Mumbai Court May 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.
Rusi Hormusji Pavri and Others Vs. PerIn Faramroze Pavri and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2012
Oral Judgment : 1. The Plaintiffs have filed this suit for a declaration that immoveable property known as ‘Pavri House’ is the property of the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and they are the co-owners. The Plaintiffs have also sought declaration in respect of the suit property that the Plaintiffs and Defendants are entitled to certain share in the suit property. The Plaintiffs have applied for partition of the suit property by metes and bounds. The Plaintiffs have taken out this Notice of Motion for appointment of the Court Receiver and injunction in respect of the suit property. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this Notice of Motion are thus : 2. One Mr.Hormusji F. Pavri was the owner of the suit property. He executed the Will on 7th April, 1967 thereby he bequeathed the suit property in favour of his three sons i.e. Rusi Hormusji Pavri, Plaintiff No.1 herein, Eddie Hormusji Pavri, another son and Mr.Framroze alias Fali Hormusji Pavri, the thir...
Shri. Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid and Others Vs. the District Collector, S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2012
N.M. Jamdar, J. 1. These petitions arise from the proceedings undertaken for validation of Caste Certificates. The two points that we have framed for our consideration are common in all these petitions and thus, these petitions are grouped together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The two points that arise for consideration are: A) Whether the composition of the Scrutiny Committees constituted by the State of Maharashtra by Government Notification dated 30.07.2011 for verification of caste certificates, is in consonance with the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MadhuriPatil (I), 1994 (6) SCC 241 and Madhuri Patil (II), 1997 (5) SCC 437 and what is the legal status of the validity certificates granted by these Committees. B) Whether it is mandatory for the Scrutiny Committees to call for a field inquiry report from the Vigilance Cell constituted under the provisions of the Act and Rules, before granting validity certificates to the candidates and what is the lega...
Gokuldas Rambhau Rangari and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-04-2012
Mrs. Sadhana s. Jadhav, J. 1. The appellants herein are challenging their conviction in Sessions Case No. 19/2003 recorded by the 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, by a judgment and order dated 14.6.2006. 2. The appellants are convicted for offence punishable under Section:- (a) 147 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs.500/- each in default further rigorous imprisonment for 1 months. (b) 148 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs.500/- each in default further rigorous imprisonment for 1 months. (c) 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default further rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. (d) 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each in default further rigorous imprisonment f...
Amod Nandkishore Mehra and Others Vs. Vijanti Amod Mehra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. The Plaintiffs have filed the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for an order and decree against Defendant No.1 for restoration and handing over to the Plaintiffs the quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property bearing CTS No. 69/21 situated at L.B.S.Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mehra Estate, Mumbai 400 079. The Plaintiffs have taken out this Notice of Motion for appointment of the Court Receiver in respect of the suit property with all powers under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 including the power to take forcible physical possession of the suit property from Defendant No.1 with the help of police, to handover possession of the suit property to the Plaintiffs and has also applied for injunction against the Defendant No.1, his servants and/or agents in respect of the suit property . 2. Some of the relevant facts which emerge from the pleadings and documents filed by the parties are thus : (a). Plaintiff No.1 is brothe...
Bharat Forge Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export) Nhav ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2012
P.R. Chandrasekharan: The appeals and miscellaneous application are directed against order-in-original No. 28/07-08 dated 31/08/2007 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Nhava Sheva. 2. The facts arising for consideration in this case are as follows. The main appellant M/s Bharat Forge Ltd., Pune, who is a manufacturer of automobile parts, filed 137 Drawback Shipping Bills during the period 6-3-03 to 15-5-03 for export of goods described as,- (1) alloy steel forging, machined, manufactured through forging process; and (2) non-alloy steel forging, machined and manufactured through forging process, claiming drawback on these goods under sub-serial Nos.73.30 and 73.29 of the drawback schedule at the rates specified under notification No.33/02-Cus (NT) dated 29/05/2002 as amended and 26/2003 (Cus) (NT) dated 01/04/2003 under claim for all-industry rate of drawback under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962. Detailed enquiries conducted with the exp...
The Tata Co.'s Employees Union Vs. the Tata Power Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT P.B. MAJMUDAR J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 16th July 2008 in writ petition No.2500 of 2005. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent Company and set aside the orders which were impugned before the learned Single Judge viz. The orders dated 28th July 2000 and 6th July 2005. The learned Single Judge has held that the respondent Company is not liable to contribute any amount towards provident fund contribution on the basis of agreement dated 10th May 1995. A memorandum of settlement was entered into between the appellants and respondents on 10th May 1995 by which the Company has agreed to pay Rs.1200/- p.m. towards food allowance. As per the said agreement, it is agreed by both the parties that with effect from 1st June 1995 food allowance of Rs.900/- per month (through salary) is to be paid in a division where canteen exists. In addition, coupons w...
Jagdish Balaram Narangikar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2012
B.R. Gavai, J. 1. The appellant-accused has approached this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29th January, 2004 in Sessions Case No. 95/2003 thereby convicting the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 read with 376(2) (f) r/w Section 511 of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer two years R.I. and life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default to suffer R.I. For two years. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as under: That the families of the PW-1 Complainant Asha and the accused were residing in the neighborhood. It is the prosecution case that on 8th September, 2002 at around 10.00 a.m. when the husband of the Complainant had gone for work, the Complainant was standing at the door of her house along with two daughters namely Ridhi and Aditi. It is the prosecution case that when she was standing with her two daughters, the accused came there and told her that he will take her daughter Ridhi for a round and come back. It is...
Sadashivrao Mandalik Kagal Taluka Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2012
Chief Justice 1. These petitions have been placed before us to decide reference made by learned Judge of this Court (Coram : G.S.Godbole, J.) in respect of the provision relating to hearing of appeals by the by the Secretary in the Co-operation Department of State of Maharashtra under section 152 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (the MCS Act). 2. The petitions filed before the learned Judge arose from orders passed by the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) and Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies in proceedings under Section 11 read with Section 25A of the MCS Act. All the petitioners had filed statutory appeals under section 152 of the MCS Act before the State Government. The Secretary issued notices to the petitioners to appear before him in respect of hearing of the appeals. This action of the Secretary was questioned in the petitions. During the hearing of the petitions before the learned Judge (Coram : G.S.Godbole, J.), reliance was placed on judgment of another ...
Master Arshad Khalid Jamal Vs. State of Maharashtra, (Through the Prin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2012
S.S. SHINDE, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. With the consent of parties heard finally. 2. This writ petition is filed seeking directions to the respondent authorities for correction in the petitioner's first name in his school leaving certificate, passing certificate, mark sheet etc. 3. The petitioner who is minor has filed this writ petition through his father, guardian and next friend. The petitioner herein was a student of 4th respondent school in Standard X in the year 2009-10. He passed SSC Examination in March 2010. When he was studying in the 4th respondent school, there was an error in the spelling of his first name which was written as "JAMAL ASHAAD". His correct name is "JAMAL ARSHAD". When he noticed mistake, he approached the headmistress of the 4th respondent school requesting her for correction of the school record. In turn, the petitioner was advised by the headmistress to get his name corrected by publishing the corrected name in the...
Arjun Ganpat Sandbhor Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2012
Davare, J. 1. Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties. 2. The present appeal filed by the appellant-original accused no.5 takes exception to the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by way of judgment and order dated 5th April, 2010 recorded by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Malegaon, Dist. Nashik in Sessions Case No. 49/2001 when he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Section 396 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer further R.I. for nine months, for committing the offence punishable under Section 363 r/w Section 34 of IPC and he was also sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for committing offence punishable under Section 396 of IPC respectively. 3. Briefly stated the prosecution case can be summarized as under:- According to prosecution the dacoity was committed on 5th February, 2001 at Manmad-Malegaon Road by the applicant and oth...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »