Mumbai Court February 2013 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.
Praful Bhausaheb Yadav Vs. Shri K. K. Pathak, Principal Secretary (Hom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
A.P. Bhangale, J. 1. Rule. Heard finally by consent. Perused the record. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that he is cable operator by profession. Police Inspector Mr. Mangalsingh Suryavanshi of Sinnar Police station harbored personal grudge against the Petitioner and initiated false externment proceedings on the basis of false cases. According to the Petitioner on 25-12-2010 he had gone to Vaishnavi Dhaba at Sinnar Goti Highway, to have food. The Petitioner came to know of some incident had happened outside a Company near that Dhaba. One unknown man was lying dead The Petitioner and others went to see what had happened. P.I Mangalsingh was present there who started abusing the Petitioners and others. Petitioner had objected the police inspector Mangalsingh who had abused the people as well as friends of the Petitioner, over their Mother and Sister. Petitioner was then indicted in the false Murder case by said Mangalsingh who was bent upon to take revenge upon the Petitioner. The Petit...
Salim Anwar Badshah Sayed Vs. State of Maharashtra, Dy.Commissioner of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P for State. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27th April 2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police by which the petitioner was ordered to be externed in exercise of power under section 56(a) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) from Mumbai as well as Mumbai suburban Districts for a period of two years. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while passing the impugned order, extraneous material has been considered by the externing authority. The learned A.P.P supported the impugned order. 2. We have perused the show cause notice under section 59 of the said Act which was issued on 20th December 2011 by which the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be externed. In show cause notice, reliance was placed on 9 offences allegedly ...
The New India Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. the State of Mahar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Oral Judgment: The petitioner society takes exception to the concurrent orders i.e. order dated 10th May 2007 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai, thereby dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner and upholding the order passed by Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies dated 7th August 2006 thereby allowing the application filed by respondent No.2 for declaring him as deemed member in respect of plot No.25 in the petitioner society. 2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present petition are as under: The petitioner society is originally registered under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 and, now, deemed to be registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The petitioner executed lease-deed in favour of one Dr.Randip O. Shah. By registered deed of assignment said Dr.Randip Shah assigned lease to one Harshad Patel on 14th June 1979. It appears that on acco...
State of Maharashtra (at the Instance of Irrigation Department, Execut ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
1. By this appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 (for short herein after referred as 'the Act'), the Government seeks to challenge an order and judgment dated 29th June 2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Ratnagiri rejecting arbitration application No.44 of 2003 filed by the Government under Section 34 of the Act. 2. The Government had challenged an award delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal allowing some of the claims made by the respondent (for short the Government is referred as 'Government' and the respondent is referred as 'the contractor'). Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under: Pursuant to the invitation of tender on 1st April 1991 by the Government and submission of bid by the contractor on 17th June 1991, the Government awarded the work of construction of civil work of pressure and power house in ICT contract No.2 to the contractor. The amount of the contract awarded was at Rs.6825 lakh. Both t...
Ms. Suchitra @ Sayali Nipunage Vs. Kishor Siddeshwar Nipunage
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Oral Judgment: (Naresh H. Patil, J.) The appellant challenges the judgment and decree passed in Petition C.No.36 of 2002. The appellant had filed petition under section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for claiming the maintenance. 2. It is the case of the appellant that her mother Kalindi performed marriage with the respondent on 22.1.1983. She was born from the wedlock on 28th December, 1984. Unfortunately, the parents obtained divorce. The permanent custody of the appellant-daughter was given to the mother. Her mother got permanent alimony of Rs.20,000/- for the appellant and Rs.35,000/- for herself. The mother was maintaining the appellant since 1990. The respondent had never looked after her and neither met at any point of time. The mother of the appellant resides with grant-father, who expired in 1997. At the relevant time in the year 2002 the appellant was studying in 12th Standard Commerce faculty. She secured 75% marks in 10th Standard but due to financial stringen...
Ntuc Income Insurance Co-operative Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Director of Inc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) By these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has challenged a notice that was issued by the First Respondent on 7 September 2007, seeking to reopen an assessment for A.Y. 2005-06 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Petitioner filed a return of income on 28 October 2005 for A.Y. 2005-06, claiming that its net business income of Rs.10.44 crores was not taxable in India, in view of Article 7 of the India Singapore DTAA. An intimation was issued to the Petitioner under Section 143(1). On 23 August 2007, the Senior Audit Officer in a communication to the First Respondent stated that the computation of income showed that the Petitioner had short term capital gain of Rs.10.21 crores which was treated as business income and held not to be taxable, under Article 7 of the DTAA. The audit objection noted that the Petitioner is a Foreign Institutional Investor and under Section 115AD, the capital gain was lia...
Champak Balu Patel Vs. the State Through P.P. Daman Police Station
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, J. 1. The appellant herein is convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- i.d. to suffer R.I. for one month by the learned Sessions Judge, Daman, in Sessions Case No. 9 of 2005 by Judgment and Order dated 28th November, 2006. 2 The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as follows: (I) Ganpat Halpati was residing at Bhandarwad, Ambawadi, Moti Daman alongwith his sons Rajesh and Mahesh and other family members. The present appellant was also residing at Ambawadi since 2001. He was previously residing at Raotalav but he had quarreled with his brother and had left the said house. The accused/appellant owned a motor cycle which he used to park in front of the house of Ganpat. Mahesh had objected said parking and therefore, there used to be frequent bickering between the accused and Mahesh. (ii) It is alleged that one month prior to the incident somebody had put sugar ...
E-square Leisure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K.K. Dani Consultants and Engineers Pvt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Oral Judgment: By this appeal filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, appellant seeks to challenge order dated 1st August, 2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Pune rejecting the application filed by the appellants seeking condonation of delay in filing arbitration application under section 34 of the Act. Some of the relevant facts for the purposes of deciding this appeal are as under:- 2. The disputes between the the parties were referred to the arbitration under the provisions of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. By an award dated 12th October, 2011, the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (for short Council) directed the appellant to pay certain amounts to the respondent (original claimant before the Council). 3. It is the case of the appellant that a copy of the award was received by the appellant from the respondent on 12th December, 2011. The appellant filed a writ petition in this court challenging the said...
Larsen and Toubro Limited and Others Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) : 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 Petitions are taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. In this batch of Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution there is a challenge to a circular dated 1 January 2013 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The circular issues directions to Chief Commissioners of Central Excise and Customs in regard to the procedure to be adopted for the recovery of outstanding demands in situations where an appeal is filed against the order of the adjudicating authority before the Commissioner (Appeals) or thereafter before the CESTAT, the High Court or the Supreme Court. The assessees are aggrieved by the stipulation which has now been brought into force, the effect of which is that though an application for stay of the recovery of the demand has been filed before...
Manish Vs. Mrs. Monica
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-01-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard learned Counsel Mr. N.H. Shams for the applicant. None appears for the non-applicant. 2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the applicant. 3. The applicant is the respondent in Petition No.E-100/2011 pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur. The said petition has been filed by the non-applicant Mrs. Monica Kanojiya for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that the applicant was not regularly attending the dates of hearing and that has caused delay in deciding the petition filed by the non-applicant for grant of maintenance. The Family Court has taken serious note of the conduct of the applicant and has observed that he is not interested in contesting the petition. The impugned order bars the applicant from cross-examining the witnesses examined by the non-applicant and further bears him to adduce his evidence. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant assures this Court that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »