Mumbai Court September 2012 Judgments
Sahebrao S/O. Dattu Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
1. The revision is admitted. By consent, notice after admission of revision was made returnable forthwith and both the sides were heard for final disposal of the matter. 2. The proceeding is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 153/2004, which was pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. In the Trial Court, the present respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were charged for offence punishable under section 302 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. All the accused, including respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were charged for offences punishable under section 304-B, 498-A and 34 of I.P.C. All the accused are acquitted of these offences. Original complainant has filed the present proceedings. Heard the advocate for complainant, advocate for the accused and the learned A.P.P. The learned A.P.P. supported the original complainant. The original record is perused by this Court. 3. The deceased Suwarna was niece of the complainant. The father of the deceased was a real brother of the complainant and he had died 3...
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 excised. 4. As reg...
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!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!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!Sharad Baburao Latkar Vs. Sharad Wasudeodas Gujar and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
Oral Judgment: By consent of parties, these appeals are decided finally at the stage of admission. The learned Counsel for the appellant has produced the compilation of documents and the material documents are on record hence no need to call record and proceedings. The substantial question of law is very short so by consent matter is heard finally at admission stage. Appeals are admitted on following substantial questions of law:- (1) In view of provision of Section 80 of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and also Legal Metrology Act 2009 the sale deeds of the suit land in favour of the respondents and order passed by the courts below are contrary to the law and void ? (2) Whether by accepting aanewari the appellate court has committed an error in ascertaining the share of the plaintiff and the respondents in CTS No.260 or not ? 2. These three Second Appeals are filed against the judgment and order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the First Appeal Court. The suit property and parti...
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!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!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!Shekhar Prabhudessai Vs. Goa State Information Commission and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-28-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Noorani, learned Addl. Government Advocate, appearing for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent no.2 though served. 2. The above Petitioner challenged the Order dated 16.08.2008, whereby an Appeal preferred by the Respondent No.2 was partly allowed and the Petitioner was directed to furnish information with regard to the entries in the Station Diary in connection with Criminal case No.19/2005. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that, the Respondent no.2 sought information from the Petitioner under the Right to Information Act 2005,(herein after referred to as the 'said Act'), seeking further entries in the station diary in connection with the complaint No.9/2005. The Petitioner sought exemption from providing such information under Section 8(1)(h) of the said Act. The Petitioner refused the said information and dismissed the application filed by the Respondent no.2. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the Respondent no.2 preferred an Appeal before the Firs...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »