Mumbai Court August 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.
Dr. Prakash S/O Shamrao Chaudhari Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Throug ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-21-2012
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner is a medical practitioner. The clinic of the petitioner possess the certificate of registration under the provisions of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act. The same is for the purpose of Genetic Counselling Centre, Ultrasound Clinic, etc. as is detailed in the certificate of registration. 3. The respondent authorities on 18.06.2011 visited the said centre of the petitioner and found certain discrepancies. On the very same day, the respondent authorities cancelled the registration of the sonography centre of the petitioner. After cancelling the same, the respondent authorities have asked for the reply from the petitioner within seven days. The same is assailed in the present writ petition. 4. Shri Choudhari, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that, the registration of the sonography centre of the ...
Commissioner of Income Tax-10 Vs. Wander Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2012
P.C. This is an appeal under section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appellant's appeal being ITA No.3995/Mum/2006 pertaining to the assessment year 1997-1998. 2. The appellant has sought to raise the following questions of law :- "(a). Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in law in restoring the issue of levy of penalty in this case to Assessing Officer with a direction that he should decide the issue of the levy of penalty after receipt of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court on the quantum appeal filed by the assessee? (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT has the power to issue such directions to the Assessing Officer in view of the fact that any order as per the provisions of the section 275(1A) can be passed only if the relevant assessment gets revised by giving effect to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), or the A...
Dattaprabhu S/O Sharadchandra Joshi Vs. the State of Maharashtra and A ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-21-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard. Rule. By consent of the parties, the matter is heard for final disposal. Such order was made in the past. 2. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and also under section 482 of Cr.P.C.. The proceeding is filed for the relief of quashing and setting aside the order made by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yavatmal in Criminal Case No. 564/2007. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yavatmal has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under section 294 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (x) and 3(1) (xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The order made by the Magistrate is confirmed by the Sessions Court in Revision No. 92/2007. 3. The respondent no.2 is an Advocate. His cousin sister Smt. Madhuri Walke has been working as Jr. Clerk in the Office of the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Yavatmal. She was transferred from one section to other section on 27.11.2006. She approac...
Govind S/O. Vithalrao Joshi Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-21-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 3. By the present petition filed by the petitioner (original complainant) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he prays that the order dated 7-8-2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Sailu (District : Parbhani), below Exhibits 94 and 104, in R.C.C. No. 22/2005, be quashed and set aside and both the said applications Exhibits 94 and 104, filed in R.C.C. No. 22/2005, be allowed. 4. The petitioner is running a shop under the name and style as Mirag Agro Services and Consultants, Sailu, of which he is a proprietor. Respondent no.2 is the Director of one Company called as Biovision Corporation, Pune, which is engaged in the activities of manufacturing organic fertilizers. There were commercial transactions between them a...
Sunil Gudlar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Bran ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-21-2012
Oral Order: Heard Shri Teles, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Shri Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor, and Shri J. P. D' Souza, learned Counsel, appearing for the Respondents. Shri J. P. D' Souza, learned Counsel assisted the Prosecution. 2. The application for bail filed by the Applicant on the ground that he was aggrieved by an Order dated 07.04.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge, North Goa, Panaji, in Bail Application no. 68/2012 whereby, the bail application filed by the Applicant came to be rejected. It is the contention of the Applicant that the Applicant has been arrested by the police attached to the Anti Corruption Branch on 06.03.2012 at 10.45 hours in Crime No. RC 3(A)/2011/CBI/ACB/Goa, for offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 21(b) and 22(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, (herein after referred to as the 'NDPS Act'). It is further the contention of the Applicant that he was the Investigating Officer and the...
Ajay Son of Kishanrao Losarwar and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-17-2012
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Heard respective Counsel. 2. In Writ Petition No. 7596 of 2006, this Court has already issued Rule on 18th August 2009. As common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions, we also issue Rule in Writ Petition Nos. 6231 of 2010 and 7404 of 2010, and make the Rule returnable forthwith. 3. These three writ petitions are filed by Private Secretaries to Hon. Judges at Aurangabad contending that special pay of Rs. 400/- paid to them as Personal Secretaries prior to their promotion as Private Secretaries was rightly added to their total salary in said cadre before working out their fixation and entitlement in promotional cadre and its deletion subsequently with an order for recovery of the alleged excess paid is unsustainable. The reliance by High Court Administration or Registrar on government resolution dated 8.6.1995 issued by GAD read with later resolution dated 20.7.2001 of Finance Department to urge that after release of the benefits under Assu...
Pramod S/O. Kalu Kendale and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-17-2012
A.V. Nirgude, J. 1. Both these appeals can be decided by this common judgment. Criminal Appeal No.363 of 2010 is filed by original accused Nos.1 to 11 and 16 of Sessions Case No. 1 of 2008 and Criminal Appeal No.391 of 2010 is filed by original accused No.13 of same case. 2. The appellants were convicted for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 307, 323, 324, 325 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- with a default clause for offence punishable under section 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. They were also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each with a default clause for the offence punishable under section 307 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. They were further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years for offence punishable under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, but they w...
Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. (Msrdc) Vs. M/S. B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2012
Oral Judgment: The Petitioners, a Government of Maharashtra undertaking, have challenged the award dated 3 March 2008 passed by the Sole Arbitrator, as appointed on the basis of Arbitration clause in the agreement in question between the parties. 2 On or about December 2001, the Petitioners invited tender for Four Laning of Satara Kolhapur upto Maharashtra State Border Section of NH4 Package I from km. 592/000 to 616/000. On 4 March 2002, a formal contract was entered into between the parties. 3 On 18 May 2002, an order for commencement of work was issued to the Respondents, which work was to be completed by 17 August 2004. On 31 December 2005, the work was completed by the Respondents. 4 Certain disputes arose between the parties in respect of the contract with regard to reimbursement of increase in royalty charges under the provisions of Clause 14 of the Special Conditions of Contract mentioned hereinabove and payment for rock cutting by wedging and chiseling with the use of Hydrauli...
M/S. Jagson International Ltd. Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2012
Oral Judgment: The Petitioners/original claimants have challenged Award dated 15 April 2008 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, whereby dismissed all the claims of the Petitioners. 2 On 9 July 2002, the Respondents invited tenders under International Competitive Bidding for Charter Hire of Offshore Rigs of various types such as, slot/mat and cantilever type jack up and floaters (hereinafter referred to as “tender”). 3 On 8 October 2002, the Petitioners submitted its bid. On 30 November 2002, the Respondents awarded the tender to the Petitioners for a period of three years. On 6 January 2003, the Respondents issued a firm order for charter hair of rig “Jagson Pioneer” for a firm period of three years. 4 The relevant terms and conditions of the special conditions annexed to the Tender are reproduced for sake of brevity as under: Clause 1.5.3 : “Contractor shall offer the drilling unit for inspection and complete readiness of rig in all aspects to the satisfacti...
Kailas S/O Jagannathrao Kharjule Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-17-2012
A.H. Joshi, J. 1. The petition is coming for final hearing. Claim in the petition is for compensation for illegal detention. 2. Rule was issued, and the respondents are served. Affidavit in reply is filed. The petitioner has also tendered the rejoinder. 3. The petition contains averments as regards confinement as follows:- “............ ........... 3. The police personnel of Local Crime Branch, Nanded under the head of respondent no.4 had been at the shop of petitioner at about 1.00 p.m. on 14.2.2011 and taken him at Nanded and detained him. The petitioner asked about his arrest but instead of giving any reply, the respondent no.4 initiated the physical and mental torture to the petitioner. The petitioner was severely beaten by respondent no.4. The very purpose of beating the petitioner by the respondent no.4 is of unlawful gain. The respondent no.4 insisted him to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- otherwise the petitioner would have been involved in the illegal activities falsely. 4...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »