Mumbai Court January 2013 Judgments
Arun Shankar Ralmingam Naidu Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2. The grievance made in this Petition received through Jail is as regards the rejection of the application for grant of parole in accordance with the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules"). The grounds on which the application has been rejected are (i) the adverse police report which records that the place of residence of the Petitioner is touching the limits of jurisdiction of Shivaji Nagar and Deonar Police Station and, therefore, the law and order situation may be created; (ii) earlier when the Petitioner was released on leave, he did not return on the expiry of period of leave. 3. We have perused the adverse police report dated 25th November 2011. The report records that the complainant and the witnesses in the case in which the Petitioner was convicted were not found. Mere apprehension is expressed that as ...
Tag this Judgment!Tolani Education Society Vs. Deputy Director of Income-tax (Exemptions ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) Rule, by consent returnable forthwith. With the consent of Counsel and at their request the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The Petitioner which is registered as a public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 since 30 October 1980 and is a Society registered under the Societies' Registration Act, 1960 was formed with the main object of promoting education in different branches of learning. The Petitioner conducts a college of commerce in Mumbai. The college is affiliated to the University of Mumbai and receives aid from the State government. A Certificate of Registration was granted to the Petitioner on 11 December 1980 under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On 10 May 2004, the Petitioner made an application for exemption under Section 10 (23C)(vi) for Assessment Year 2003-04. By a communication dated 26 September 2005, the Office of the Director of Income-tax (Exemption) informed the Petitioner that sin...
Tag this Judgment!Rafiq Ramjan Jamdar Vs. Haseen Babso Jamadar and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
Oral Order: Heard Mrs.Prabha Badadare, the learned counsel for the applicant. Heard Mr.Haribhau Deshinge, the learned advocate for the respondent no.1. Heard Mr.S.A.Shaikh, the learned APP for the State. 2 By consent, admitted, and taken up for final hearing forthwith. 3 The applicant had filed a complaint against the respondent no.1 herein, alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kurundwad , after holding a trial convicted the applicant of the said offence and imposed a sentence of Simple Imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.1,25,000/- upon him. The applicant, aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence imposed upon him, filed an appeal in the court of Sessions. The appeal was duly admitted. The substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant was suspended, pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeal. On 5.12.2012, when the said appeal was on the board of the learn...
Tag this Judgment!Raghavji Gala and Others Vs. the Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operati ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
Oral Judgment: 1 Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 3-3-2009 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar in Revision Applications Nos.140 of 2006 to 145 of 2006. The said Revision Applications arose out of the certificates issued under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The said provision was invoked by the Respondent No.4 Credit Society in view of the alleged default committed by the Petitioners in repayment of the loans taken by them. 3 It is not necessary to go into unnecessary details considering the nature of the order that is to be passed. Amongst the grounds which have been urged in challenging the said order is the ground that the said order has been passed after more than one year after arguments were concluded. It seems that the arguments were concluded towards the end of the year 2007 and th...
Tag this Judgment!Kai. Vanjibaba GramIn Vikas Mandal Chalisgaon Vs. State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
A.H. Joshi, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally, by consent. 2. The petitioner is running Teacher's Education College at Chalisgaon. The Petition was served with impugned communications dated 5th September, 2012 and 15th September, 2012. 3. Summary of contents of the letters under challenge is as follows : (a) Names of the petitioner's college was not included in the list of colleges to which admission would be given in the current academic year. (b) The petitioner has failed to secure fresh order of permission from NCTE (Western Region) Bhopal, to run the College. (c) By advertising for admission, petitioner has disobeyed the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court. (d) Petitioner ought not admit the students for the academic year 2012-2013. 4. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 have opposed the petition. As regards objection to petitioner's running courses in the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.5 it is stated in paragraph No.4, which reads as follows:- "4. I say that, it is...
Tag this Judgment!Chagan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
Oral Judgment: The revision is admitted on 7th March, 2002. 2. The revision applicant is husband of deceased Smt.Punam @ Bebi. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, after recording evidence, on 21.5.1999 in Sessions Case No.129/1996, convicted revision applicant for offense under Section 498-A of IPC and directed him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default, rigorous imprisonment for one month, and for the offense under Section 306 of IPC, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three and half years i.e. three years and six months and fine of Rs.2000/-; in default, rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The learned Sessions Judge in Appeal No.10/1999 dismissed the appeal. 3. The scope in revision is limited; except when perversity or blatant illegality, or irregularity is pointed out, the revisional Court should not venture to read the evidence. However, in terms of Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Vs. Shivbhushan and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
A.H. Joshi, J. Taken up for final hearing by consent of the parties. 2. The learned Single Judge had admitted Writ Petition No.1898 of 2011, by order dated 7th April, 2011. The learned Single Judge did not grant interim relief. It is the submission of Appellant that result of refusal of stay is that the seat as a Councillor in Village Panchayat held by the Petitioner has to fall vacant, the election would be held and the Appellant will lose the opportunity as Councillor forever, though the Court may on merits eventually be satisfied about merit of the claim of the Appellant. 3. Considering the question that had fallen for consideration, we have noticed that it would be impossible to rule in either way without observing and commenting on merits of the question of law involved in the matter. Now since the Petitioner's Writ Petition is pending and is yet to be heard by the learned Single Judge, and if we rule on the point of law one can easily visualize that such pronouncement would resul...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Prakash Vinayakrao Shingnapur ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
A.P. Lavande, J. 1] Confirmation Case No. 2/12 and Criminal Appeal No. 376/12 are being disposed of by common judgment since they arise out of judgment and order dated 30.5.2012 passed by Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge1, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 461/11 by which the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 376/12 (hereinafter referred to as the accused) has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 309 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death and to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- (Three Lakhs) and in default to suffer R.I. for five years for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/, in default to suffer S.I. for one month for the offence punishable under Section 309 of Indian Penal Code. Out of the fine amount if recovered, amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was ordered to be forwarded to the District Legal Aid Committee and Rs.50,000/to State of Maharashtra. 2] Briefly, the case of the prosecutio...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkrushna Purnaji Raurale and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
Oral Judgment: The appellants have moved this Court feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge-2 in Sessions Case No.133 of 2010 of Amravati Sessions Division. Appellant No.3 Sau. Gokula Ramchandra is wife of appellant No.1 and appellant No.2 Nitin Mankar is nephew of appellant Nos.1 and 3. 2. Appellant Nos.1 and 3 have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 452 read with Section 34 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant No.1 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant No.2 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years for the said offence and appellant No.3 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the said offence. As far as offence punishable under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Balbhim S/O Sukhdeo Limbkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through the ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2013
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 3. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 18.4.2012, passed by the Minister of Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, in Revision No. VAM-1012/C.N. 177/CS-21 dated 18.4.2012. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner made complaint against the respondent No.4. According to the complaint of the petitioner, the Tahsildar (Supply) initiated enquiry about the fair price shop of respondent No.4 and found serious illegalities and irregularities committed by respondent No.4. On 3.4.2008, respondent No.4 was given a show cause notice. It is the case of the petitioner that after hearing both the parties, District Supply Officer, Osmanabad by order dated 22.7.2008, cancelled the licence of the fair price shop of respondent No.4 as well as confiscated the deposit amount of Rs. 3000/-. The District Sup...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »