Mumbai Court September 2012 Judgments
Sewakdas Tukaram Jumde Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard rival arguments on this criminal appeal preferred by appellant/original accused challenging the judgment and order dated 07.05.2003, by which the appellant/original accused was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for one month. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for three months. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by said impugned judgment and order original accused preferred this appeal. 2. During the pendency of the appeal original appellant/accused died on 14.11.2010 and his widow proceeded further with the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Gulbanu Hassanali Rupani and Another Vs. the Union of India, Thro ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioners, essentially takes exception to the notice issued by the Intelligence Officer dated 12.9.1994, freezing and seizure of residential flat bearing No.602 on the 6th floor, Pearl Harbour, Plot No.91, Tulsiwadi, Mazgaon, Mumbai-400010 allegedly owned by and belonging to petitioner No.1 as a consequence of detention order dated 4.2.1994 against her son Feroze Rupani. The petition also challenges the order passed by the Competent Authority, NDPS, Mumbai dated 19.6.1996 under section 68I and dated 26.9.1997 in No.CA/BOM/NDPS/1/94 under section 68K of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. 2. The Petition also challenges the order dated 19.6.1996 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi in FPA No.NDPS-20/BOM/1996. Further, the petitioners pray for setting aside the orders passed by this Court in two Criminal Writ Petitions filed by the petit...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra, Through Special Land Acquisition Officer and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
Oral Judgment: This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 13.8.1998 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati in Land Acquisition Case No.115/1987. 2] The lands and residential structures of village Warud Bagji in Amravati District were compulsorily acquired for Upper Wardha Irrigation Project. Total plot area 226.50 sq meter having construction admeasuring 114.02 sq. meter owned by the respondent was acquired and for that the Reference Court granted compensation @ Rs.500/- per sq. meter for the constructed portion and Rs.25/- per sq. meter for the open plot. Thus total compensation awarded to the respondent comes to Rs.59,822/-. This judgment and award is under challenge in this appeal. 3] The land owner mainly relied on the evidence of expert- witness and C.S.R. Rates of 1990. Taking C.S.R. Rate 1990 as base, the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation. Learned A G P Mr. Yengal contended that the evidence relied upon is wholly insufficient...
Tag this Judgment!Larsen and Toubro Ltd and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
On this writ petition on 25th November 2011, notice was issued for final disposal of the writ petition at the stage of admission. Hence, Rule. The respondents waive service. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith. 2} By this writ petition under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside an order dated 16th July 2011 passed by the respondent No.2. 3} It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at L and T House, Ballard Estate, P.O.Box No.279, Mumbai 400 001 and is engaged in the business inter alia of construction, infrastructure development and real estate. The petitioner No.2 is a company registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. 4} The petitioner No.2 is wholly owned s...
Tag this Judgment!Futuristics Offshore Services and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Oil and Natural G ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
Oral Judgment: This proceeding has been initiated under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. 2. In pursuance of an arbitration agreement contained in a contract dated 3 July 2001 for the hiring for operations and maintenance, and management of vessels owned by ONGC, an arbitral Tribunal was constituted. The arbitral Tribunal consisted of Mr. Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty, Mr. Justice Ajit Sengupta and Mr. Justice A.M. Ahmadi who was the presiding arbitrator. During the pendency of the arbitral proceedings the Applicant and the Respondent agreed to attempt a resolution of the dispute before an Outside Expert Committee (OEC) in accordance with certain guidelines framed by ONGC. Accordingly, the Applicant furnished its consent by letters dated 22 September 2005 and 23 September 2005. 3. On 26 October 2005 the Respondent appointed a three member OEC, informing them that the proceedings will be broadly in accordance with Part III of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act...
Tag this Judgment!General Manager, Western Coalfields Ltd. and Another Vs. Sumit Mullick ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. The matter is part heard. It was adjourned on 25.9.2012 and 26.9.2012 to enable the parties to further assist the Court. Today, respective Counsel have completed their arguments. 2. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the employer- Western Coalfields Limited against the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati (in person) and four Trade Unions as also some individual workmen against the award, dated 16.7.2001 passed by respondent no.1 - Shri Sumit Mullick, the then Divisional Commissioner of Amravati after industrial dispute was referred to him. 3. For deciding the present controversy, it is not necessary to delve deep into facts. On 8.5.2001 the petitioners had communicated to respondent no.1 - Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati the fact that they have already submitted statement of claim. Respondent no.1 has been mentioned as an Arbitrator in earlier communication dated 28.3.2001. The said c...
Tag this Judgment!Babu S/O Ramjan Laluwale and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and A ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 4. The marriage between deceased Yusuf Ramjan Laluwale and respondent No.2 herein viz. Malanbee took place on 14.5.1999. Applicant No.1 Babu is brother-in-law of respondent No.2 Malanbee, whereas applicant No.2 Ramjan is father-in-law, applicant No.3 Shabanabano is wife of applicant No.1 Babu, and applicant No.4 Fatobee is mother-in-law of said respondent No.2-Malanbee. It is submitted that the husband of respondent No.2 viz. Yusuf expired during pendency of criminal appeal No. 17 of 2008. 5. A complaint was lodged by respondent No.2 Malanbee with Hingoli Rural police station alleging therein the cruelty and harassment caused to her by the present applicants and her deceased husband. Accordingly, offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P...
Tag this Judgment!Angad S/O. Nagnathrao Kathale Vs. Kishan S/O. Baburao Suryawanshi
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
1. Heard Adv. Mr. S.T. Veer for the applicant, and Adv. Mr. Hiraji Gaikwad for the respondent. 2. For the reasons stated in the present Application, leave granted and the present Application be treated and numbered as Criminal Appeal. 3. Admit. 4. Adv. Mr. Hiraji Gaikwad waives service of notice after admission. 5. By the present appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the order below Exhibit 1 in STCC No. 241/2008, dated 30th June 2010, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Renapur (District : Latur), thereby dismissing the complaint of the appellant (original complainant), in default, and thereby consequently discharging the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. 6. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their original status i.e. complainant and accused. 7. The factual matrix which gave rise to the present appeal are as follows: The appellant (original complainant) is a consumer...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Mishra and Another Vs. Central Board of Film Certification and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
Oral Judgment: (DR. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) Rule, by consent made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waives service on behalf of the Respondents. By consent, the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The First Petitioner is the writer and director of a film by the name of 'Beehad - the Ravine'. The Second Petitioner is the producer of the film. The controversy in these proceedings relates to the certification, initially granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and modified in appeal by the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) in respect of (i) the trailer; (ii) songs; and (iii) promos. 3. Now as regards the trailer, the CBFC granted an ‘A’ certification with three cuts. The FCAT has in appeal maintained the 'A' certification but with only one of the three cuts. In other words, the other two scenes which were found to be objectionable by the CBFC have been allowed. Scene 2 has been directed to be exci...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd.iqbal Ansari @ Raju Chakravarty and Another Vs. the State of Maha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
1 By this appeal, the appellants who are the accused have taken an exception to the Judgment and order dated 27thth August 2003 by which they were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34, 397, 201 r/w 34, 494 r/w 34 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC). 2 One Surendra Bhosale, Police Constable (P.W.No.1) was a member of the Special Task Force from 14th October 2001. He was allotted area from Sakinaka to MIDC Police station in Mumbai. P.W.No.1 along with another constable were on patrolling duty on 13th August 2001. At about 10.30 a.m, they came near Sai Plaza Bar and Restaurant at Andheri Ghatkopar Link Road, Sakinaka. At that time, they noticed one stainless steel tank which is normally used for storage of water. The tank was lying to the northern side of the road near the wall of Sainathwadi, Chakala. The said tank was covered with a cloth of maxi and the mouth of the tank was tied with white coloured small rope. As the said tank w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »