Mumbai Court May 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.
Master Rushil A.A. Diniz Vs. Goa University and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-10-2013
The petitioner herein is a student of respondent no.2, college for the stream of Bachelor of Computer Application (B.C.A.). He is also a sportsman and has represented respondent no.2 in inter-collegiate Table Tennis Tournament. Respondent no.2 is affiliated to respondent no.1, Goa University. 2. The petitioner appeared for the first semester of B.C.A. and cleared all the papers except the paper of Computer Organization and Reconstruction. In that subject he failed to secure the grade for passing i.e. grade "D". He has been awarded grade "F" which is for failure. He therefore applied for verification of his marksheet and learnt that he had secured 34 marks in the subject. The minimum marks required for passing being 40 the petitioner had failed by 6 marks. 3. Admittedly, having represented respondent no.2 in inter-collegiate tournaments the petitioner is entitled to receive 10 marks called "Entitlement Marks". The dispute raised in the present petition is about the mode or manner of all...
G.R. Veerabhadrappa Vs. Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministr ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-10-2013
A.K. Basheer, Member (J) The short question that has cropped up for consideration in this Original Application is whether the applicant is entitled to be reinstated as President of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in officiating capacity, after removing respondent No.3 from the said post. 2. Admittedly, applicant is the senior-most Vice President of the Tribunal. He is an Accountant member. He was appointed in the Tribunal as a member in August 1990 and as Vice President in January 2005. By order dated October 13, 2011, the applicant was appointed as President of the Tribunal in officiating capacity till the post was filled up on regular basis. 3. However, by Annexure A-1 notification dated May 5, 2012, the above order was modified by the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India and it was directed that the applicant shall continue as President of the Tribunal in officiating capacity up to August 31, 2012 or until further order whichever is earlier. On August 31, 2012, Departm...
S.R. Sale and Co. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) The Petitioner has challenged an order dated 12 September 2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai under Regulation 21 of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004, prohibiting the Petitioner from transacting CHA business in Zones I, II and III of the Mumbai Commissionerate on the ground that its continuance was considered prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue warranting immediate action. The allegation relates to the export of cheap material such as soap stone powder in the names of exporting firms by misdeclaring it as high value bulk drugs and their intermediates. A person by the name of Manoj Gore is alleged to have attended to the clearance of the export consignments on the strength of a CHA licence of the Petitioner. It is alleged that an employee of the Petitioner allowed the said Manoj Gore to attend to the clearance of export consignments on behalf of the CHA firm. 2. Regulation 21 empowers the Commis...
Janu Ladkya Wagh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-2013
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) The appellant-original accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 26.10.2005 passed by the IVth Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No.418 of 2004. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/- IDRI for one year. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (a) The appellant was residing with his wife Sheubai (deceased) and minor daughter PW 5 Pooja at Village Asnoli, Tal. Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane. The appellant and his wife Sheubai were working as agricultural labourers. (b) The incident occurred in the night between 16.09.2004 and 17.09.2004. It is the prosecution case that the appellant assaulted his wife Sheubai with a sickle and bamboo stick. PW 1 Aruna Patil in whose field the appellant and his wife Sheubai were working as agricultural labourer...
Karam Chand Thapar and Bros.(Coal Sales) Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Constructi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Mr. D.J. Khambatta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent states that respondent would proceed on the basis of the denial. The statement is accepted. By consent of parties taken up for final hearing at the admission stage. 2. By this petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, petitioner seeks injunction against respondent from encashing Performance Bank Guarantee of Rs. 15.95 crores issued by HSBC Bank on their behalf and also seeks return of the said Performance Bank Guarantee. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are setout hereinafter:- i) In July 2010, by a tender notice Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited invited tenders for the work of constructing Canal Earthwork, Canal Lining, Structures and Services Roads of the distributaries and minors of Limbdi Canal including Maintenance and Operation for a period of five years. The respondent submitted their bid and were awarded th...
Hasmukh Jagasi Visharia Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-2013
1. This is an application for anticipatory bail. 2. The applicant is named as accused in C.R. No.8 of 2013 registered at Narpoli Police Station for the offenses punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. and Section 74(1)B, 1(C), 74(1)(e), 74(1)(f), 74(2), 74(4) and 29(4) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act. 3. The FIR was lodged by one Shri Kamlesh Dinkar Nagare, Joint Commissioner, Sales Tax, Government of Maharashtra. 4. Summary of version contained in the FIR is as follows: (a) Applicant is the Proprietor of Mahavira Paper Cutting, a proprietary firm having its Trading Identification No.27140248967V/C (TIN) for the purposes of payment of Value added tax. (b) The applicant has shown that he had made various purchases from many traders who are having TIN numbers. (c) In relation to trading done by the applicant, he was liable to pay the Value Added Tax. At the time of furnishing the return of the payment of the VAT, the applicant had claimed credit on the basis of...
Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-2013
A.S. OKA, J. In one of the Petitions, this Court had issued a notice to the learned Advocate General. With a view to appreciate the submissions made across the bar, it will be necessary to make a reference to the factual aspects of the case which are more or less identical in each Petition. For the sake of convenience, we are making a reference to the facts of the Writ Petition No.10902 of 2011. 2. The challenge in the Petition is to the Notification/Communication dated 31st October 2010. There is also a challenge to the demand notice dated 11th December 2010 by which a demand in the sum of Rs.13,71,129/- was made by the Government towards the supervision charges under Section 58A of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1949"). In the Petition, the first substantive prayer made is for a declaration that Section 58A and Section 114 of the said Act of 1949 are unconstitutional to the extent to which the said provisions enable the State Government ...
Mohd. Gulam HusseIn Mohd Meghu Shaikh @ Nana Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-2013
Oral Judgment: The appellant herein stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 22 read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "NDPS Act") and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh in default S.I. for six months in NDPS Special Case No.116 of 2007 by the Special Judge under NDPS Act for Greater Mumbai, vide Judgment and order dated 24th December, 2009. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the original accused No.1 (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") has filed the present appeal. 2. Such of the facts, which are necessary for the decision of this appeal, are as follows :- In the intervening night of 5.1.2007 and 6.1.2007, PI Raut working as Senior Police Inspector in Shivaji Nagar Police Station was on a combing operation along with the other police personnel. At about 1.45 a.m. her patrolling party came near Madina Masjid. They saw light i...
Radheshyam Gangasahay Trivedi and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-2013
Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar, J. By order dated 19th March 2013, it was directed that this Petition shall be heard finally. The petitioners seek declaration that the reservation of their lands in the sanctioned development plan has lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. 2. The petitioners are the owners of various landed properties situated in village Navghar, Taluka-Bhayander, District-Thane. Urban Development Department of State of Maharashtra vide Notification No.TPS-1296/847/CR-162/96/UD-12 dated 14.5.1997 has sanctioned the development plan of the erstwhile Mira Bhayandar Municipal Council with effect from 15th May 1997. As per the sanctioned plan, some lands of the petitioners were reserved under reservation nos.263, 262 for the drama theatre in Mira Bhayander. The petitioners gave offer that they would develop the properties and construct the theatre for the Municipal Corporation which is the planning authority. The said ...
Magas Varga Karmachari-adhikari Suraksha Mahasangh Vs. the State of Ma ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-09-2013
R.M. Borde, J. 1 The petitioner-Society has approached this Court praying for quashing the Circular dated 27.10.2008 issued by the State of Maharashtra through its General Administration Department, being ultra vires the Constitution of India. The petitioner is also praying for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature to the Respondents to implement the provisions of Government Resolution dated 05.12.1994 and provisions of Maharashtra State Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (VimuktaJatis), Nomadic Tribes, Special Backward Category and Other Backward Classes) Act, 2001 (herein after referred to as Act No.VIII of 2004), strictly. 2 According to the petitioner, circular issued by the Government on 27.10.2008 is contrary to Maharashtra Act No.VIII of 2004 and is also violative of provisions of Article 16(4A) and 16(4B) of the Constitution of India. 3 The State of Maharashtra has e...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »