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.
Shaikh Yusuf Bhai Chawala Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-2011
JUDGMENT: (PER D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) 1. The subject matter of all these Petitions is the same namely challenge to the incorporation of Respondent No.2/ Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs and things connected therewith. Therefore, these petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common order. 2. The Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2906 of 2004 are Muslims belonging to Shia Fatemi Ismaili Tyebia Sect of Islam. They follow Shia Fatimid Ismaili Tayebi Schol of Muslim Law., which Shia School known as Fatimid Law. In short, they are Shia Muslim. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 are trusttes of "Sir Admji Peerbhoy Santorium" created by a Scheme settled by this court by its order dated 16-6-1931 in Suit No. 1560 of 1927. The said Trust is also registered as a Public Trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act. The Petitioners Nos. 4 & 5 are trustees of "Anjuman-i-Null Bazaaar Chhabdi Bazaar Niaz Hussein Charitable Trust, which is registered as a public Trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act. 3. The Pet...
Esjay International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India Through Ministry of T ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-2011
1. The issue that arises for consideration in the above petition is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of clause 9 of Government Entitlement Policy,1994-1996 on account of "force majeure". 2. The petitioners by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are challenging the orders dated 20th June, 2000, 23rd June, 2000 and 13th October, 1996 passed by the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. 3. The factual matrix involved in the above petition can be conveniently stated thus:- 3. The petitioners are exporters and have been recognised by the Govt. of India as such since the year 1981. The petitioners have their manufacturing unit at GIDC, Sarigam in the State of Gujarat which they have established some time in the year 1993. By notification dated 4 th September, 1993, the Central Government in the Ministry of Textiles announced the quota policy framed for the period 1994-1996. On the petitioners applying to the Gujarat Electricity Board...
Meena Ramesh Lulla and ors Vs. Shri Omprakash A. Alreja and ors
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-2011
ORDER. 1. The Appeal is admitted and taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. The respective learned Advocates waive service of notice for final hearing. 2. The Appellant has challenged the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion in the above suit which was for setting aside an order of dismissal of the suit for default passed by the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court. 3. A chronology of the events and dates since filing of the suit would be material to consider: 1. The suit was filed on 16 October 2000 against 13 Defendants for administration of the estate of the deceased father of some of the parties and for other incidental reliefs. The parties to the suit are family members of the children of the deceased. 2. The Plaintiff applied for an ad-interim order in the interim application taken out by the Plaintiff on 22 November 2000. 3. Defendant No.1 appeared before the Court. Defendant N...
Victor Fernandes and ors Vs. Raghav Bahl of Noida and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-2011
JUDGMENT: (Per Anoop V. Mohta,J.) 1. The Appellants (original Plaintiffs) appealed against an order dated 8 August 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Notice of Motion No.3232 of 2006 in Suit No.2709/2006, whereby no ad- interim reliefs as prayed in the Notice of Motion dated 18 September 2006 is granted in a Suit filed on 25 August 2006 by invoking a doctrine of derivative action. 2. The derivative action/Suit by the minority is permissible and/or available mode if it is in the interest of the company and its shareholders. The welfare and interest of the company is the main purpose of such derivative action, but it should be in good faith and bonafide as it affects the interest of all shareholders. There is no specific statutory provisions for such derivative action in India. But it is a permissible mode for the minority directors or shareholders to check and control unfair, influential, malafide action for personal gain by the other's which is not in the interest of company. T...
Mr. Balasaheb Rangnath Khade Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. An interesting question which falls for consideration before this Court is:- "Whether a "victim" can file an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court without filing an application for leave to file appeal in this Court?" 2. By virtue of Amendment Act No. 5 of 2009, inter alia, provisions of section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code ("Cr.P.C.") were amended and a proviso was added to the said section providing for an appeal against the order of conviction and two other categories of cases. Section 372 of Cr.P.C with added proviso reads as under:- "372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided.- No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force: [Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing in...
Prakash S/O Budha Balbudhe Vs. Dinesh S/O Baburao Madavi
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-20-2011
1.Heard. 2. This is an application for grant of leave to file appeal against order dated 7/6/2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Arjuni (Morgaon) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 547 of 2007, whereby the complaint filed by the applicant-appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act came to be dismissed under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of absence of the complainant and his Advocate and for not taking steps for a long time for securing the presence of the accused. 3. Perused the copy of the complaint and the impugned order. 4. The impugned order, as argued by the learned Advocate for the applicant, is not on merit but is an order of dismissal for default. 5. Considering that this is a technical dismissal under Section 256 Cri.P.C., leave to file appeal against the impugned order is granted. Appeal be registered and numbered, accordingly. 6. Admit. 7. Mr. R. M. Pande, learned Advocate waives service of notice for sole ...
Parasu Bhau Gujale and ors Vs. Mallappa Shankar Sagare and ors
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-2011
1. Heard Mr. Mankapure, Advocate for the Appellants in Second Appeal No. 84 of 2009, Mr. Gaikwad, Advocate for Appellants in Second Appeal No. 86 of 2009 and Mr. Patwardhan, Advocate for contesting Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in both the Appeals. 2. R.C. Suit No. 175 of 1982 was filed by Mallappa Shankar Sagare and 3 others for permanent injunction, declaration and subsequently plaint was amended and Decree for removal of construction was also sought. Parsu Bhau Gujale & others filed R.C. Suit No. 192 of 1982 wherein Mallappa Shankar Sagare & others were the contesting Defendants. That Suit was filed for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction. Since there were alienations during the pendency of the Suits, various parties were added and said added parties adopted defence of earlier parties. Learned CJJD, Vita decreed the Suit No. 175 of 1982 and dismissed the R.C.S. No. 192 of 1982. Against the Decree in R.C. Suit No. 175 of 1982 R.C. Appeal No. 435 of 1989 was filed by th...
Jay Electric Wire Corporation Employees Union. Vs. PravIn Gada and ors
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.) : 1. Three Petitions have been instituted before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in order to challenge an order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) at Mumbai dated 3 March 2011. The DRAT has, while setting aside an order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), restored the confirmation of sale of immovable property in favour of the First Respondent. 2. A Company by the name of Jay Electric Wire Corporation Ltd., which is now in liquidation, had its factory at Mysore on land admeasuring about 4.4 acres, comprised in Plots 44 and 47 in Serial Nos.55 and 69 in the Industrial area of village Habal and Sr.No.22 of Metagally, Hobla Kasba. The Company employed about 149 workers. The factory closed down in February 1995 and the workers claimed that their services were illegally terminated. On 5 January 2001, an award was passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Mysore in a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Ac...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Shila @ Asawari Arun Kshirsagar and ors.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-19-2011
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No.123/2009, present respondents, who were accused nos. 2 to 4 in RCC No.566/2006, have been discharged. 3. It was a State case, filed against the accused persons under Sections 420, 406 read with Section 34 of IPC. The allegation was that the accused persons, acting together with common intention, cheated the complainants by presenting news to them that they would secure employment for them, and recovered money for that purpose. 4. Application Exh.44 filed by the accused persons for discharge was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, however, the same has been allowed by the Sessions Judge by allowing the revision application. 5. In present petition the State has challenged the said order of the Sessions Judge, allowing the application filed in the trial Court Exh.44 and discharging the present respondents. 6. The State as ...
The General Manager, Union Bank of India and Others Vs. Ajmer Dastgir ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2011
Heard Ms.Sumedha Sawant-Advocate for the revision petitioner and Mr.S.H.Yadav-Advocate for respondent. Mr.Yadav files vakalatnama, which is taken on record.This revision petition is directed as against the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur in an Execution application no.140/2011, which has arisen from the consumer complaint no.523/2007. Respondent had filed consumer complaint no.523/2007. Said complaint was allowed and, therefore, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed in the consumer complaint, original opponent/Union of Bank of India had preferred Appeal no.190/2009 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. State Commission has decided the said appeal by order dated 13/04/2010. Appeal was allowed and the impugned order passed in consumer complaint was quashed and set aside subject to payment of cost of `10,000/- payable by the appellant to the respondent. Complaint was remitted back with a direction to take the documen...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »