Mumbai Court October 2012 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.
Gazi SaduddIn @ Pappu S/O. Gazi Zaheer and Others Vs. the State of Mah ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-23-2012
1. Heard Adv. Mr. H.F. Pawar, holding for Adv. Mr. A.H. Kapadia, for the appellants, and learned APP Mr. D.V. Tele for the respondent. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants i.e. original accused nos.1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as per their original status i.e. 'accused'). It appears that the accused nos.1 to 3 faced the trial along with other co-accused in Sessions Case No. 12/2004. However, learned IVth Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, convicted accused nos.1 to 3 i.e. appellants herein, for the offence punishable under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each, and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months, and they were also convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 of IPC, and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of...
John Philip Pereira Vs. State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-23-2012
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. This writ petition is filed as a public interest litigation. Respondents No.2 to 7 are the Air Port Authority of India, Union Ministry for Civil Aviation, the Mormugao Planning and Development Authority, the Flag Officer Commanding of Goa Naval Area, the Collector, South Goa, Margao and the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Respondent Nos.8(a) to 8(s) and (s-1) to (s-37) are the owners of the property which is the subject-matter of this petition. Respondent Nos.9 and 10 are Saroj Real Estate Developers and one Aniruddh Mehta who carries on business in the firm name and style of M/s. Umya Builder and Developers as the sole proprietor thereof. 2. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari, quashing a notification dated 16th March, 2011 under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 withdrawing from acquisition the land which is the subject-matter of this petition and an order quashing the entire decision making process taken on 14th February, 2011 and 9th March...
The National Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs. Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-2012
P.C.: By consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the revision is taken up for final hearing. 2.Heard Mr. Bharucha and Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned senior counsel for the respective parties. 3. By the present revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioner challenges the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 15th September, 2008, passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay in Appeal No.88 of 2007 in T.E.R. Suit No.428/451/2001. By the said judgment and decree, the petitioner's appeal was dismissed and the order passed by the learned Trial Judge in T.E.and R. Suit No.428/451/2001 dated 22nd November, 2006, is confirmed and the petitioner was directed to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondent. 4. The brief facts giving rise to the present revision are as follows: The respondent is a company and is the owner of the suit plot of land admea...
Gangaram S/O Krishnaji Hazare and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra Thro ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-22-2012
Oral Judgment: All these four appeals are arising from the common judgment and award dated 28.2.1997 passed in L.A.C. No.97/1991 and 98/1991. 2] Lands bearing survey no.104 admeasuring 6.7 H.R. and survey no.114 owned by Gangaram and Bhaurao, respectively, were compulsorily acquired for construction of the residential quarters for the officers of the Western Coalfields, Ghughus, Chandrapur, vide notification dated 1.10.1987. The Special Land Acquisition Officer declared award on 20.12.1990. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, both the land owners sought references. The learned Reference Court, after considering the evidence brought on record held that the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and therefore fixed the market value of the land @ Rs.38,000/- P.H. 3] Western Coalfields Limited - acquiring body, has preferred two separate appeals and the land owners dissatisfied with the qua...
The National Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs. Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-2012
P.C.: By consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the revision is taken up for final hearing. 2. Heard Mr. Bharucha and Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned senior counsel for the respective parties. 3. By the present revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioner challenges the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 15th September, 2008, passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay in Appeal No.88 of 2007 in T.E.R. Suit No.428/451/2001. By the said judgment and decree, the petitioner's appeal was dismissed and the order passed by the learned Trial Judge in T.E.and R. Suit No.428/451/2001 dated 22nd November, 2006, is confirmed and the petitioner was directed to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondent. 4. The brief facts giving rise to the present revision are as follows: The respondent is a company and is the owner of the suit plot of land adme...
Dr. Pradipchandra Mohanlal Gandhi and Another Vs. Maharashtra Medical ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-2012
P.C. On the earlier occasion this matter was before me and at that stage, when my attention was invited to Section 23(2) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, it was noticed that the Chapter VII entitled Offences and Penalties and subsection (2) of Section 23 requires that the name of the registered medical practitioner shall be reported by the appropriate authority to the State Medical Council concerned for taking necessary action, including suspension of the registration if the charges are framed by the court and till the case is disposed of and on conviction for removal of his name from the register of the Council for a period of five years for the first offence and permanently for the subsequent office. 2. This sub-section (2) of Section 23 was substituted to read as above. However, it appears that the Maharashtra Medical Council is understanding this provision to mean that it will have to hold an enquiry before a suspen...
Rock Castle Property Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-2012
Oral Judgment: (J.P. Devadhar, J.) Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Taken up for hearing and final disposal by consent of both the parties. 2. This writ petition is filed to challenge the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 19th January 2012. 3. The assessment year involved herein is AY 2005-2006. The impugned notice for re-opening of the assessment is issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 4. The reasons recorded for re-opening the assessment, reads thus : "Return of income filed on 29/10/2005 while declaring total income of Rs.88,900/- assessment was completed u/s.143(3) on 27/8/2007 at Rs.158750. On perusal of assessment record, I have found that during the course of assessment proceeding, AO has called the copy of sales agreement, market value determined for the payments of stamp duty. The assessee has claimed before the AOI that provisions of section 50-C is not applicable to its case, being confirming party...
Hemant Karmali and Others Vs. State Through P.i. and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-22-2012
F.M. Reis, J. Heard Shri S.G. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for respondent nos.1 and 3 and Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. 3. The above petitions are taken up together for hearing as the Counsel appearing for the respective parties point out that the points involved in all the petitions are common and are in connection with the same complaint lodged by the respondent no.2. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 lodged a complaint before the respondent no.1 jointly against all the petitioners in the above petitions on 8/02/2006 stating inter alia that they are Mining Lessees of a mine known as Cuddegalivoril Soddo and that the petitioners had hatched a conspiracy and fraudulently obtained an...
Nafies Sultana W/O Late Abdul Karim Farooqi and Others Vs. MazruddIn A ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-22-2012
Oral Judgment: This Writ Petition challenges order dated 19.12.2007, passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kaij, District-Beed at Exhibits 163 and 193, in Regular Civil Suit No.83 of 1971. By this order, the learned Judge refused to implead the petitioners to the pending suit. Facts leading to this applications, on which the impugned order was passed, in short can be narrated as under: 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 9 filed this suit against respondent Nos.10 to 23 for possession of 3 Gunthas land alleging that they are owners of the land and respondent Nos.10 to 23 have encroached on it. Respondent Nos.1 to 9 are legal representatives of one Mazruddin, who had originally filed the suit prior to his death. Mazruddin, admittedly, had brother whose name was Abdul Karim. When the suit was filed Abdul Karim was alive and yet Mazruddin avoided making him party to the suit. He asserted that he is owner of the suit land etc. As against this, respondent Nos.10 to 23 also filed cross suit, ...
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Raju Chintaman Sonawane and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-20-2012
Oral Order: 1] Both proceedings are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to challenge some orders passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No.8/2006. In the first proceeding, the orders passed on Exh.407 and 464 are challenged and in the second proceeding, the order passed on Exh.342 is challenged. These applications were filed by the widow of the deceased. She is respondent no.2 in this proceeding. Both sides are heard. Copies of some documents which include copies of orders passed by this Court in previous proceedings were also produced for the perusal of this Court. 2] The application at Exh.407 was filed to seek reliefs of directions to prosecution, the investigating agency and to mobile phone company and landline telephone company to produce some record like Call Details, Record of conversation etc. Particulars like the numbers of SIM cards and landline numbers were given by the applicant. It is the case of the widow of the deceased that the persons against whom...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »