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.
Susme Builders Private Limited Vs. Chief Executive Officer Slum Rehabi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
N.M. Jamdar J. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner-Company which is a developer was selected by the respondent-Co-operative Society in the year 1986 for redevelopment of its property. In June 2011 the Society made a representation to the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Redevelopment Authority, Mumbai for removal of the petitioner as a developer on the ground that in 26 years petitioner had done only a fraction of the work assigned. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) permitted the Society to remove the petitioner as their developer. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the High Power Committee which included the CEO. The Committee rejected the appeal by its order dated 18 June 2012. The consequence of the impugned orders is that the petitioner has been removed as a developer appointed for implementation of the Slum Re-development Scheme in question and is substituted by a new developer selected by...
Smt. Shobha Wd/O. Late Arun Pohare and Others Vs. Gajanan S/O. Wasudeo ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
1. The instant appeal is by the Complainant directed against the Judgment and Order, dated 16th April, 2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Court No.VI), Akola challenging the acquittal of the respondent/accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- The Complainant and the accused were in cordial terms with each other. In the month of April, 2004, the accused demanded a sum of Rs1,00,000/- from the Complainant as he was in dire need of money. The amount was paid in cash on 19/04/2004. The accused had issued a Cheque bearing no.351152, dated 04/10/2004 for the sum of Rs 95,000/- drawn upon the Akola Janata Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd, Akola Branch. The cheque when presented for realisation, was returned dishonored with remarks “fund insufficient” vide intimation memo, dated 05/10/2004. The demand notice was issued by R.P.A.D. and under postal certificate. It was duly received by the accu...
Laurente Mascarenhas Vs. Jose C. Pereira (Deceased) and His Wife and O ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri V. A. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 1, 2, 6 to 9. 2. The above Writ Petition challenges an Order passed by the Courts below whereby the Petitioner has been held guilty of disobeying the Order of the Court under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code and, inter alia, directed to remove the loose stones placed after an exparte Order came to be granted in favour of the Respondents by Order dated 21.06.2003. 3. It is not in dispute that the Respondents who are defendants in the suit filed by the Petitioner, moved an application for temporary injunction on the ground that the access claimed by the Respondents was being blocked by the Petitioner by putting up a compound wall. After the exparte Order dated 21.06.2003 came to be served on the Petitioner on the same day, it is the case of the Respondents that in blanket disobedience of the said exparte Order, the ...
AshwIn Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Anti Corruption Bureau, N ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 12/07/2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Nagpur in Special Case No. 18 of 1997, whereby the accused was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The accused was also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs 2000/and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for nine months. 2. Heard the submissions at the bar. 3. The facts, in nutshell, are as under: The accused was working as a District Manager, Vasantrao Naik Vimukta Jatis and Nomadic Tribes development Corporation Ltd., Nag...
Sau. Mangal W/O Ambadas Gaikwad Vs. Ambadas S/O Kachru Gaikwad and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the parties. 2. This application is filed seeking transfer of Hindu Marriage Petition No. 56 of 2012 pending on the file of the Court of 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar to the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Beed. 3. The background facts as disclosed in this application for filing the same, are as under. The marriage of the applicant and respondent No.1 was solemnized at Beed on 22nd January, 2006. A son by name "Om" is begotten out of their wedlock, who is five years old and staying with the applicant at Beed. It is the case of the applicant that, after marriage, she went to her husband's house at Avhane (Kh.) District Ahmednagar and was treated well by respondent No.1 and his family members initially for one month and thereafter started ill-treatment to her. It is further case of the applicant that, after shifting to Ahmednagar, the respondent-husband and his family member...
State of Maharashtra, Through Deputy Superintendent of Police Vs. Shri ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
1. The State of Maharashtra has challenged validity and legality of the Judgment and order dated 19/10/2000 passed by the Special Judge, Wardha in Special Case no. 4 of 1993 Whereby the learned Special Judge was pleased to acquit the respondent/ accused of the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1) (d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Heard the submissions at the Bar. 3. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- The accused was serving as a Junior Engineer in the year 1992 in the Office of the M.S.E.B., Wardha Maneri. For the distribution of the electricity, Village Jalgaon, Tahasil Arvi Dist. Wardha was within the local limits of the M.S.E.B.‘s Office of Wardha Maneri. Some agriculturists, including Complainant Devidas Chendbaji Wasule had applied for supply of electricity to their well, where they got fitted electric Motor Pump. Devidas owned field bearing Survey No.384, admeasuring 11 acres of land containing the Well. On 25/01/1991, he had applied f...
Samadhan Steel Traders, Through Its Proprietor, Jaynarayan S/O. Nagola ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
Oral Judgment: [ B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.] 1] Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2] The question is, whether before ordering search under Section 105 of the Customs Act, the competent authority had formed a legal opinion and was there a reason to believe that it would lead to goods liable to confiscation or any document or thing in his opinion would be useful or relevant to any proceedings under the Customs Act, 1944? 3] This court had issued a notice on 20th August, 2011 and on 15.6.2012 after briefly recording the question, we directed respondents to produce the original record. The reply affidavits by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have been filed initially on 28th September, 2011 and after said order, on 13th July, 2012. 4] Shri Chandak submits that warrant for search issued under Section 105 shows satisfaction record by one D.S. Mane, Assistant Director, while the files produced does not reveal any such satisfaction reached by that Officer. He ...
The Commissioner of Income Tax-iii Vs. M/S.Aditya Birla Nova Limited ( ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 8.12.2009 dismissing the Revenue’s appeal being ITA No.24/Mum/2006 and partly allowing the respondent's appeal being ITA No.85/Mum/2006 pertaining to the assessment year 2000-2001. 2. The appellant has sought to raise the following questions of law:- “(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances and in law, the Tribunal was right in deletion of penalty to the extent of Rs.11,47,987/- as imposed by the A.O. on account of issue expenses under section 35D? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances and in law, the Tribunal was right in deletion of penalty to the extent of Rs.9,49,399/- as imposed by the A.O. on account of diminution in value of shares investment?” 3. The matter is clearly covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 11 SCC 762 = (2010) 322 ITR 158...
Mrs. Ivy C. Da Conceicao Vs. State of Goa Through Its Chief Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
A.P. Lavande, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges appointments of respondents No.4, 5, 6, and 7 vide orders dated 31.7.08, 31.7.08 and 4.6.2008, respectively to the post of Principals of Higher Secondary Schools run by respondent No.3 Society. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that while making appointments of respondents No.4 to 7, the name of petitioner was not considered for promotion as required under Rule 74 of the Goa School Education Rules, 1986 (“the Rules” for short) framed under the Goa School Education Act, 1984 (“the Act” for short). It is further the case of the petitioner that all the said appointments have been made in breach of Rule 86, read with Rule 78 of the Rules inasmuch as all the four respondents are not only junior to the petitioner, but also not coming within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Principal. It is further the case of the petitioner that the appointmen...
Prashant and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station O ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
1. The instant appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order, dated 15th July, 2008 passed in Sessions Case no. 53 of 2004 by 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli. The trial Court held that the prosecution has proved that Rekha (the deceased) was subjected to cruelty by coercing her and her parents to meet the unlawful demand of Rs 1,00,000/by the accused in furtherance of their common intention and the deceased committed suicide as a result of abetment at the instance of the accused no. 3 and 4 (Appellant no. 2 and 3 herein). The appellants (Original Accused nos. 1, 3 and 4) were convicted of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 1000/in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 days. Appellants nos. 2 and 3 herein were also convicted in addition under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant no. 2 herein was sentenced to suffer rig...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »