Mumbai Court September 2011 Judgments
Gorakh S/O Bhagwan @ Ganpati Vs. the Sub-divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-29-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the present matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 01.11.2010, passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Revision Petition NO. 6/B/2010/AN. 3. The particulars and events which are disclosed by the petitioner in this petition are as under. . The agricultural land bearing Gut No. 680(Old Survey No. 296) admeasuring 4H.23 R situated at village Telangshi, Tq. Jamkhed, District Ahmendagar, was initially owned and possessed by one Maruti Babu Jaybhaye. Maruti Babu Jaybhaye died on 13.7.1955 and the name of his legal heir, namely, Bhagwan @ Ganpati S/o Maruti Jaybhaye was recorded in the 7/12 extract vide mutation entry No.2300. . It is further contended that the said Bhagwan @ Ganpati is the father of petitioner and he was in actual possession ...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Manoharrao Ambadkar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-29-2011
1. Five petitioners before us have challenged the judgment delivered by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 719 of 1997 on 15.1.1999 rejecting their prayer for direction to respondents to extend to them the pay0scale of Rs. 3700-5700 by treating them as Head of the Department. It is not in dispute that all five petitioners have been duly selected and appointed as Workshop Superintendent in Government Polytechnic College under respondents no. 1 and 2 prior to 20th September 1989. 2. Mr Dangre while advancing the cause of petitioner has contended that only defence before the Tribunal raised by respondents no. 1 and 2 was that post of Workshop Superintendent is not a teaching post. He points out that norms issued by respondent no. 3 All India Council for Technical Education constituted under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the "1987 Act") were not in dispute and its binding effect was shown by respondent no. 3...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu So Eknath Patil and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-29-2011
Top of Form 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2 Present criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 8-6-2007 below exh. 17 in Sessions Case no. 53/2006 passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge - 2, Osmanabad. 3 Such of the facts as are necessary for adjudication of this criminal revision application can be summarised as under : . Respondent no. 2 herein lodged report on 4-6-2005 in Shiradhon police station, Tq. Kallamb, Dist. Osmanabad alleging that in the afternoon of 4-6-2005 at about 3.30 pm one Gopinath Dnyanoba Patil and Dharma Vitthal Pande assaulted his son with fists and kick blows. On the basis of this report, non-cognizable offence was recorded vide entry no. 16/2005 for offences punishable under section 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It further appears that again on 8-6-2005 one more report was filed by respondent no. 2 in the same police station alleging the incident date...
Tag this Judgment!All Ro Pimpri, Tq. Kallamb Vs. Fulchand So. Masappa Raut.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2 Present criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 8-6-2007 below exh. 17 in Sessions Case no. 53/2006 passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge - 2, Osmanabad. 3 Such of the facts as are necessary for adjudication of this criminal revision application can be summarised as under : . Respondent no. 2 herein lodged report on 4-6-2005 in Shiradhon police station, Tq. Kallamb, Dist. Osmanabad alleging that in the afternoon of 4-6-2005 at about 3.30 pm one Gopinath Dnyanoba Patil and Dharma Vitthal Pande assaulted his son with fists and kick blows. On the basis of this report, non-cognizable offence was recorded vide entry no. 16/2005 for offences punishable under section 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It further appears that again on 8-6-2005 one more report was filed by respondent no. 2 in the same police station alleging the incident ...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Direct Information Private Ltd. Vs. the Income Tax Officer and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. ) : 1. Rule, by consent returnable forthwith. With the consent of Counsel and at their request the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. By two notices dated 18 March 2011 the Assessing Officer has sought to reopen assessment for Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08. These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution have been instituted in order to question the validity of the action initiated by the Assessing Officer of reopening the assessments. 3. The Petitioner filed its return of income tax for Assessment Year 2002-3 and claimed a deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of the assessment proceedings, queries were raised by the Assessing Officer, inter alia, on 7 March 2005. The Petitioner was called upon to explain how the services rendered by the Petitioner while engaged in Domain name registrations and Web Hosting Services were covered within the meaning of the expression "we...
Tag this Judgment!Xyz Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J): 1. The Petitioner claims to be an informer. He claims to have furnished information to officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence at Mumbai to the effect that a company Dmt 2 wp345-11 forming part of the More Group of Companies obtained advance licences and imported products such as polythene granules, copper cathodes, mulberry silk and RBD palmoline at the Ports of Calcutta, Nhava Sheva and Kandla and had evaded customs duty by under invoicing the imports and by acting upon forged documents. According to the Petitioner, the D.R.I. arrested Ashwini Kumar More, a director of one of the entities and recovered an amount of Rs. 22.8 crores towards duty liable to be paid. Demand drafts are stated to have been deposited with the State Bank of India, Kandla Branch. According to the Petitioner, the value of the goods seized and confiscated is Rs. 16 crores and the duty collected is Rs. 2.88 crores. 2. The Petitioner claims to be entitled to...
Tag this Judgment!Abedali Khan S/O Rahematali Khan Vs. Devidas S/O Dhonduji Poghe
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2011
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this writ petition, petitioner takes an exception to the order dated 2nd May 2011 passed by 5th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hingoli wherein the objection raised by the petitioner/judgment debtor in Execution Proceedings No.3 of 2011 was rejected. 3. Petitioner has filed a Civil Suit bearing No.96/2010 on 6.8.2010 for injunction in which it is prayed that the respondent/defendant be restrained from evicting the petitioner, without due process of law. It is the case of the petitioner that in the month of February 2000, respondent let out his house No.7 for rent of Rs.500/- per month and since then he is residing there as a tenant by paying amount of Rs.500/- from time to time without any arrears. Respondent in 2010, started disturbing the possession of the petitioner and directed him to vacate the premises. Respondent had entered the house and asked him to va...
Tag this Judgment!Kranti Junior Adhyapak and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2011
1. Heard learned Counsel for petitioners. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. Learned Counsel for respective respondents waive service of Rule. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 20.06.2009, passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Appeal No.15/2007. Petitioners herein are Respondents No.1 & 2 in the said appeal and Respondent No.3 herein is the original appellant. The said appeal was filed by Respondent No.3 herein challenging the order of termination dated 15.06.2007. The copy of the appeal memo and also grounds taken in the appeal are placed on record at Exhibit-A on pages 17 to 69 of the compilation of this Writ Petition. Therefore, the facts leading to filing of such appeal are not repeated herein since those are extensively stated by the appellant in the appeal memo. It appears that after recording the evidence, considering pleadings of the parties...
Tag this Judgment!Shri NitIn Himanshu Sinha and ors. Vs. Shri Pankaj Narayan Karva and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2011
1. Mr.Rajiv Patil learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners, out of the reliefs prayed, are pressing the Petition only for the relief of quashing and setting aside Crime no.621 of 2007 and investigation effected therein. The petition is considered only for said reliefs as pressed. 2. The said Crime No.621/2007 was registered with respondent No.4- Kothrud police station, Pune, on 14.8.2007 at 18:00 hours for offence under section 406 r/w. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, upon the information / complaint lodged by respondent No.1 (proprietor of Shri Balaji Computers) against petitioners -Directors of Kraft Wagon Design Private Limited (Company registered under Companies Act, 1956) and respondent no.5. It was alleged that though 37 computers for use on monthly rent of Rs.1450/- per computer were entrusted to petitioners and respondent No.5, in the month of August,2005, uptill the date of lodging the complaint, they failed and neglected to pay the agreed rent since mon...
Tag this Judgment!Late Narayanlal Bansilal and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-28-2011
1. Judgment dated 31/12/1999 delivered by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati in Reference proceedings land acquisition case 13 of 1988 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1894 Act" for short), is assailed by both parties i.e., the landowners as also acquiring authority in these appeals under Section 54 thereof. Said reference arose out of award dated 16/7/1987 in L.A.C. 3/LAQ- 47/83/84 made by the Land Acquisition Officer for and on behalf State of Maharashtra. Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was published on 19/2/1984. While admitting First Appeal No. 53/2001 filed by State, this Court on 12/2/2001 granted stay in terms of prayer clause (I) of Civil Application No.656/2001 on appellant- State depositing decreed amount with Trial Court within period of 8 weeks. That order continues to operate even today. 2. Civil Application (F) No. 2282/2011 is taken out by landowners pointing out death of appellant no.4 on 4th Augu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »