Mumbai Court November 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.
Fish Eye Network Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and An ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2012
P.C. Heard. The learned counsel for original complainant - Mr Vinod Jain absent. The applicants are accused Nos.1 and 3 in C.C. No.2539/SW/2005 pending on the file of the learned M.M., 32nd Court, Bandra, Mumbai in which process was issued for offence under sections 292, 293 r/w section 34 and 120-B of IPC by the learned M.M. On 7th July 2005. 2. The grievance of the complainant was, exhibition of posters of a film 'ROG' more or less lean like blue film. 3. The learned counsel for applicants has invited my attention to the letter dated 6th April 2005 addressed to the Inspector of Police, Santacruz Police Station in respect of very complaint in which it was informed that the Publicity Screening Committee of the Association was carrying the tremendous job entrusted to it for more than a decade by way of scrutinizing all the publicity materials of pictures of all its members thoroughly and honestly keeping in mind to protect the social responsibility to ensure that there is no vulgarity a...
NitIn Shankar Deshpande Vs. the Registrar General and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2012
CHIEF JUSTICE In this petition, purporting to be public interest litigation, the petitioner claiming to be a public spirited citizen has challenged the allotment of plots admeasuring 1400 sq.mts. and 1500 sq.mts. by the State of Maharashtra to two cooperative housing societies-respondent Nos.3 and 4 respectively. The petitioner has also prayed for demolition of the existing structures constructed by the above respondents and has prayed for a direction to the State of Maharashtra to restore the original reservation granted in respect of the above plots. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the State of Maharashtra to take action against the State Government officers who had changed the reservation. 2. Before setting out the grounds of challenge, it is necessary to note that the allotment of land admeasuring 1400 sq. ms. was made in favour of respondent No.3 Nyaysagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Nyaysagar Society) on 22 June 2004. Const...
Tushar Arvind Jamsandekar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2012
P.C. Heard Mr.Pasbola, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms.R.M.Gadhvi, learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is the accused in C.R.No.60 of 2011 registered with Santacruz Police Station. The said C.R. is in respect of offences punishable under sections 143 IPC, 144 IPC, 147 IPC, 148 IPC, 149 IPC, 302 IPC, 307 IPC read with section 120-B of the IPC, as also offences punishable under the Arms Act. 3. There are totally seven accused in this case. Five of them have already been released on bail. 4. It appears that there was some dispute between one Umesh Singh and the builders i.e. Sanjay Construction Company, who were doing construction in accordance with a project under the SRA Scheme. It seems that the reason for the dispute between them and Umesh Singh was that Umesh Singh was opposing the said redevelopment scheme. Umesh Singh was carrying out certain construction by engaging one Rajkumar Dubey, the construction contractor who is the First Informant in the matter. It appear...
M/S. Tien Yuan India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central Excise ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2012
M.S. Sanklecha, J. These 12 appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act), challenges the common order dated 13.03.2012 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) disposing of the 12 appeals filed by the appellant before the Tribunal. 2 The following identical questions have been formulated in all the 12 appeals for the consideration of this court: (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in remanding the proceedings to the Original Authority for verification of requirement of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules and fulfillment of conditions mentioned in the Notification No. 5/2006 dated 14.03.2006 and not deciding the appeals of the Appellants on merits? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellants are entitled to refund of unutilized credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? (c) Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the Appellant did not fulfill c...
Reliance Communications Limited and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2012
S.J. Vazifdar, J. Petitioner No.2 is an officer and Constituted Attorney of petitioner No.1. The reference in this judgment to the petitioner will be to petitioner No.1. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the Directorate of Industries and Joint Director of Industries. 2. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash a report dated 5th January, 2011, prepared by an expert committee and an order dated 4th March, 2011, passed by respondent No.3, cancelling a registration certificate issued in its favour. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from acting in furtherance of the said report and order. 3. Respondent No.1 - Government of Maharashtra, with a view to encourage setting up IT units and infrastructure in the State from time to time announced the Maharashtra IT/ITES Policy. We are concerned in this writ petition with the Policy for the year 2009. 4A. Clause 3 of the Policy for the year 2009 enumerated the initiatives enabling creation of long term...
Mrs. Tarabai Raghunath Sankhe Vs. Smt. Sheetal Ravindra Sankhe and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2012
Oral Judgment: This petition questions the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Revision Application No.7 of 2007 whereby he maintained the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, II Court, Palghar, allowing application of Respondent No.1 for return of property, on her executing a bond of Rs.1,56,000/- with direction not to dispose of the said property till the final disposal of the case and to produce the property before Court as and when directed by trial Court. 2. The trial of offence punishable under Section 498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, (C.R.No.I-135 of 2008), is still pending. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate may get influenced by the observations in the order dated 7th March, 2009, passed below Exh.1 in M.A. No.199 of 2008 and M.A.201 of 2008, by the learned J.M.F.C. as also in the Revision Application No.7 of 2009, by the learned Additional Sessions...
H.K. Taneja and Others Vs. BipIn Ganatra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2012
The suit is filed by the Trustees of a Trust dated 28th June 1994. The Trustees claim as the owners of the suit Flat No.7C, Woodland Co-operative Hsng. Society Ltd., 67 Peddar Road, Mumbai- 400026. The owner of the suit flat who created the trust bequeathed to the said trust the said property under his Will dated 5th July 1997. The Will has been probated. The trustees are, therefore, the legal owners of the suit flat. The Will recites that the deceased who was the owner of the flat resided in the flat with his wife, Urmila Shah. The deceased created a life interest in favour of his wife. She was to enjoy all the facilities in the flat including the movables. She was not to sell, transfer, alienate, lease, rent or create any third party rights in favour of any person. The Will specifically forbids her from inducting any person in the suit flat and 4 car parking places and from tenanting or sub-tenanting or licensing the said premises. The Will shows that the wife has been well provided ...
Nisar @ Nigro Bashir Ahmed Khan Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Externee and the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State. Forthwith taken up for final disposal. 2. This Writ Petition takes an exception to the order of externment bearing No.145/C/43 dated 25th May, 2012, under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, passed by the Respondent No.1 and which is confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 17th August, 2012. 3. The Petitioner is normally residing at the address given in the cause tile. It is the case of the Petitioner that on or about 23rd February, 2012, a show cause notice came to be issued under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Deonar Division, Mumbai proposing the externment of the Petitioner for two years from Bombay City, Suburban, New Bombay, Thane and Raigad Districts for the offences mentioned in the said show cause notice. 4. The Petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer and submitted his...
Bapu @ Samadhan Suryabhan Nikam Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2012
Oral Judgment: This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, by the learned Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Niphad, District: Nashik, and the sentences of rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 300/- or in default simple imprisonment for two months, rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 400/- or in default simple imprisonment for three months and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 500/- or in default simple imprisonment for six months, imposed on the three counts, respectively, on conclusion of Sessions Case No.29 of 2006, before him. 2. The facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:- On 24th October, 2005, victim Abhinay a boy, 7 years old, studying in III Std. had gone to tuition classes of Deo Sir. Since he did not return at proper time, the parents enquired and found that Shri. Deo Sir had not conducted tuition...
Ved Prakash Gupta Vs. Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2012
R.G. Ketkar, J. Rule. With the consent of counsel, the Rule is made returnable forthwith. Counsel for the Respondents waive service. By consent, the Petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the Petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the First Respondent-Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority ("MHADA") to declare the Second and Third Respondents as ineligible for allotment of a flat in Scheme Code No.238 of MHADA Lottery Scheme 2010 and to process the wait list of the eligible candidates in a time bound manner. 3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the Petition, briefly stated, are as follows: The Petitioner and the Second and Third Respondents applied for allotment of a flat in a housing scheme of MHADA, viz.,Scheme No.238. The Petitioner was declared to be eligible for allotment of a flat and his name appeared at Sr.No.6 in the wait ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »