Mumbai Court September 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.
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Maruti Ananta Bhosale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-2011
1. Heard Mr. Shinde, the learned APP for the applicant-State. Perused the impugned judgment. 2. This application is moved by the State Government seeking leave to prefer appeal against the order of acquittal dated 18th July, 2009, passed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No. 258 of 2005, whereby the appeal preferred by the accused-respondent against his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was allowed and the conviction was set aside. 3. According to the prosecution, the first informant had suffered several injuries including fracture. Record reveals that though the medical certificate was produced, the Medical Officer was never examined to prove the injuries and therefore, the accused also did not get opportunity to cross examine the Doctor. Before the trial Court, it was argued that the medical certificate is a public document and therefore, non examination of the Medical Officer is not fatal to the prosecution. T...
Santosh Govardhan Bilawal and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and an ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-13-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.11.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Criminal Revision Application No.200/2010. 3. Few facts, which are not disputed and are matter of record, may briefly be stated thus- Respondent No.2 is the wife of petitioner No.1. Respondent No.2 had filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.133/2010 before JMFC, Gangapur u/s 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On 22.04.2010, learned JMFC had directed the petitioners to produce minor Vishal, son of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, before the Court on 30.04.2011. On 30.04.2011, when the petitioners produced the minor before the JMFC, Gangapur, learned JMFC handed over custody of the child to respondent No.2. Accordingly, the petitioners obeyed the order. However, being aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Appli...
Rima Singh @ Rima Shahi Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-2011
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. The Petitioner as Complainant in Crime No. 326 of 2000 pending before the learned J.M.F.C. Vashi at Belapur in New Mumbai has requested for further investigation in terms of section 173 (8)of Cr.P.C. It was rejected. Hence, the challenge. 3. The learned counsel submits that the transaction of purchasing plot by the Petitioner with vendors was by parting her consideration. However, behind her back her then husband manipulated with the Vendor and got the conveyance of the property in his name, thereby the Petitioner has been duped and cheated. She says that such exercise was by forging documents and manipulation thereof Learned counsel submits that slackness in investigation in a shabby manner has added fuel to the situation. She has been examined as PW 9 in on going criminal case. 4. The manner in which the matter is dragged and carried to several Courts illustrates that the parties are more keen in protrac...
M.Ramesh Kumar, Ias (Retd.) Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2011
1. Heard Mr.Janak Dwarkadas with Mr.Shetty, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Ravi Kadam, the learned Advocate General with Mr.Saluja, A.G.P. and Mr.Mihir Desai for respondent No.5. 2. Rule. 3. Respondents waive service. 4. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the parties. 5. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner had challenged the decision of the State Government communicated to the Chairman of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short, "the MAT") vide its letter dated 9.5.2011, not to go ahead with the recommendation of the Selection Committee, in its meeting dated 25.1.2011 and inviting fresh applications from the eligible officers for the post of Member (Administration). The petitioner has also challenged the resolution of the Selection Committee passed in its meeting dated 13.6.2011 to the extent that it recalled its earlier recommendation dated 25.1.2011 for the post of Member (Administrative) for the ...
Rafia Sultana D/O Iqbal Ahemed Khan Vs. Mohd. Osman S/O Mohd. Ismail a ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-12-2011
1. This contempt petition alleges contempt /willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition no. 2177/2009 on 12th November, 2009. In para 3 of the said order, the undertaking given by the alleged contemnor, Mohmmad Osman Mohmmad Ismail is recorded by this Court. 2. The petitioner herein was appointed on 16th June, 1993 as Assistant Teacher in Madarse Aamena Urdu Primary School , a primary school run by the respondent No.2 herein. It is the case of the petitioner that she was subsequently promoted as Head Mistress. It is further case of the petitioner that on 20th November, 2007, all of a sudden, the respondent No.1 issued letter to the petitioner and informed that, as per the resolution of the society passed on 19th November, 2007, she was reduced in rank from the post of Head Mistress to the post of Assistant Teacher and, petitioner was directed to hand over the charge of post of Headmaster to the respondent No.3. On 11th February, 2007, the petitioner filed ap...
The Commissioner of Income Tax-central-iii Vs. M/S. Templeton Asset Ma ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2011
1. The Appeal is admitted on the following questions of law and taken up for hearing by consent of the parties: a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal, in law, was justified in upholding the order of the learned CIT (A) in not sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer being the difference between the amount of investment advisory fees computed at the maximum rates specified in Regulation 52(2) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Mutual Fund) Regulation, 1996 (SEBI Regulations) and actually charged by the Assessee? b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal, in law, was justified in upholding the order of the learned CIT (A) in not sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer relating to the recurring and marketing expenses without appreciating the fact that this amount of expenditure the AMC was empowered to charge under SEBI Regulations to the Mutual Fund, but it has c...
Wainganga Bahu-uddeshiya Vikas Sanstha and ors. Vs. Anil S/O Dewaji Ga ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-12-2011
1. Rule in all the Petitions, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above Petitions take exception to the Judgment and Orders of the College Tribunal by which the Tribunal has set aside the termination orders passed against the Respondents-Lecturers in Writ Petition Nos.1301/11, 1314/11 and 1315/11 on the ground that the enquiry held against the Respondents-Lecturers in the said Petitions has been vitiated. The Tribunal in the course of adjudication of the said proceedings has also held that prior permission of the University is not required to be taken for the termination of the Respondents, as the Respondents are not confirmed employees. The aforesaid three Petitions have been filed by the Management challenging the orders of the Tribunal in so far as it sets aside the termination orders passed against each of the Respondents on the ground that the departmental enquiry is vitiated on account of violation of the principles of natural justice. The ...
Rajiv Gandhi Mahavidyalaya and ors. Vs. Anil Son of Dewaji Gaikwad and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2011
Judgment: 1. Rule in all the Petitions, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above Petitions take exception to the Judgment and Orders of the College Tribunal by which the Tribunal has set aside the termination orders passed against the Respondents-Lecturers in Writ Petition Nos.1301/11, 1314/11 and 1315/11 on the ground that the enquiry held against the Respondents-Lecturers in the said Petitions has been vitiated. The Tribunal in the course of adjudication of the said proceedings has also held that prior permission of the University is not required to be taken for the termination of the Respondents, as the Respondents are not confirmed employees. The aforesaid three Petitions have been filed by the Management challenging the orders of the Tribunal in so far as it sets aside the termination orders passed against each of the Respondents on the ground that the departmental enquiry is vitiated on account of violation of the principles of natural jus...
Shri. Nandkishor Kanhyalal Agrawal Vs. Dhule Municipal Corporation and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-09-2011
1. This Civil Revision Application takes exception to the order dated 17-01-1005 passed by the 2nd Adhoc Additional District Judge, Dhule in Civil M.A. No. 89 of 2003. 2. The background facts leading to file this Civil Revision Application as disclosed by the applicant are as under: The applicant herein is the original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 254 of 1996 and respondent No.1 herein is the local authority governed by the Statute and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the responsible and concerned officers of respondent No.1 and they are original defendants in the above mentioned Special Civil Suit No. 254 of 1996. The applicant herein filed Special Civil Suit No. 254 of 1996 against the present respondents and in the said suit, the respondents appeared through their Counsel but they neither filed their written statement nor appeared for hearing. Hence, the trial Court decided the said special civil suit exparte. The present applicant, after passing the exparte judgment and decree in...
Subhash S/O Babulal Rajput Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-09-2011
1. Heard Learned Counsel for the revision applicant and learned A.G.P. for respondent No.1. Though respondent No.2 - Acquiring Body served, none appears for it. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally. 3. This Civil Revision Application is filed being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14-06-2004 passed by learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad in L.A.R. No. 550 of 2000, thereby dismissing Land Acquisition Reference filed by the revision applicant and also aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11-12-2009 passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad in M.A.R.J.I. No. 755 of 2006 rejecting the application of the revision applicant for setting aside judgment and order dated 14-06-2004 in L.A.R. No. 550 of 2000 and for its restoration. 4. It is the case of the revision applicant that 1 Hectors 20 Are land out of Gat No. 27 situated at village Gandheshwar, Taluka Khultabad,District Aurangabad belong...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »