Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : AIR2009Utr31; (2009)26VST649(NULL)
ORDERPrafulla C. Pant, J.1. In all the above three writ petitions, levy of entertainment tax under the U.P. Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979, on Direct to Home (for short DTH) service provided by the petitioners is challenged, and the question of law involved is the same, hence, the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits, counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits filed on behalf of the parties.3. Factual matrix of these cases is that the petitioners are granted licenses under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 5 of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, on payment of license fee. Their case is that DTH service is different to that of one provided by the cable operators. It is pleaded by the petitioners that the DTH services are provided by them by using satellite system that transmits programmes and provides T.V. signals directly to subscriber's premises. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001CriLJ4563
ORDERR. M. Lodha. J.1. This criminal bail application is before us on the reference made by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 23rd August, 2000. The learned Single Judge before whom this criminal bail application was moved was of the view that since a serious question of law about the interpretation of sections 13 and 14 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (Financial Establishment) Act, 1999 (for short 'the Act of 1999') and applicability of the proviso to section 167(2) is involved, the matter needs to be heard by the Division Bench for laying down the law on this point.2. The petitioner is accused in C. R. No. 36 of 1999 for the offences under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3 of the Act of 1999. The Petitioner is said to have surrendered on 17th June, 2000 before the. Designated Court constituted under Section 6 of the Act of 1999 and remanded by the concerned Designated Court on that day. We read the proceedings which took...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(4)BomCR608
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. These three writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the Mandamus against the respondents who are the State of Maharashtra, the Director General of Police, Maharashtra, Mumbai, the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, and other officials working under them and Coroner of Mumbai, (i) directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to furnish the particulars regarding the number of persons killed in last one year in police encounters, their names, addresses, the circumstances in which these persons are killed, the enquiries, if any, conducted with respect to the said killings and any other relevant information and the action taken, if any, by them: (ii) directing the respondent No. 1 to register offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and other relevant enactments against the Police Officers, if found prima facie responsible for the violation of the fundamental rights and the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and other rel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2705 OF 200.State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Appellants VERSUS Indian Hotel & Restaurants Assn. & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.2704 OF 200.State of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc. Etc. ..Appellants VERSUS Ramnath Vishnu Waringe Etc. Etc. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO._5504_____ OF 201.[Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.14534 of 2006]. Ghar Hakka Jagruti Charitable Trust ...Appellant VERSUS State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents JUDGMENT SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,J.1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No.14534 of 2006.2. These civil appeals seek to challenge common judgment and final order dated 12th April, 2006 in Writ Petition No.2450 of 2005, W.P. No.2052 of 2005, W.P.No.2338 of 2005 and W.P.No.2587 of 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, whereby Section 33A of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 as inserted by the Bombay Police (Amendment) Act, 2005 has been declared to be u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Per Court: All these criminal appeals take exception to the judgment and order dated 18/10/2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.554/2002. For the sake of convenience, accused numbers are referred according to their serial numbers as mentioned in charge (Exh.20). By the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court, accused no.1 Vijay Kisanrao Mate, accused no.4 Umesh Sampatrao Dahake, accused no.9 Kiran Umraoji Kaithe, accused no.10 Kamlesh Sitaram Nimbarte, accused no.13 Dinesh s/o Devidas Gaiki and accused no.15 Raju Vitthalrao Bhadre came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302, 120-B read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 147 of Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.742 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5598 of 2020) Arnab Manoranjan Goswami ....Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents With Criminal Appeal No.743 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5599 of 2020) And With Criminal Appeal No.744 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5600 of 2020) 1 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J This judgment has been divided into sections to facilitate analysis. They are: A The appeal B The parties, the FIR and A Summary C Previous proceedings against the appellant D Re-opening of investigation and arrest of the appellant E Submissions of Counsel F Criminal Appeal No.743 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5599 of 2020) G Criminal Appeal No.744 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5600 of 2020) H Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC I Prima Facie evaluation of the FIR and the grant of bail J Human liberty ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.1125 of 2022 Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.3213 of 2020 Zakir Abdul Mirajkar Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents With Criminal Appeal No.1127 of 2022 Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.3722 of 2020 With Criminal Appeal No.1126 of 2022 Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.3629 of 2020 With Criminal Appeal No.1129 of 2022 Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.3915 of 2020 With Criminal Appeal No.1128 of 2022 Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.3943 of 2020 And With Criminal Appeal No.1130 of 2022 Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.4170 of 2020 1 JUDGMENT Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.Contents A. Facts ............................................................................................................... 3 B. Issues ............................................................................................................. 8 C. Submissions ..............
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1993CriLJ1358
A.B. Srivastava, J.1. These are three connected writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in relation to one and the same matter filed on different dates, hence are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The writ petition No. 10870 of 1991 was filed on 15-4-1991 for mandamus directing the Superintendent, District Jail, Moradabad not to transfer the petitioner from the said jail to Bombay in pursuance of warrants received from the City Sessions Court Greater Bombay and to release him the moment he receives release order in Crime No. 96 of 1983 under Sections 392/397, IPC. P. S. Hazrat Nagar Garhi, Moradabad. It was admitted on 1-10-191.3. By means of the Habeas Corpus Petition No. 24268 of 1991 filed on 12-9-1991 the petitioner prayed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, Superintendent District Jail, Moradabad and State of Uttar Pradesh, respectively to release the petitioner from detention in the District Jail, Moradaba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1008-1009 OF2007REPORTABLE ANKUSH MARUTI SHINDE AND OTHERS VERSUS ..APPELLANTS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 881-882 OF2009WITH STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..APPELLANT VERSUS AMBADAS LAXMAN SHINDE AND OTHERS ..RESPONDENTS CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 268-269 OF2019WITH AMBADAS LAXMAN SHINDE AND OTHERS ..APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT JUDGMENT M.R. SHAH, J.All these appeals are interlinked, and as such, arise out of the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 22.03.2007 passed in Confirmation Case No.2 of 2006 along with Criminal Appeal No.590 of 2006, and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 1.1 By the impugned judgment, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has disposed of the Reference made by the learned 3rd 2 Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik (hereinafter referred to as the Sessions Court) under Section 366 of the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(2)BomCR1
ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. We have heard the petitioner in person and all the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.2. The petitioner belongs to the Indian Police Service (I.P.S.). He challenges the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short - Tribunal) Mumbai Bench, Mumbai on 26th May, 1997 (Exh. A page 82) dismissing his Original Application (O.A.) which was filed against the order of his transfer, dated 1st April, 1997 (Ex. B page 93) which was issued by the State Government transferring him from the post of Asstt. Inspector General of Police (Administration), Maharashtra State Mumbai to Nagpur as the Commandant of the State Reserve Police Force. The principal challenge that was raised before the Tribunal was on the ground of mala fides as also on the ground of violation of guidelines contained in Chapter I - para 30 of the Bombay Police Manual, Vol. I viz. that the proposal for his transfer ought to have been initiated by the Director General of Police and b...
Tag this Judgment!