Mumbai Court May 2012 Judgments

M/S.Mahalaxmi Cotton Ginning Pressing and Oil Industries Vs. the State ...

Court: Mumbai

 Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. Rule, made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel and at their request the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The constitutional validity of Section 48(5) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (MVAT Act, 2002) is in challenge. In the alternative, if its validity is upheld, the Petitioner seeks that the words “actually paid” be read down to mean “ought to have been paid”. The Petitioner challenges an order of assessment and seeks a mandamus to the State to recover from the vendor tax paid on goods of which a set off is claimed. Consequential orders of set off and refund are sought. Facts 3. The Petitioner which is a partnership firm and a dealer registered under the MVAT Act, 2002, carries on business as a reseller in cotton bales. For 2009-10, the Petitioner filed its returns and, based on the purchases effected by it, claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) by way of a set off under Section 48...

Mrs. Sanyogita Rane and Others Vs. Mrs. Manoramabai Rauji Rane (Since ...

Court: Mumbai Goa

1. The above Appeal and Cross-Objection, which emanate from the Judgment and Award dated 22/02/2000, passed by the Additional District Judge at Mapusa (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 12 of 1991, are being disposed of, finally, at the admission stage, as was already notified to the parties, by previous orders of this Court. 2. Facts giving rise to the Appeal/Cross-Objection, in short, may be stated as under: Land admeasuring 787 square metres from Survey No. 106(part) of Carapur village was acquired for construction of “300m3 Ground Level Reservoir and Pump House” at Carapur in Bicholim Taluka. By Award dated 19/05/1989, the learned Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O.) awarded a sum of Rs. 20,737/- as compensation for the said acquired land. However, there was dispute regarding the ownership of the property. Hence, the L.A.O. made reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (The Act, for short) which gave rise to the said L. A. Case No...

Jagdeo Sukhdev Hirole (Dead) Through L.Rs. and Others Vs. Divisional C ...

Court: Mumbai Nagpur

1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties. 2. In the present petition the petitioner ‘employee has put to challenge the judgment and order dated 20.12.2010, passed by the Additional Labour Commissioner and Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in Appeal No.PGA/65/2010, rejecting the claim made by the petitioner and confirming the order passed by the Controlling Authority on 9.9.2010. 3. In support of the writ petition, Advocate Shri Khan argued that the petitioner had claimed supplementary gratuity in terms of the Regulation No. 11 of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (Gratuity Fund) Regulations as amended, which provides for supplementary amount of gratuity in case of permanent disability, which had occurred in case of the petitioner/employee, but the claim has been denied for no reasons and on improper and illegal interpretation of the regulation. There is a further misco...

Futurmal Kapoorchand Borana Vs. the State of Maharashtra Section Offic ...

Court: Mumbai

Oral Judgment: (P.D. Kode, J.) 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned A.P.P. waives service for respondent nos.1 to 3. By consent of the parties taken up for final hearing. 3. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 3rd February 2012 passed by respondent no.1 - appellate authority rejecting his prayer for granting parole for 30 days on the ground of sickness of his mother. He has preferred appeal against the order dated 17th September 2011 passed by respondent no.3 rejecting his application dated 17th August 2011 for grant of such a parole leave. The petitioner is a convict presently lodged at Nasik Road Prison and is undergoing sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him by Additional Sessions Judge Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No 270/2002 on 24th November 2004 for commission of offences under section 396, 395 and 449 of Indian Penal Code. The Criminal Appeal No.441 ...

Joaquim L. Dias and Another Vs. Baptist Coelho and Others

Court: Mumbai Goa

Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Ms. Shirodkar holding for Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, Advocate for the applicants and Mr. Kankonkar, Advocate for respondent No.1. None appears on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3, though served. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this application, the applicants seek review of the order dated 27th July, 2011, passed in Appeal from Order No.31 of 2011, dismissing the same on the ground that the plaint could not have been rejected qua some of the defendants. 4. The applicants are defendants No.2 and 3 in Regular Civil Suit No.40/2008/A, filed by respondent No.1, against the applicants. In the said suit, the present applicants filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint. The Trial Court, by an order dated 15th September, 2009, allowed the application and consequently, dismissed the suit, with costs. 5. Original plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a Regular Civil Suit No.134/2009, before the District ...

Mrs. Preeti A. Lotlikar Vs. Auspicio Rodrigues

Court: Mumbai Goa

1. This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 10/2/2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panaji (First Appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 8/2000. 2. The said Regular Civil Appeal was filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 9/12/1999 of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji (Trial Court), passed in Special Civil Suit no.54/90/B. 3. The appellant of the present Second Appeal is the defendant of the said Special Civil Suit No.54/90/B, whereas the respondent is the plaintiff. The Trial Court had decreed the suit with costs and had dismissed the Counter claim of the defendant. The defendant has been directed to pay to the plaintiff the balance amount of Rs.49,596.30 paise along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum thereon from 20/2/1990 till final payment and on payment being made to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has been ordered to supply the computer equipment to the defendant as per the purchase order dated 17.11.1989. 4. By the judg...

Shri Shaikh Mohammad Murghay Adult and Another Vs. State of Maharashtr ...

Court: Mumbai

D.D. Sinha, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State - respondent nos.1 to 5 and the learned counsel for CIDCO - respondent no. 6. 2. The petitioners are challenging the order dated 5.12.2005 passed by the respondent no. 2 - Secretary, Relief and Rehabilitation, Government of Maharashtra under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954 (for short “Act of 1954”). 3. The facts which has given rise for filing of this petition in nutshell and as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners are as follows: (I) By a Notification dated 17.8.1950 issued under Section 7 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, certain properties were notified as Evacuee properties which included, interalia, a property bearing Survey No. 487 of Village Panvel. The area shown in the Notification is 2 acres and 10 and gunthas which according to the petitioners was a mistake...

Prof. Bandu Baburao Meshram and Another Vs. Chairman, Board of Governo ...

Court: Mumbai

A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. Rule. Counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive notice. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The petitioners, by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have prayed for order or direction restraining Respondent No.1 from holding the selection process for the post of Director by excluding them in the said selection process. 3. The petitioners are employed as professors in the respondent Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute. Respondent No.1 Institute is a premier Engineering College in the State of Maharashtra. The Institute is affiliated to the University of Mumbai. It has been conferred autonomous status for a period from 2011-2012 to 2016-2017 in accordance with the provisions contained in the Statutes 593 to 642 regarding grant of autonomous status to Affiliated College / Recognised Institution / University Department / University Institution. This is reinforced from the communication dated...

Jeevan S/O Abajirao Ghogre Patil Vs. the Mayor and Others

Court: Mumbai Aurangabad

Oka, J. 1. These two Petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment and order. In Writ Petition No. 5073 of 2011, this Court passed an order on 14th September 2011 directing that the Petition shall be heard finally at the stage of admission. The issue involved in Writ Petition No.5073 of 2011 is as regards the appointment of the leader of the opposition in the Municipal Corporation of City of Nanded-Waghala. (hereinafter referred to as “the said Corporation”). FACTS IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5073 OF 2011 2. It will be necessary to make reference to the facts of the case in brief. In Writ Petition No. 5073 of 2011, the challenge is to the order dated 7th July 2011 passed by the Mayor of the said Corporation, by which the Mayor purportedly granted approval to the appointment of Respondent No.2 in the said Petition, Shri Mahesh @ Balu Khomane as the leader of the opposition in the said Corporation. 3. The result of the general ward elections of the said Corporation ...

Baburao Changa Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2012CrLJ3039

Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice. 3. By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the externment order passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone-I, Thane, under the provisions of Section 56(1)(a) and 56(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) and confirmed in appeal by the State of Maharashtra. 4. The petitioner is a resident of Dighar Naka, Village Padle, District Thane. There are five cases pending against him as per the following details: S.No.Police Stn.C.R.No.Sections of LawPresent Position1.Mumbra325/02454, 457, 380, 34Pending in Court.2.Mumbra194/04326, 323, 34“3.Shildighar27/10324, 504, 506, 336, 34“4.“110/10384, 385, 34“5.“66/11341, 323, 336, 427, 504, 506, 143, 147, 149Investigation6.“Ch. 95/19107 of Cri.P.C.Bond. 5. On 17/8/2011, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice under S...