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.
Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa Vs. the State of Maharashtra and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2011
1. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, a Statutory body constituted under the provisions of Advocates Act, 1961 filed present contempt petition on 10th July, 2003 against respondent nos.2 and 3. The petitioner contends that respondent no.2 was a Police Inspector 2 conp17.03 (Mumbai) attached to Bhoiwada police station. At the relevant time respondent no.2 had caused simple hurt to Shri Harish Bhatia and had wrongfully confined in Bhoiwada police station on 20th January, 2003. Respondent No.3 was Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the said police station. Shri Harish Bhatia was a practicing advocate, a Professor of Law as well as author of Law books. He was practising on civil side and according to the petitioner he was not a regular visitor to the police station. 2. The petitioner further contends that on or about 20th January, 2003 at about 2 pm advocate Shri Harish Bhatia on request of his client cum friend, namely, Shri Rajkumar L.Pahuja had visited Bhoiwada police station for rend...
M/S.Monarch Erectors Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Cor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2011
1. This appeal is preferred by M/s.Monarch Erectors Pvt.Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the claimant, challenging the judgment and order dated 16.04.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Arbitration Petition No.202 of 2007. That Arbitration Petition was preferred by the Municipal Corporation of the City of Bhiwandi Nizampur, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation, under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Act') challenging the award dated 21.12.2006 as corrected on 14.02.2007 of the learned Arbitrator. 2. By that award the learned Arbitrator held that the claimant is entitled to Rs.11,55,00,000/- (Eleven Crores Fifty Five Lakhs Rupees only) together with interest @ 9% p.a.on that sum from 01.04.2004 till actual date of payment, plus costs of Rs.7 lakhs to the claimant and the Corporation to bear its own costs. 3. The facts and circumstances, leading to the filing of the present appeal, briefly stated are as under:- On 11.02.2003 Corporation is...
Jitendra S/O Manindranath Bose Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-11-2011
1. This reference before the Full Bench has been made on 26th of April, 2011 in view of the apparent conflict in view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Samarth Co-operative Consumers Central Stores Limited Versus State of Maharashtra and the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in this writ petition. Earlier, the Division Bench of this Court had, in the case of M/s Samarth Co-operative Consumers Central Stores Limited Versus State of Maharashtra & others, held that the petitioner therein, a foreign liquor licensee, was not liable to pay the license fee for the period during which he had not carried on business. Since the FL-III license of the petitioner therein was not renewed for the period from 01.04.1979 to 01.04.2004, the Division Bench held that the petitioner cannot be asked to pay the license fee for that period. The Court observed that Section 49 of The Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 did not empower the authorities to demand licens...
Rajendra Ramlal Jaiswal and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-11-2011
Top of Form 1. Heard Mr. F.T.Mirza, Adv. for the Applicant, Mr.M.K.Pathan, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1/State and Mr.S.V.Sirpurkar, Adv. for Respondent no.2. 2. The applicants, by this application, have questioned the order dated 17.09.2010 passed under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned 2nd Joint Judicial Magistrate Chandrapur, Whereby the police were directed to register the offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and to investigate in detail in respect of the allegations made by the Complainant against three persons by taking effective steps of the investigation. 3. The facts according to the Complainant (Respondent no. 2) are as under :- A complaint was lodged by respondent no. 2 Mohan and his wife Chaya against the Applicants on the ground that the Complainant had taken the loan about six years back from Applicant no.1 Rajendra @ Prakash Ramlal Jaiswal (professional money lender) in total sum of Rs Two...
The Income Tax Commissioner-ltu Vs. M/S Asian Paints Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2011
Top of Form 1. Not on board. Taken up on board by consent of the parties. 2. The appeal is admitted on the following question of law : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ITAT was justified in holding that interest was payable to the assessee under section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the month of December, 2003, even though the amount of tax paid by the assessee was credited to the Central Government Account on 1st January, 2004?" 3. The A.Y. Involved herein is the block period 1-4-1995 to 21-3-2002. 4. In the present case, tax demand raised under the block assessment was paid by the assessee by depositing a cheque for the amount of tax demanded on 29th December, 2003 in the bank authorized by the Central Government. On 30th December, 2003, the Bank account of the assessee was debited by the amount of tax under the cheque deposited on 29th December, 2003. 5. As the block assessment order was set aside by CIT(A),the assessee become entitled to refund of ...
Adiwasi Seva Sahakari Sanstha Vs. Hon
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-11-2011
Top of Form 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 2/8/2011 passed by the Collector, Gondia whereby the Application of the petitioner Society for inclusion of the name of its delegate in the voters' list for participating in the elections to the Board of Directors of the Gondia District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. came to be rejected. 3) In terms of the election programme for the said elections, the provisional list of voters was published on 18/5/2011. The petitioner Society is one of the Primary Societies, which is entitled to participate in the elections to the Board of Directors of the said Bank. In the provisional list of voters, against the name of the petitioner, there was a blank, thereby indicating that there was no delegate insofar as petitioner was concerned. The petitioner took an objection insofar as non-inclusion of its delegate is concerned by its let...
All Ro. Rameshwar Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Learned Adv. Mr. Y.B. Bolkar has filed Vakalatnama for respondent no.2, and also filed affidavit in reply of respondent no.2, and same are taken on record. 3. At the request of learned Adv. Mr. Y.B. Bolkar, for respondent no.2, leave granted to carry out amendment in paragraph 5 in the affidavit in reply filed by respondent no.2. Amendment be carried out forthwith. 4. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 5. The petitioners herein have filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, and also under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying that the criminal proceedings initiated against the present petitioners, on the basis of C.R. No. 75/2009, registered with Bhoom Plice Station, and renumbered as R.C.C. No. 225/2009, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Bhoom, be quashed and s...
All Ro. Rameshwar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Learned Adv. Mr. A.B. Girase has filed Vakalatnama for respondent no.2, and also filed affidavit in reply of respondent no.2, and same are taken on record. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 4. The petitioners herein have filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, and also under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying that the criminal proceedings initiated against the present petitioners, on the basis of C.R. No. 76/2009, registered with Bhoom Police Station, and renumbered as R.C.C. No. 222/2009, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Bhoom, be quashed and set aside. 5. The petitioners claim to be the residents of village Rameshwar (Taluka : Bhoom, District : Osmanabad), as well as, respondent no.2 herein i.e. complainant is also resident of the same place, whereas...
Rajendra Ramlal Jaiswal Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2011
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. F.T.Mirza, Adv. for the Applicant, Mr.M.K.Pathan, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1/State and Mr.S.V.Sirpurkar, Adv. for Respondent no.2. 2. The applicants, by this application, have questioned the order dated 17.09.2010 passed under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned 2nd Joint Judicial Magistrate Chandrapur, Whereby the police were directed to register the offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and to investigate in detail in respect of the allegations made by the Complainant against three persons by taking effective steps of the investigation. 3. The facts according to the Complainant (Respondent no. 2) are as under :- A complaint was lodged by respondent no. 2 Mohan and his wife Chaya against the Applicants on the ground that the Complainant had taken the loan about six years back from Applicant no.1 Rajendra @ Prakash Ramlal Jaiswal (professional money lender) in total sum of Rs Two ...
Ashish Son of Rajendra Choudhry Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Mr. M. P. Lala, learned Counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Mahesh H. Mourya and Mrs. S. R. Matta, learned Advocates for Respondent No. 1 and Mr. A. S. Parihar, learned APP for Respondent- State. 2. By means of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the Judgment in Criminal Revision No. 172/2011 dated 19/04/2011passed by Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Nagpur and also to quash the order dated 05/01/2011 passed below Exh.1 in Regular Criminal Case No. 4976/2010, whereby the learned J.M.F.C. Nagpur, issued process against the applicant-accused for an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that a complaint was lodged by respondent no. 1 namely Smt. Nayantara w/o. Durgadas Vasudeo (hereinafter referred to as "Nayantara"), bearing Summary Criminal Complaint Case No. 4976/2010 in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. Nagpur. The complaint alleged that the compla...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »