Mumbai Court January 2013 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.
M/S.Rishiroop Polymers Private Limited and Another Vs. Designated Auth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.): These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution have been filed essentially to challenge an order passed by the CESTAT on 3 August 2011. The decision of the CESTAT upheld a notification dated 2 January 2009 (Notification 1/2009) issued by the Union of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) imposing definitive Anti-dumping duty on Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber originating in or exported from the Republic of Korea and Germany pursuant to the findings recorded by the Designated Authority on 4 October 2008 in a second sunset review of Anti-dumping duty. The appeal before the CESTAT was filed under the provisions of Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 2. A preliminary objection has been raised to the maintainability of the Petition on the ground that an appeal would lie against the order passed by the CESTAT under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 3. Section 9A(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 provides...
Dawoodali N. Israni Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2013
Oral Judgment: Petitioner has filed above petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1908 challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 18th March, 2008 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.40 of 2008 by 9th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge at Sewree, Gr.Bombay whereby the said revision filed by respondent nos.2 to 4 was allowed and the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 20th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai in Criminal Case No.3574/SS/2007 issuing process against the aforesaid respondents came to be set aside. 2. Petitioner is sole proprietor of M/s Eastern Enterprises, a proprietary firm. Petitioner filed Criminal Case No.3574/SS/2007 in 20th Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon, Mumbai against respondent nos.2 to 4 (original accused) under the provisions of Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is the case of petitioner that respondent no...
Sushiladevi Shivlal Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2013
Oral Judgment: 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 24-4-2012 passed by the Principal Secretary (A and S) by which order the Appeal filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 23-12-2011, passed by the Deputy Commissioner Police Head quarters-1, came to be rejected and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner came to be confirmed. 3. The issue in the Petition is as regards the Petitioner's entitlement to what is known as the Premises and Performance Licence under the Amusement Rules 1960. It is not necessary to burden this Order with unnecessary details, but suffice it to say that the Petitioner who is running a restaurant by the name of Vinod Bar and Restaurant and who has licence in Form "E " under the Special Permits and Licences Rules 1952, has also a licence known as Public Entertainment Licence issued under the Rules...
M/S. Glasstech Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. the Workmen Represent ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2013
Oral Judgment: 1 Rule. With the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The Writ Jurisdiction of this under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the Award dated 30-6-2012 passed by the Learned Member of the Industrial Court, Thane. By the said Award the Reference which was made to the Industrial Court for adjudication being Reference IT No.20 of 2006 came to be allowed and the Petitioner company was directed to reinstate the 48 workmen whose names are mentioned in the schedule of Reference with continuity of service and payment of full back wages from 18-11-2005. 3 Considering the nature of the order that is to be passed, it is not necessary to go into unnecessary details. Suffice it to say that the Reference arose out of the demand made by the Respondent Union in respect of reinstatement with continuity of service and payment of full back wages in respect of the said 48 workmen. In the statement of claim, it is the case of the Respondent Un...
Sunil Pannalal Chauhan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2013
Oral Order: The applicant was prosecuted on the allegation of having committed offences punishable under Sections 489A, 489C and 489D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was convicted of offences punishable under Section 489A and 489C of the IPC, by the Assistant Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay, who imposed a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for Ten years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, with respect to the first mentioned offence and a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for Seven years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, for the other offence. 2. Being aggrieved by his conviction and the sentences imposed upon him, the applicant preferred an appeal to the court of Sessions, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, concluded that no interference with the reasoning or the conclusion arrived at by the trial court, was necessary. Holding so, he dismissed the appeal. 3. The applicant has, by the present application, approached this court invoking it revisional powers. 4. Heard Mr...
Meena Mohammad Mustaq Ansari Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-16-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. 2. ADMIT. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. This revision application impugns the judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No.110 of 2011. The applicant Meena Mohammad Mustaq Ansari was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Corporation Court No.2, Nagpur in Regular Criminal Case No.1936 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of rupees two thousand in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 5. The applicant had allegedly committed theft of gold chain from a Beauty Parlour of the complainant. During the course of investigation a part of the gold chain with pendant were recovered by the police. The property recovered by the police was handed over to the complainant on execution of a bond. It was produced before the Court during the course of recording of evidence of ...
Balasaheb Asaram Shirsath Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-16-2013
Oral Judgment: The appellant, who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of which to undergo further R.I. for one year and R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of which to undergo R.I. for six months, with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, by judgment dated 12.4.2001, in Sessions Case No.34 of 1998, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts, in brief, as are necessary for the decision of this appeal, may briefly be stated thus :- PW3 A.P.I. Babaji Budhwant, who was attached to police station, Newasa investigated the offence registered by Police Head Constable Shelke on 4.9.1994 on the basis of the report lodged by PW1 Kachru at Exh. 11. PW3 A.P.I. Budhwant accordingly collected the statement recorded of injured...
Sambhaji Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-16-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard finally. Rule, made returnable and heard forthwith. The petitioner has questioned FIR vide Crime No.3007/2008 for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act, lodged by respondent no.2 Nitin. 2. The petitioner was working as Superintendent, G.S.S. Grade-B at Panchayat Samiti, Ahmadpur, Dist.Latur, from June 2006 to Feb., 2010. His wife was Block Development Officer, Ahmadpur taluka, at the relevant time. As part of his official duty, he was required to visit and inspect various schools. Accordingly, on 17.7.2008, he had visited Vasantrao Naik Ashram School at village Kingaon, Tq. Ahmadpur, Dist.Latur (School) where he noticed various illegalities. He was required to call upon the concerned for giving explanation. He has alleged, Dr.Ambadas Gulave, who conducts the school, prevented him from carrying his lawful official activities; he was even assau...
Shree Nursing Home and Another Vs. Chandrashekar Singh
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2013
S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 10/09/2007 passed in consumer complaint No.38/2007, Mr.Chandrashekar Singh V/s. Shree Nursing Home and Anr., by Addl. District Forum, Thane. It is a case of alleged deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/opponents (hereinafter referred to as opponents) on account of alleged medical negligence shown by them, particularly, on 24/11/2006 when wife of complainant-Chandrashekar Singh (hereinafter referred to as complainant), namely, Late Alka was readmitted under condition of bleeding. It is not in dispute that appellant No.2/opponent-Dr.Smt.S.R. Karve runs a Maternity Home-Shree Nursing Home. It is also not in dispute that appellant/opponent-Dr.Smt.S.R. Karve is a qualified Gynaecologist. According to the complainant Late Alka was admitted for her delivery at opponent No.1-Nursing Home under care of opponent No.2-Dr.Smt.S.R. Karve. She had delivered a female child on the same day a...
Hewlett Packard India Sales P. Ltd. Vs. Rajan Alimchandani
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2013
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 13/07/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.33/2008, Mr.Rajan Alimchandani v/s. The Director, Bitsy Infotech Pvt.Ltd. and another; passed by Mumbai Suburban District Forum. Appeal is filed by M/s.Hewlett Packard India Sales P.Ltd., feeling aggrieved by the impugned order where a direction was given against its Branch Manager at Unit Nos.1and2, Ground floor, Enterprise Centre, C-75, Off.Nehru Road, Next to Orchid Hotel, Vile Parle(East), Mumbai 400 099 (original opponent no.2). At the outset, it may be mentioned that original opponent no.1- The Director, Bitsy Infotech Pvt.Ltd. did not file any appeal and, thus, conceded to the impugned order. This appeal by order dated 14/01/2013 stood dismissed against it. It is a case of respondent/original complainant - Mr.Rajan Alimchandani (herein after referred as complainant) that he had purchased the product of the appellant viz. HP-F-2120 Printer on 29/07/...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »