Mumbai Court September 2011 Judgments
Rajaram Dadu Kabnure Vs. Gunwanti Dhulappa Ketkale and ors
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr.Surel Shah for the Appellant. The Appellant is the Original Defendant no.1 in R.C.S.no.302/99 filed by Respondent no.1 and 2 in the Civil Court at Ichalkaranji for partition and separate possession of four properties described in paragraphs 1-A to 1-D of the plaint. It is admitted position that the Plaintiffs are real sisters of the Defendants. It is also admitted position that the father Dadu died intestate. One of the properties viz.property no.1-C was the separate property of the deceased Mother Tarabai and it was the claim of the Appellant/Defendant no.1 that she had executed a Will in respect of that property in favour of the son of the Appellant. The Appellant also raised the defence regarding non inclusion of one property bearing City Survey no.4. By Judgment and Order dated 29/1/2004, learned Jt.Civil Judge, J.D., Ichalkaranji partly decreed the suit and passed decree for partition and separate possession in respect of the properties at Sr.1-A and 1-B ...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Brentfield Travels Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Reserve Bank of India and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR. D.Y. CHANDRCHUD, J.) : 1. The Petitioner in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges an order passed by the Deputy General Manager of the Reserve Bank of India on 22 March 2011 on an application for compounding of contraventions of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. The application for compounding was, in the present case, submitted under Section 15 on 27 September 2010. By an order dated 22 March 2011 the Deputy General Manager of the Reserve Bank as Competent Authority has stated that the contraventions which were observed are of a sensitive nature which require further investigation by the Directorate of Enforcement. Consequently the view adopted is that the contravention could not be compounded at the present stage and the compounding application was consequently returned together with the compounding fees in the sum of Rs. 5000/- paid by the Petitioner. 2. In the present case, from the records befo...
Tag this Judgment!Sanand Properties Pvt. Ltd Vs. Range and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
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. The challenge in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution is to a notice dated 11 January 2011 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by which the assessment for the assessment year 2007-08 is sought to be reopened. 3. The Petitioner filed its return of income for assessment year 2007-08. The income from business was computed after deducting an amount of Rs. 3.49 crores which was the profit from an Association of Persons (AOP) exempt under Section 167B(2). A note was appended to the return of income stating that the Assessee is a member of an AOP doing business under the name and style of Fortaleza Developers and that since the tax on the income of the AOP was payable in the case of the AOP itself under Section 167B(2), no tax is payable by the assessee in respec...
Tag this Judgment!Rattan Suka Lilke Vs. State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT {PER A.M. THIPSAY, J.} : 1. The Appellant was the original Accused No.2 in Sessions Case No.211 of 2002, which was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant of an offence punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also of an offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the Appellant to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- with respect to the offence punishable under Section 366 of the IPC, read with Section 34 of the IPC, and R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.500/- with respect to the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC. The Appellant, being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, has appealed to this Court. 2. I have heard Mr. M.S. Karnik, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, and Smt. V.R. Bhosale, the lea...
Tag this Judgment!All Occ.Agriculture and Residing Vs. the District Deputy Registrar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The Respondent No.3 is a Cooperative Society governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The petitioners were enrolled as members of the Respondent No.3 Cooperative Society on 29.3.2009. The Managing Committee earlier was elected on 12.2.2006 and the first meeting was held on 19.3.2006. The term of the Managing Committee is five (5) years. It was to expire on 18.3.2011. It seems that the Government did not appoint any Administrator nor had passed any specific order granting extension to the said Managing Committee. However, the said Managing Committee continued. Thereafter, the District Deputy Registrar took necessary steps for the elections of the Managing Committee of the Respondent No.3. The notification for preparation of the voters list was published on 4.8.2011. The provisional list was published on 5.8.2011. Th...
Tag this Judgment!The Jalna People
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2011
1. Heard learned Counsel for petitioners. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. Learned A.G.P. waives service of Rule. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the order/notice dated 12.08.2010, passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Aurangabad, at Exhibit-G1 of the compilation. 3. The background facts for filing the writ petition are disclosed in the writ petition from paragraphs 03.01 to 03.07. Therefore, same are not repeated herein. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners invited my attention to the impugned order and submitted that the notice issued by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad, in the concluding paragraph, states that as soon as Shri Tank (petitioner no.2) is served with the show cause notice or as soon as he receives the show cause notice, he should be removed from the services of petitioner no.1 - Bank. According to the learned Co...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay S/O Mohan Jagtap Vs. Sau.Sindhubai Mohanrao Jagtap and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2011
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. Learned Counsel Mrs.Deshmukh waives service of Rule on behalf of Respondents No.1 & 2. Rest of the Respondents, though served, are absent. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 20.08.2009, passed by 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, below application Exhibit-28 in Regular Civil Suit No. 368/2007, and order dated .17.07.2010, passed by 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, below application Exhibit-44 in Regular Civil Suit No.368/2007. 3. The background facts of the case are as under: Petitioner herein is original defendant no.1 in Regular Civil Suit No.368/2007 filed by Respondent No.1 herein. Petitioner is son of Respondent No.1, Respondent No.2 is real brother of petitioner. Respondents No.3 to 5 are real sisters of Respondent No.1. There is no dispute about relationship betwe...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Mohit Aneja
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-2011
Top of Form 1. The Plaintiff has filed the Summary Suit to recover a sum of `18,14,447.90 ps. based upon the invoices of delivery of goods and the confirmation letter dated 1 April 2007. 2. In the invoices, there is a clear clause with regard to the Bombay jurisdiction. 3. In view of this agreed clause, the Suit as filed in Mumbai, is maintainable. The Plaintiff has also taken leave under Clause XII of Letters of Patent on 6 October 2009. The Summons for Judgment is dated 22 January 2010. Replied by the Defendant on 8 February 2010. There is a rejoinder by the Plaintiff dated 8 February 2011. 4 The Plaintiff based upon the agreement, from time to time supplied the goods. The invoices placed on record confirmed the said supply and receipt of the goods. The delivery of goods were on regular basis since 2005. The last transaction was of 28 March 2006. The Defendant made payment by two cheques on 23 January 2007 and the last cheque was of 14 February 2007. The Defendant confirmed the Accou...
Tag this Judgment!Sow. Dhanabai W/O Hiraman Dasare and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2011
1. The Petitioners herein have been named as accused in written F.I.R. lodged by Respondent No. 3 Rohini. It is registered with Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, on 14.1.2010 under Crime No. I-18/2010 for offences punishable under Sections 448, 468, 471 and 420, read with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The story disclosed in the F.I.R. can be briefly narrated as follows:- (a) The complainant Rohini is the wife of deceased Govind Laxman Ladhe, who was an Advocate by profession. He owned a flat, being flat No.37, consisting of two bed rooms, a kitchen etc. in building No. H-3, MHADA Colony, near Baba Petrol Pump, Aurangabad, allotted to him by MHADA. (b) Due to employment as a rector in the hostel, and because of family responsibilities, the complainant used to be out of Aurangabad. (c) She applied for recording her name in MHADA in relation to the flat owned by her husband Govind. (d) On 24.12.2009, at about 2.30 a.m., the petitioners-accused persons thumped the door of...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sushil Kaur W/O Sukhbirsingh Chhatwal and ors. Vs. M/S Aurangabad ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2011
1. This Civil Revision Application is filed aggrieved by the order passed on application below Exhibit-10 in Misc. Civil Appeal no. 177 of 2006 dated 1st December, 2006 by the Adhoc Additional District Judge-3, Aurangabad. 2. The revision applicants herein are the original plaintiffs, who have filed the suit against the respondent no.2 praying for perpetual injunction from demolishing the construction on the suit land. In the said suit, the revision applicants filed an application for temporary injunction. However, same was rejected. Being aggrieved with the same, the applicants filed Misc. Civil Appeal no. 177 of 2006 before the District Court along with application Exhibit-5 for temporary injunction. The respondent no.1 herein thereafter filed application Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure for addition of parties in Misc. Civil Appeal no. 177 of 2006. The avernments in the said application filed by the respondent no.1 herein are as under :- " 1. That, the applicant b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »