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.
M/S. Shreeyog Constructions Through Its Partners and Others Vs. Prasad ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2011
1. These four appeals stand disposed of by this common order since they involve identical facts and common question of law. 2. Mr. Prasad Madhukar Deo and Mrs. Kalpana Prasad Deo are the Complainants in Consumer Complaint No.317 of 2005. Mr. Shriram Kisan Bhatambrekar is the Complainant in Consumer Complaint No.57 of 2006. Mr. Chandrakant N. Bawne is the Complainant in Consumer Complaint No.296 of 2007. Suffice to say that the Complainant Mr. Shriram Kisan Bhatambrekar, was occupying tenanted premises in house property bearing No.117, Kasba Peth, Pune; while the Complainants from other two consumer complaints were occupying tenanted premises in house property bearing No.116, Kasba Peth, Pune. Both these adjoining properties were given for development to the Appellant/original Opponent, namely M/s. Shreeyog Constructions, a partnership firm, represented by its partners Mr. Satish Kashinath Wadke and Mr. Ravindra Pandurang Wadke (hereinafter referred to as the builder). The builder en...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramesh Ramchandra Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2011
1. Aggrieved by the acquittal granted by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag, in Sessions Case No.177 of 1999, the prosecution i.e. the State of Maharashtra has filed the instant appeal challenging the said judgment and order dated 04-04-1991 of the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag. 2. The respondent herein, who is the accused, was charged for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the said 'Act'), for which offence he has been acquitted by the aforesaid judgment of the Trial Court. 3. The prosecution story in brief, can be stated thus : On 03-10-1987, the Matheran Police Station received an information that the respondent-accused was selling charas on the way at Bazar Peth in front of Satya Vijay Hotel. On receiving such information, two panchas were called by the police and have proceeded to the aforesaid place. It is further the prosecution story that when they reached t...
Anwar @ Arvind Ramkrishna Mudbhatkal Vs. Shehnaz Sani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2011
1. These two appeals are filed by the respective appellants so as to challenge the judgment and decree dated 1st June, 2009 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court No.2, Mumbai, (hereinafter referred to as "Family Court"), in Petition No.B-153 of 2008. These two appeals can therefore be conveniently disposed of by a common judgement. Arvind Anwar @ Arvind Ramkrishna Mudbhatkal shall hereinafter be referred to as "husband" and Shehnaz Sani shall hereinafter be referred to as "wife". 2. The wife had filed petition for divorce and other reliefs in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, being M.J.Petition No.A-1945 of 1992. The said petition was decided by the learned Judge of the Family Court by judgment and order dated 30th September, 2005. 3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 30th September, 2005, the wife filed Family Court Appeal No.38 of 2006 in this Court. In the course of hearing of the said Family Court Appeal No.38 of 2006, it was brought to the notice of...
Smt. Shehnaz Arvind Mudbhatkal Vs. Dr. Arvind Ramkrishna Mudbhatkal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2011
1. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 30th September, 2005 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mumbai, in M.J.Petition No.A-1945 of 1992 the appellant Smt. Shehnaz A. Mudbhatkal original Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as said wife) has filed this appeal against Respondent Dr. Arvind Mudbhatkal original Respondent (hereinafter referred to as said husband). 2. The wife filed the aforesaid petition No. A-1945 of 1992 in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai on or about 5th December, 1992 to seek following reliefs. (a) That the marriage between the wife and the husband be dissolved by decree of divorce under Section 13(i) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (For short HMA). (b) The husband be directed to pay to wife a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month by way of permanent alimony and further Rs.5,000/- for one daughter Shahzia and Rs.5,000/- for another daughter by name Sonia by way of permanent maintenance. (c) Custody of the daughters Shahzia and Sonia be given to t...
Vibgyor High School Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2011
1. This common judgment will dispose of both the petitions together, as common questions arise for consideration therein. The former petition is filed by Vibgyor High School. The second petition is filed by Rustom Kerawalla Foundation for the same reliefs. 2. By the former petition, viz., Writ Petition No.1919 of 2009, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner- school, which claims to be a minority private unaided school engaged in running a primary and secondary school under affiliation from Council for Indian Certificate of Secondary Examination (ICSE), International General Certificate of Secondary Education, University of Cambridge, U.K. (IGCSE) and offering National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) Curriculum, has taken exception to the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Education, respondent No. 2, dated 3rd July, 2009 and 4th September, 2009. Further, the petitioner-school prays for consequential relief of restraining respondents No. 1 and 2 by themse...
Vilas Shankar Bhilare Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2011
JUDGMENT (PER M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.) :- 1. The appellant feels aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 7th May, 2004 passed by the 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad. The appellant has been convicted by the learned trial Judge for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of IPC and has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.4000/-, in default, to undergo SI for four months. It was further directed that an amount of Rs.3000/- be given to the legal representative of the deceased Anil Bhilare from the fine amount recovered from the appellant. 2. The appellant was resident of Kalamboshi wadi, Taluka Pali, District Raigad. The appellant was earlier prosecuted for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of IPC for allegedly having committed murder of his wife suspecting that she had illicit relations with the deceased Anil Bhilare. In the present appeal, the appellant is accused of having committed murder of said Anil Bhilare (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased...
Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2011
Judgment : ( Per: A.H.Joshi, J.) 1. Heard Shri V. D. Hon, learned Advocate holding for Shri U. N. Tripathi, Advocate for the Petitioner, Shri V. D. Godbharle, learned A. P. P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and Shri Hemant Surve, learned Advocate, for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5-intervenors. 2. Case proceeds in following admitted background:- (1) The petitioner is the son of Tanaji Bhoite-the detenu. Shri Tanaji Keshavrao Bhoite was detained in furtherence to the order for detention passed by the Collector, Jalgaon, on 10.1.2011, passed under Section 3 (2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 ("The MPDA Act" for brevity). (2) Soon after the order was passed, Tanaji was arrested and sent for detention in the prison. The detention order, accompanied by grounds and documents relied upon, was served on the petitioner. (3) The English translation of the order of detention was served on the petitioner. ...
Rajkumar Sampatraoji Kuthe, Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2011
1. Mr. Khapre, learned counsel for the appellant, states that the notice of this Letters Patent Appeal has been meant to be served on respondent no.5. However, returned unserved by the bailiff on the ground that there was no male member of the family when the bailiff went to the house to serve the notice. Mr. Khapre, learned counsel for the appellant, further refers to the affidavit of the appellant's relative, who was accompanied with the bailiff. In the said affidavit, it is stated that the bailiff gave a pre-intimation to the respondent no.5 that he intends to serve a notice of the Letters Patent Appeal on respondent no.5. As a result of this intimation, when the bailiff reached the house of respondent no.5, there was no adult male member present and the only person present was the wife of respondent no.5. The bailiff, therefore, made an endorsement to that effect and returned the notice unserved. It appears that this notice 3 has been returned unserved because the bailiff apparentl...
Anwar at Arvind Ramkrishna Vs. Shehnaz Sani.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2011
JUDGMENT (PER R.Y.GANOO, J): 1. These two appeals are filed by the respective appellants so as to challenge the judgment and decree dated 1st June, 2009 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court No.2, Mumbai, (hereinafter referred to as "Family Court"), in Petition No.B-153 of 2008. These two appeals can therefore be conveniently disposed of by a common judgement. Arvind Anwar @ Arvind Ramkrishna Mudbhatkal shall hereinafter be referred to as "husband" and Shehnaz Sani shall hereinafter be referred to as "wife". 2. The wife had filed petition for divorce and other reliefs in the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, being M.J.Petition No.A-1945 of 1992. The said petition was decided by the learned Judge of the Family Court by judgment and order dated 30th September, 2005. 3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 30th September, 2005, the wife filed Family Court Appeal No.38 of 2006 in this Court. In the course of hearing of the said Family Court Appeal No.38 of 2006, it...
Ms. Radio Restaurant Vs. Jabbir Gulam Rasool Jamal and anr
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2011
1. As agreed by both the parties and after hearing, this Court by order dated 12 September 2006, has referred all the disputes and differences to the sole Arbitrator. The matter is pending before the learned Arbitral Tribunal since then. 2. This Court, in the Suit as a Notice of Motion was taken out by the Plaintiffs for appointment of Receiver, after considering the merits, by the same order, appointed the Court Receiver in the following terms. "3. Further the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay shall stand appointed in respect of the suit business referred to in Suit No. 1668 of 2006 at Exhibit "A". The Court Receiver shall appoint the Defendant as his agent to run the said business on payment of royalty but without security. The Court Receiver shall fix the royalty within a period of eight weeks from today. 4. The parties have agreed to make any further applications for ad-interim reliefs under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the learned Arbitrator. 5....
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »