1329-2003 Dattatraya were tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC on the charge of causing murder of Suresh Kashid, a resident of the same village i.e. Village Dahitane, on 15th January, 2003. 2 As per the prosecution case, deceased Suresh was involved in illicit relationship with the mother of the accused when the accused were minors. With that grudge in his mind, accused no.1 and his father had assaulted Suresh sometimes in 1993 and he was forced to leave village Dahitane. He started staying at Pune but during the Diwali festival of the year 2002, the family of the deceased i.e. wife and children returned to the village but the deceased on account of...
Aleem Khan Salim Khan Vs. Sub-divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-11-2011
Top of Form 1. Rule. Taken up for hearing and Heard by consent at the stage of admission . 2. The petitioner by this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has questioned the order dated 08/03/2011 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Morshi, District Amravati, who, in exercise of the power under Section 56 (a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act , 1951 ordered externment of the Petitioner for the period of two years from the District on the ground that the Petitioner is indulging in various types of cases and due to which, the life and properties of the people of Morshi area have been put to danger and social fabric of the society has become disturbed . 3. The facts, briefly stated, are as under : A proposal was moved from the Police Station Officer, Morshi dated 16/11/2010 through the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Amravati for externment of the Petitioner on the ground that there were cases registered at different Police stations against the Petitioner as f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »