Mumbai Court September 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.
Antonio Vicente Lucas Vs. Smt. Maria Mendes Alias Maria Joana Mendes a ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. None for the respondents though served. 2. The above appeal has been admitted by this Court by order dated 1/09/2006 on the following substantial question of law: Whether in view of issue no.1, viz. the Defendants prove that they are deemed owners of the paddy field surveyed under no.219/37 of village Quelossim, Taluka Mormugao, Goa, it was obligatory on the part of the trial Judge to refer the same to the Mamlatdar for decision, in view of the provisions of G.D.D. Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, and whether the failure on the part of the lower Courts below to do so, have vitiated the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondents had filed the suit against the appellants inter alia for a permanent injunction to restrain the appellants from interfering in any manner in the suit property which is surveyed under no.219/37. The said...
Kishor Tanaji Kharat and Others Vs. Divisional Commissioner and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3. Petitioners are members of Village Panchayat Dahegaon, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. Respondent No.5 was elected as Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, however, she tendered resignation on 4-11-2011 to the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, Gangapur. Panchayat Samiti, Gangapur, directed to place the resignation for verification in the meeting of Village Panchayat. Accordingly, meeting of Village Panchayat was convened on 29-11-2011 and the resignation tendered by respondent No.5 was accepted in her presence as well as in the presence of her husband who was also member of Village Panchayat. Respondent No.5 presented dispute to the Additional Collector, Aurangabad, on 19-12-2011 objecting validity of acceptance of resignation. Alongwith dispute, she tendered application seeking condonation of delay in filing dispute. It is the contenti...
Annayya Pratikar Tarun Mandal Awhane Vs. State of Maharashtra and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner by the present writ petition impugns the order dated 02nd April, 2012 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and the order dated 21.06.2012 passed by the District Supply Officer, Jalgaon. 3. Vide the order dated 02.04.2012 the Assistant Charity Commissioner directed the District Supply Officer, Jalgaon to forthwith cancel the license of fair price shop which is in the name of the petitioner mandal. Vide the order dated 21.06.2012 the District Supply Officer, Jalgaon pursuant to the orders of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, cancelled the license of the petitioner. 4. Shri Salunke, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 02.04.2012 is passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner purportedly on an application filed by the present respondent No.3 U/Sec. 41-B and 41-D of the Bombay Public Trust Act (hereinafter referred to as "Said A...
Dr. Mrs. Sukhada W/O Dilip Mulay Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner before this Court is a Medical Practitioner possessing certificate of registration issued by the Appropriate Authority under the provisions of the Preconception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act 1994 (hereinafter referred as to the "Said Act" for the sake of brevity) for the purpose of carrying out Genetic Counselling Centre/Genetic Laboratory/Genetic Clinic, Pre-Natal Diagnostic Test, ultrasound as laid down under said certificate. The said certificate of registration is for a period of five years ending on 11th December, 2012. It appears that, the petitioner is engaged in the said profession. 3. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 14.06.2012 from the Appropriate Authority seeking explanation from the petitioner about the irregularities in the maintenance of the record as is enumerated in the said show cause notice...
Arvind N. Savani Vs. Maganlal Savani and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-2012
1. This Chamber Order was taken out by defendant No.1 before the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court for obtaining discharge of his Solicitors and for handing over papers and proceedings. The Papers and proceedings have already been handed over to him by the firm of Solicitors (the firm) representing him. That matter has not been disputed. 2. The Defendant No.1 contended in the Chamber Order that the firm has not given him the NOC for filing the Vakalatnama of the new advocates, whom defendant No.1 seeks to appoint, on the ground of non payment of certain outstanding fees as shown in the correspondence between the parties. The learned Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court has considered the contentions of the parties and held that the firm stood discharged by his order dated 25th July, 2012. 3. It is that order which is sought to be challenged by praecipe filed before this Court. 4. It is contended by the firm that as officers of the Court their right to obtain reasonab...
The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Ramchandra Jagannath Tambat an ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-10-2012
Oral Judgment: 1] All these 17 appeals filed by the State arise out of the judgments and awards passed by the Reference Court, Buldhana, in land acquisition references, sought by the land owners in respect of their lands acquired for the Pentakli Project vide notification dated 23.11.1995. 2] Details like, survey no, area acquired, compensation awarded by S.L.A.O., compensation awarded by Reference Court, are reproduced below in tabular form: SrNoFirst Appeal No.Survey No./GatNo.TotalArea(H.R)Area Acquired(H.R.)Name Of Land OwnerCompensation Awarded By S.L.A.O.(P.H.)LAC No.Date of DecisionCompensation By Reference Court (P.H.)1215/08398.658.65RamchandraJagannathRs.60,243/-339/200015/04/06Rs.1,27,500/- Tambatand Others, Vil:Chikhali.( Resp) 2353/0897/197/1(I)1.050.881.050.88Dnyanba Ramkrishna Kathale(Resp)Rs.58,314/-Rs. 60,848/-318/200026/04/06Rs.1,27,500/3367/0832/12.822.82VikramTukaramShejol. (Resp))Rs.61,944/-377/200024/04/06R...
New Era Shipping Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income And#821 ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-10-2012
Oral Judgment: (S.A. Bobde, J.) Heard Shri R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Asha Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Admit on the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in summarily setting aside the decision of Commissioner with respect to the issue of partial denial of deduction under Section 33AC of the Act and in remanding the same to the file of the Commissioner without assigning any reason therefor and ignoring the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ganesh Builders (116 ITR 911)? (b) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in not deciding the pure question of law with respect to legality of the reassessment proceedings urged before it under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 instead of remanding the same back to the file of the Commissioner? 3. Ms. Asha Desai, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent. 4. Taken up for f...
M/S. Media Masters and Another Vs. M/S. Reasonable Advertising Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-2012
The Petitioner has challenged impugned order dated 13th March, 2009, passed by the Sole Arbitrator. 2. The operative part of the Award is as under: “AWARD A) The Claim of the Claimants is allowed and it is hereby ordered that the Respondents shall pay Rs.29,51,000/- to the Claimants pursuant to this award alongwith interest of Rs.12% p.a. from 15th August, 2006 to till the date of realization. B) The counter claim of the Respondents is rejected and dismissed with no order as to cost. The Respondents to bear their own costs for defending the claim and also cost in the counter claim.” 2. The basic events as per the Petitioners are as under: On 4th April, 2006, the letter granting approval by Surya TV to “Onam Bumper” for initial telecast of 65 episodes on Monday to Friday during prime time slot at 10.00 to 10.30 p.m. stating that each episode should be of 25 minutes and allotting 240 seconds of Free Commercial Time (FCT) which could be marked. 3. On 19th May, 2006...
M/S. Karan Developers Vs. the Municipal Corporation of the City of Pun ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-2012
Oral Judgment (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) : 1. Rule, by consent made returnable forthwith. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waive service on behalf of the respective Respondents. By consent, the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. Though several ancillary reliefs have been claimed in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the primary relief which has been sought is that the Pune Municipal Corporation be directed to grant TDR for an area admeasuring 3094.78 sq. mtrs. in lieu of the lands from final plot Nos.405, 406 and 407 of TPS III (Final), Pune acquired under an agreement dated 24 May 2000 under Section 126(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act 1966. 3. On 17 September 1982, the Government of Maharashtra approved the draft development plan for Pune city. Under the draft development plan, the land which is now the subject matter of dispute was shown for the purposes of road widening. On 5 October 1982 a ...
Sheikh Shabbir Vs. Shaikh Yusuf
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-10-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pereira, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellant ('the accused') takes exception to the judgment and order dated 31/12/2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco-da-Gama in Criminal Case No.66/OA/NIA/09/C acquitting the respondent of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short). 3. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: The accused approached the complainant with the proposal that he wanted to extend his business of processing quick and quality photo film processing, by purchasing New Digital Film Processing Unit, Konica 808 Gold, run by him under the name and style “F. M. Studio” and requested the complainant to invest an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs in the said business. The accused also assured the complainant that the business would fetch good profits and the complainant would get...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »