Mumbai Court August 2012 Judgments
ishwar S/O Vithalrao Mohite Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the S ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner, is a Police Patil and runs a retail kerosene shop at village Ghodki, Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad since the year 1997. 3. The respondent no. 3 issued show cause notice to the petitioner calling explanation from the petitioner as to why the kerosene dealership should not be cancelled as he was appointed as Police Patil. The said notice was issued relying on the Govt. Resolution dated 13/10/2006. The respondent no. 3 thereafter cancelled the kerosene retail licence of the petitioner on the count that petitioner being a Police Patil is a Govt. servant and not entitled for licence of kerosene retail shop. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by order of respondent no. 3 filed Appeal before the Commissioner [Supply]. The Commissioner [Supply] dismissed the said Appeal. The petitioner preferred Revision before the Honble Ministe...
Tag this Judgment!Cotmac Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Mohammad Muzaffar and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
P.N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member 1. Both these appeals are filed against the judgement and award dated 24/06/2009 passed by Addl. District Forum, Pune in consumer complaint No.321/2006. By allowing complaint partly, opponent has been directed to pay Rs. 2,82,060/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e. from 21/08/1999 till realization of the entire amount. Complainant was further directed to deliver defective Aqua Gas Generator Model AG 2000 to the opponent after getting the above mentioned cost within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Opponent was further directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of the proceeding. Aggrieved by this order, org. opponent has filed appeal No.1078/2009 and org. complainant has filed appeal No.103/2011 for enhancement. 2. Since, both these appeals are arising from one and same order, we are disposing of these two appeals by this common order. 3.The facts to the extent material may be sta...
Tag this Judgment!Chandan Vagurmekar S/O. Shiva Vagurmekar Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellant ('the accused' for short) takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 29th April, 2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji in Sessions Case No.27/2009, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months. The accused has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. The fine amount is ordered to be paid to the victim as compensation, in the event the same is paid by the accused. 3. Briefly, the prosecution case leading to filing of the present appeal is, as under : On 22.3.2008, at around 10.30 p.m., PW.5 Deepak Redkar, along with his brother PW.3 Dinesh Redkar had gone for celeb...
Tag this Judgment!Sadashiv D. Naik Vs. Umesh Krishna Sawanth
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
This is plaintiff's Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit no. 23/1999 against the respondent (defendant) for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, his agents, servants, etc. from interfering with and doing any illegal construction of house in the suit paddy field and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to fill the trenches and to demolish any construction done in the suit paddy field during the pendency of the suit and to restore the land to its original condition. 3. It was alleged by the plaintiff that he is a cotenant in possession of the suit paddy field known as Karpan Moli bearing survey no. 307/10 situated in the village of Arambol at Varcha Wada and his name is recorded in the tenant's column of Form No. I and XIV as co-tenant. By virtue of Fifth Amendment to the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (Agricultural tenancy Act), he became the deemed purchaser of the suit paddy field along with other co-tenants. Since the ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Kabasha Chemdye Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2012
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member 1. M/s.Kabasha Chemdye Pvt.Ltd. had filed consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as complainant) against the National Insurance Co. Ltd. (herein after referred to as opponent) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opponent. Facts leading to this complaint can be summarized as under:- 2. The complainant company had taken an insurance policy no.270707/2001/31/542 for their factory along with plant and machinery for Rs.82,00,000/-. The policy was valid from 09/03/2001 to 08/03/2002. On 18/05/2001 approximately around 2.00 to 3.00 a.m. there was an accidental fire in the factory premises. The complainant informed to the opponent vide its letter dated 18/05/2001 about the incidence of fire and approximate loss of Rs.60,00,000/-. The complainant submitted the claim of Rs.48,29,000/- to the opponent/Insurance Company on 14/06/2001 along with necessary documents in support of the claim. 3. Opponent appointed M/...
Tag this Judgment!Smt.Shantabai Baban Muluk and Another Vs. Smt.Asha Janardhan Chaskar a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
Oral Order:- 1] Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. 2] By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are residing in Village Chas (kaman) Taluka Khed, Dist. Pune, impugn the order passed by the State Government and particularly the Minister of the Department of Prohibition and Excise, dated 7th march 2012. 3] By the order under challenge, the Minister of Prohibition and Excise, Government of Maharashtra has allowed a Revision application which has been preferred by the first respondent before this Court. That revision application under section 138 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (Act for short) challenges the order passed by the Commissioner of State Excise, respondent No.4, before me dated 3rd December 2009 and the order passed by the Collector, Pune dated 21st March 2009. 4] The facts which are necessary to appreciate the challenge to the impugned Revisional order are that the first respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Prism Cement Limited, (Formerly Known as H and R Johnson (India) Limit ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. This writ petition is filed to challenge the three trade circulars issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai ('Commissioner' for short) on 27th May 2002, 20th July 2002 and 8th February 2007 respectively and various notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax in the month of February 2009 under Section 38 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (BST Act for short) for revising the assessments made for Assessment Years 2002-2003 to 2004-2005. While admitting the above writ petition on 25th September 2009, further proceedings under the impugned notices have been stayed by this Court. 2. By the aforesaid three trade circulars, the Commissioner has informed the trade that under Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('CST Act' for short) as amended by Finance Act 2002 with effect from 11th May 2002, the State Governments are empowered to grant exemption only in respect of inter-State sales to the registered dealers or to the Government covered under...
Tag this Judgment!Prism Cement Limited, (Formerly Known as H and R Johnson (India) Limit ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. This writ petition is filed to challenge the three trade circulars issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai ('Commissioner' for short) on 27th May 2002, 20th July 2002 and 8th February 2007 respectively and various notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax in the month of February 2009 under Section 38 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (BST Act for short) for revising the assessments made for Assessment Years 2002-2003 to 2004-2005. While admitting the above writ petition on 25th September 2009, further proceedings under the impugned notices have been stayed by this Court. 2. By the aforesaid three trade circulars, the Commissioner has informed the trade that under Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('CST Act' for short) as amended by Finance Act 2002 with effect from 11th May 2002, the State Governments are empowered to grant exemption only in respect of inter-State sales to the registered dealers or to the Government covered under...
Tag this Judgment!Balasaheb Bhimsen Patil and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
Smt. Sadhana S.Jadhav, J. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.217 of 1992 and the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.211 of 1992 stand convicted in Sessions Case No.164 of 1990 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 of Indian penal Code. For offences punishable under Sections 148 and 149 of IPC, they are sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three years and for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149, they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The original accused Nos.1 to 3 are directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the wife of the deceased Balasaheb and the original accused Nos.4 to 8 are directed to pay compensation of Rs.500/-each to her by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangli vide judgment and order dated 20th February, 1992. 2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants herein preferred the present Appeals. The appellants were enlarged on bail by an order dated 20th April, 1992....
Tag this Judgment!Omprakash S/O Gyarsilal Agrawal Vs. Mahadeo S/O Bajirao Mamilwar and O ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-30-2012
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission as a notice of final disposal was issued to the respondents by an order dated 16.11.2011 and the respondents are duly served with the notice. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment passed by the District Judge-10, Nagpur, on 7.3.2011, dismissing the appeal on the ground that the same was not tenable. 3. The petitioner is the defendant-landlord. A suit was filed by the respondents-tenants for permanent injunction. An application was filed by the respondents for permission to repair the premises in question. The trial court appointed the Commissioner and also granted permission to the respondents to repair the house premises owned by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said order in Misc. Civil Appeal No.335/2010. Since there was some delay in filing the appeal, an application was filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »