Mumbai Court July 2012 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.
ian D'Costa, VSM, IA (Retd), B.A. MSc. MBA, Retd. and Others Vs. State ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. Menezes for the petitioners, Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12 and 13, Mr. Amonkar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 6, 7, 8 and 9 and Mr. Y. V. Nadkarni for respondent No.10. 2. This petition, by way of public interest litigation, has been filed by the petitioners making grievance regarding deposition of filing residues and tar balls on the beaches of Goa. It is the case of the petitioners that most of the beaches in the State of Goa are polluted by oil and no material machinery is operating for removal of the tar balls and oil residues. By the present petition, the petitioners pray that the respondents be directed to take appropriate measures thereof. 3. From time to time, this Court has passed several orders. Respondent No.6 Union of India, sought a report from National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur. A copy ...
Vinothan Krishnan Raman Vs. University of Mumbai and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) 1. The Petitioner obtained the B.Com. degree in 1987 from the University of Mumbai with an aggregate of 41.88% marks. In 2009, the Petitioner appeared for the Bachelor of Arts in Political Science degree examination conducted by the Annamalai University. A provisional “double degree” certificate was issued by the Annamalai University on 16 October 2009. The Petitioner sought admission through the Institute of Distance and Open Learning (IDOL) of the University of Mumbai for pursuing an M.A. in Political Science in 2009. He passed Part I of the M.A. examination in April 2010 and Part II in April 2011. In the meantime in August 2010 the Petitioner took admission for the Three Year LL. B. degree course of the University of Mumbai through the Thane Law College. The University of Mumbai declined to grant eligibility to the Petitioner to pursue the LL. B. degree course. According to the Petitioner the University verbally declined to grant...
M/S. Garlick Engineering , (an Enterprise of and Owned by Empire Indus ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) The question which arises in this Petition is as under:- “What is the rate of ad-valorem duty of central excise leviable and payable on cranes which were covered under the Heading No.84.26, Sub-heading No.8426 of Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985?” 2. The Petitioner is claiming to be the manufacturer of cranes which were covered under the Tariff Item No.68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). According to the Petitioner, the appropriate rate of duty of central excise leviable on the aforesaid item of cranes was fixed at 12% ad-valorem. In the year 1985, a Bill was introduced in the Parliament with a view to rationalise and simplify the classification of excise on goods. The Bill was introduced under the name of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act of 1985”). Under the said Bill, the cranes wer...
Soma Sitra Kadu Vs. State (Administration of Union Territory of Dadra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
Oral Order: By consent, admitted and taken up for hearing forthwith. By consent, calling for Record and Proceedings is dispensed with. 2. The applicant is one of the accused in Sessions Case No.25 of 2010, pending before the Court of Sessions at Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa. The allegation against the applicant and other accused is that they have committed offences punishable under section 302 of the IPC, 143 of the IPC, 147 of the IPC and 506 of the IPC. The applicant made an application for discharge contending that there were no sufficient grounds for proceeding against him, but the said application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 5 June 2012. Being aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the applicant has approached this Court invoking its revisional jurisdiction. 3. I have heard Mr.Gole, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr.D.A. Nalawade, learned Public Prosecutor for the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. Mr.Nalawade has tendered t...
Novelty Power and Infratec Ltd. and Others Vs. Mahavir Steel Industrie ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
Oral Order: Heard Mr. Rajendra Shirodkar, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. All these criminal applications can be conveniently disposed of by this common order as the issues involved are identical. 3. These seven applications arise from the seven cases pending against the applicants in which the applicants are accused of having committed offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 141 of the said Act, on the basis of the complaints filed by respondent No.1 herein. 4. In all these cases, the applicants are challenging the order of 'issuance of process' against them on the ground that, prima facie, the ingredients of the alleged offences were not disclosed, from the material produced before the Magistrate. The applicants had challenged the order issuing process by filing revision applications before the Court of Sessions, but the Court of Sessions dismissed the revision applications. That is how the applicants are now before this court ...
Wainganga Krishna GramIn Bank Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
Oral Order: Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. The applicant is a Gramin bank. The respondent no.3 herein has lodged a report, alleging commission of offences punishable under section 406 of the IPC, 409 of the IPC read with section 34 of the IPC by the applicant bank and its officers, with the Velapur police station. This was treated as the First Informant Report and a case in respect of the aforesaid offences has been registered at the said police station. The applicant has, by this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, approached this Court invoking its inherent powers and praying that the proceedings instituted vide the said First Information Report, be quashed. 3. I have heard Mr.Anil Variath, learned counsel for the applicant. I have heard Mr.S.P. Nikam, respondent no.3 who appears in person. I have heard Mr.A.S. Shitole, learned APP for the State. 4. The contention of the applicant bank is that,on a reading ...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Baban Damodar Bari and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
Davare, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By the present appeal, the appellant-State has taken exception to the judgment and order of acquittal rendered by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No.691/91 on 16th November, 1992, thereby acquitting the respondent nos.1 and 2 (Original accused nos.1 and 2) (hereinafter referred to as per their original status as "accused nos.1 and 2") for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is to be noted that initially there were three accused who were acquitted by the impugned judgment but leave was granted against the respondent nos.1 and 2 only i.e. the original accused nos.1 and 2. Hence, the present appeal proceeded against them. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case which gave rise to the present appeal are as follows:- (i) Deceased Kamal was the daughter of Vithal Khot i.e. PW 4 who married to accused no.1 ...
Vinothan Krishnan Raman Vs. University of Mumbai and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) 1. The Petitioner obtained the B.Com. degree in 1987 from the University of Mumbai with an aggregate of 41.88% marks. In 2009, the Petitioner appeared for the Bachelor of Arts in Political Science degree examination conducted by the Annamalai University. A provisional double degree certificate was issued by the Annamalai University on 16 October 2009. The Petitioner sought admission through the Institute of Distance and Open Learning (IDOL) of the University of Mumbai for pursuing an M.A. in Political Science in 2009. He passed Part I of the M.A. examination in April 2010 and Part II in April 2011. In the meantime in August 2010 the Petitioner took admission for the Three Year LL. B. degree course of the University of Mumbai through the Thane Law College. The University of Mumbai declined to grant eligibility to the Petitioner to pursue the LL. B. degree course. According to the Petitioner the University verbally declined to grant him eligibili...
National Standard (India) Limited and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
Oral Judgment: (S.A. Bobde, J.) Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. The petitioner company which is engaged in the process of developing a Private Information Technology Park on a plot of land owned by it in a notified area, has challenged the order dated 14/9/2011 by which the respondent MIDC has returned the amended building plans submitted by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioners are not entitled to make any construction of residential buildings in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region and Pune Metropolitan Region. 4. The Respondent MIDC is set up as a Special Planning Authority for notified areas as defined under sub section (1A) of Section 40 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). Respondent no.1- State has formulated Information Technology policy for promoting development of information technology parks in the State of Maharashtra. Certain areas have been demarcated as notified areas for the ...
Ashok Bansilal Mutha and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-31-2012
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) Heard Adv. Mr. Mantri, for the petitioner, and learned GP Mr. Kurundkar, for the respondents. 2. The contention is, registration of an otherwise valid document tendered by the petitioners was being denied on the strength of a ready reckoner issued when there was no legal provision in Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. 3. Learned Counsel for petitioners states that amendment like Section 32A and the Bombay Stamp (Determination of True Market Value of Property) Rules, 1995, have come into force subsequently. He submits that even after those amendments, there are certain grounds to challenge the annual statements issued under Rule 4 thereof. He reserves right of petitioner to challenge those amendments, if occasion therefor arises in future. 4. He submits that issue of valuation of 1990 document is likely to be opened, the moment Writ Petition is disposed of. He points out that document has been registered because of interim orders passed by this Court. 5. Lea...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »