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.
Arjun Machindra Puri Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The facts which had given rise for prosecuting the appellant for the offence charged in a nutshell are as follows:- Deceased Kamal was the wife of the appellant Arjun. The original accused nos.2 and 3 are the parents of the appellant. The marriage between the appellant and deceased Kamal took place about ten years prior to the incident. P.W.1 Dattoba Girijaba Giri and P.W.2 Jamanabai Giri are the parents of deceased Kamal. Both at the relevant time were residing at village Pitti, taluka Patoda, Dist. Beed. After marriage, Kamal started residing with the appellant at village Ghanegaon, taluka Barshi. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant Arjun was harassing and ill-treating deceased Kamal on account of household issues and the deceased used to complain to her parents about the said ill- treatment. 3. On 24.1.2000 original accused no.2 Machindra went to village Pitti an...
Bablya S/O. Baliram Madhvi Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2011
1. All the three appeals filed by the appellants are against the common judgment and order passed by the trial court and therefore all these appeals are heard together and decided by the common judgment. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents - State. 3. The appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 30th April 2004 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan, in Sessions Case No. 185 of 2000 whereby the appellants came to be convicted for the offences punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The prosecution case in nutshell is as follows:- Deceased Ramesh Krishna Bhoir was son of Krishna Bhoir. They were residing at Village Khapardegaon, Kalyan, Dist : Thane. Both of them were working with one Yeshwant Dattu Thule and were engaged in excavating sand from Kalyan creek. On 6th October 1999 at about 9.00 a.m. Krishna (P.W. 3) and deceased Ramesh were cleani...
Mallinath Gurusiddhappa Birajdar and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 1 - State. 2. Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7th May 2004 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, whereby the appellants are convicted for the offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The circumstances which have given rise to the prosecution of the appellants are as follows: 3. On 27th June 2002 at about 12 noon deceased Siddharam and Nagendra were proceeded towards field Gat No. 178/1 situated at Village Hatti-Kanbas. Both of them started doing sowing operations in the said field. P.W. 6 Laxmibai widow of Siddharam and P.W. 7 Kasturabai widow of Nagendra went to the said field along with tiffon containing meal for their respective husbands i.e. Siddharam and Nagendra. It is the case of the prosecution that after finishing meals Siddharam and Nagendra again started sowin...
Baburao S/O Narayanrao Terkar Vs. Smt. Ambabai Pokhardas Khatnani and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-06-2011
1. This Civil Revision Application takes exception to the Judgment and order dated 26th February, 2007, passed by the Principal District Judge, Latur , in Rent Appeal No. 05 of 2005. The revision applicant has also prayed that impugned judgment and order be set aside and judgment and order dated 11.04.2005, passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer and Rent Controller, Latur, in File No. 1988/RCA/A/7 may kindly be restored. 2. Revision applicant herein is landlord and Deceased Original-respondent was tenant of the suit premises. Revision applicant will be hereinafter referred to as 'LandLord' and Respondent herein will be referred to as 'Tenant' for convenience. The landlord sought possession of the suit premises, which is shop situated at Latur from the tenant. According to the landlord, there was agreement of rent of the suit shop between himself and the tenant. The last deed of rent was dated 1st November, 1986. The tenant agreed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.400/- per month and sam...
Bhanudas Baba Pandhare Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2011
1. The Appellant-accused preferred the present appeal against the judgment and order of conviction passed on 6th April, 2004 by 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. Said impugned judgment and order was passed in Sessions Case No.215 of 2003 wherein the appellant accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Since the date of arrest i.e. 19th June, 2002, till the passing of the impugned judgment and order and thereafter till today the appellant-accused is throughout in custody. 3. The case of the prosecution, in nut-shell, is as under :- The appellant was staying with his parents during the relevant time of the incident, which happened in the year 2002. The appellant got married, however, his marital life was disturbed and there was some dispute between the couple. The wife of the appellant was freq...
Rukhminibai Pratishthan, Mumbai Vs. Co Saraswati Madhyamik and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2011
JUDGMENT: 1. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 17th July, 2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nashik in Appeal No.JAL/36/2009. This Court on 13th December, 2010 directed this matter to be listed for final disposal. Accordingly, the matter is taken up for final hearing with consent of the parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. The background facts of this case are, as under: The petitioner herein runs four schools namely, (1) Saraswati Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Sadawan, Tal. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon; (2) Kirti Vijay Patil Army School, Shirdon, Tal. Panvel, Dist. Thane; (3) Nawal Bhau Madhyamik Vidyalaya,Tade, Tal. Erandol,Dist. Jalgaon; and (4) Nawal Bhau Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Tade, Tal. Erandol,Dist. Jalgaon. All the four schools are functioning in different districts. The respondent No.1 herein - original appellant before the School tribunal filed an appeal stating therein that the management of the petitioner institute did ...
Vinod Ramchandra Dhakad Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2011
JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant, who was original accused No.1 in NDPS Special Case No.107/2004, has preferred this Appeal against the Judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Mumbai, whereby he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 21(c) read with Section 8 of N.D.P.S. Act and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 7.4.2004, early in the morning, three Intelligence Officers of Narcotic Control Bureau, received an intelligence to the effect that one person by name Vinod, resident of Madhya Pradesh, was going to deliver substantial quantity of heroin to one Velamayil from Trichy, Tamil Nadu, outside the Hotel Lokesh situated at Plot No.8, Sector 1, Koparkhairane, Navi Mumbai between 8.00 to 9.00 a.m. The intelligence also revealed that the heroin would be received on behalf of one Selvam, who was the owner of Hot...
Director of Income Tax. Vs. Ms. May and Baker Limited.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2011
JUDGMENT : (Per J.P. Devadhar, J.) 1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the re-opening of the assessment in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2001-02 was invalid is the question raised in this appeal. 2. The assessee who is a non-resident, had filed its return of income on 22nd October 2001 declaring income of Rs.138.96 crores. The assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) was passed on 25th March 2004, assessing the income at Rs.142.85 crores. 3. Thereafter, by a notice dated 29th March 2006 the said assessment was sought to be re-opened on the ground that the rate of tax on the long term capital gain of Rs.142.85 crores was erroneously taxed at ten per cent under Section 112(1) of the Act, whereas it should have been taxed at the rate of twenty per cent. The assessee objected to the re-opening of the assessment. However, the assessing officer rejected the contention of the assessee and held tha...
Lekhraj M. Solanki Vs. Babu Vira Bhamaniya and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2011
1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. 2. All these Civil Applications are identical. The controversy involved in all these Civil Application and the Civil Revision Applications is same. The learned Advocates appearing for the parties are same and common questions of law and facts are involved. Even earlier, all these Civil Application were clubbed together for hearing. Hence, by consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, all these Civil Applications are disposed off by common Judgment. 3. Hence, only facts in Civil Applications No.603 of 2010 in Civil Revision Application No.137 of 2008 which is treated as the lead Civil Applications are being narrated. 4. By these Civil Applications, the Applicants who are original Plaintiffs/ landlords in suit filed under the provisions of Bombay Rent Act, 1947 for eviction in respect of the open land have prayed for following reliefs:- (a) A date is to be fixed for final hearing of this Civil Revision Application along with other co...
Padam Chandra Singhi and ors. Vs. Dr. P.B. Desai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2011
1. Plaintiff No.1 is the husband of the original Plaintiff No.2 who suffered from cancer and was consequently admitted to the hospital of Defendants 3 to 7 being the Trustees of Bombay Hospital Trust. Plaintiff Nos.2(a) and 2(b) are the heirs of the original Plaintiff No.2 who has since expired. Defendant No.1 was the Honorary Surgeon attached to Bombay Hospital (BH) and was the head of the department of Oncology. Defendant No.2 was the Honorary Assistant Surgeon who assisted Defendant No.1. The Defendant No. 3 was the Houseman in charge of the CT Scan department in BH. 2. The Plaintiffs' case is that the original Plaintiff No.2 suffered from cancer since July 1977. She was under the treatment of one Dr. J.C. Paymaster in BH up to 1988 when Dr. Paymaster retired from BH. She initially had breast cancer. She was operated upon for breast cancer in 1977. She thereafter suffered lung cancer in 1984. She was given the treatment of chemotherapy also under Dr. Paymaster in Mumbai. She was als...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »