Mumbai Court June 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.
Smt. Baby Anumanta Chandawa and Another Vs. the State of Goa, Through ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-12-2013
U.V. Bakre, J. Heard Mr. S. M. Walwaikar and Mr. J. Godinho, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General on behalf of the respondents. 2. Both the above petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment since issues involved and the reliefs claimed in both are the same. 3. By these petitions, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs: (a) For a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the decision dated 20/12/2005 of the review D.P.C. (b) For a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to follow the law declared by this Court in the matter of Ashok Redkar and Ors (supra) and to consider the petitioners to the post of Ward Sister by reviewing the decision of respondent no. 2 taken on 20/12/2005. 4. The petitioners belong to the reserved category of Scheduled Castes. The petitioners joined Goa Medical College as Staff Nurses. The petitioner of Writ Petition No. 237/2006 joined on...
Smt. Sunderabai and Others Vs. Rajesh
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-12-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard learned Counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs. 2. The Counsel for the respondent/defendant was absent in the first session. Hence, the matter was kept in second session, but he is again absent when called. 3. This is a second appeal by the original plaintiffs whose suit for declaration, permanent injunction and possession was dismissed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. 4. The plaintiffs filed the suit claiming possession of one room on south western side of House No.622, Ward No.2, Telipura, Burad Galli, Sitabuldi, Nagpur. According to the plaintiffs, the said room, which was occupied by the respondent - defendant as a tenant, was in a dilapidated condition. The defendant, therefore, vacated the premises voluntarily on 15th August, 1989. However, in the last week of August, 1989, the defendant again appeared on the site and made the construction on the suit site and started residing there without the consent of the plaintiffs. Not only t...
Smt. Surekha Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-12-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for both the parties. 3. The applicant has been externed from the local limits of Nagpur District on the basis of pendency of cases under the Bombay Prohibition Act. This Court has repeatedly held that the externment order cannot be passed on the basis of pendency of cases under the Bombay Prohibition Act. 4. In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 5th March, 2013 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-IV, Nagpur is set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly....
Kasat and Sons, Nagpur and Another Vs. Smt. Kamalabai Devidatta Jejani ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-12-2013
Oral Judgment: This appeal is directed against judgment and decree passed on 17.07.1999 by Addl. District Judge, Gadchiroli in Regular Civil Appeal No.1/1992 confirming the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Gadchiroli on 30.10.1991. Submissions: 2. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions. The appellant no.1 is a firm of which appellant no.2 is partner, who is canvassing commission agent and broker dealing in grains trade. Admittedly, the goods were sold to respondent Nos.3 to 5-original defendant nos.1 to 3. The unpaid price of the goods was obviously required to be paid by defendant Nos.1 to 3 who purchased the goods from plaintiffs i.e. respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is not the case of plaintiffs that the present appellants acted as traders or purchasers of the said goods and on the contrary it is the case of the plaintiffs that the present appellants acted only as commission agents for commission and nothing mor...
Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Formerly Glaxo India Ltd.) and ...
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2013
Per Bench. These are cross appeals by assessee and Revenue and cross objections by assessee for assessment year 1998-99 arising out of the order of CIT (A)-XXVI Mumbai dated 25/03/2003 on order of AO under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel and the learned Departmental Representative. Learned Counsel placed on record a paper book and a chart indicating the issues which are covered by earlier orders. These are considered while disposing of these appeals. 3. Ground No.1 raised by assessee is as under: "The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXVI Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the CIT (A), erred in upholding the stand of the Jt. Commissioner of Income- tax Special Range 53 Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the JCIT) in not allowing the appellants claim for depreciation on Rs.22,67,281 and Rs.16,42,617 being part of the Share Dilution expenses incurred in the assessment year 1984-85 and 1986-87 submitted as relatable to programmes of capital e...
Mrs. Shobhana Sahadev Shah and Others Vs. Mrs. Sangeeta Porbanderwala ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2013
1. The petitioner has sought to probate the will of her deceased husband. The petitioner has shown two attesting witnesses in the will sought to be probated. One of them is a lawyer. The other of them is a doctor. The evidence of the lawyer has been led. The evidence of the doctor is in progress. The petitioner has sought to put questions in the nature of cross-examination to the doctor under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is the petitioner's case that the doctor is hostile to the case of the petitioner. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the motive of giving a false answer to a previous question has to be established by declaring the doctor hostile. 2. A witness may give any oral evidence. The oral evidence is required to be appreciated based upon the normal parameters of credibility of the witness, consistency of his evidence and the relevance of the oral evidence alongside the documentary evidence produced on record. A witness, who gives evidence which ma...
Rustom Soonawala Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2013
P.C. The applicant is a doctor who has been accused of having raped the complainant who was his patient. The complainant is a married woman with a complaint of TB. She was the applicant's patient since August, 2012. The complainant lodged the complaint at 22.30 hours on 17.05.2013 with regard to the incident that transpired at about 18.00 hours on that day. The description of the offence in the complaint shows a complete penetration resulting in ejaculation after which the complainant adjusted her clothing to come out of the examination room where the offence took place. On 23.05.2013 a further statement of the complainant is recorded showing that the complainant was not sure about the extent of the act of penetration. 2. The medical examination of the complainant undertaken on 18.05.2013 at 3.30 a.m., 5 hours after the incident, has shown no injury to her private parts and its local examination shows normality. It shows her hymen to have "old healed tears". The forensic investigation ...
ishwar S/O Pandurang Masram Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-11-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1] The appellant takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli dated 13.8.2009 thereby sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/. 2] The prosecution case, in nutshell, is as under: (i) The accused and the deceased are both the employees of State Reserve Police Force. They were members of S.R.P.F. Group No.13 at Nagpur. They were deputed at Jambiya Gatta for Naxal Bandobast and camp security. One Santosh Bode was their in-charge. It is the prosecution case that Kiran, the wife of the accused, had illicit relations with the deceased. It is further the prosecution case that the deceased used to tease the appellant as impotent. (ii) The prosecution case is that on 6.1.2006 the accused and the deceased were on duty at the Police Help Centre, Jambiya Gatta. It is the prosecution case that the appellant and the deceased were staying in the same room. At around 11.00 p.m. the inmates...
Bahujan Samaj Educational and Cultural Forum Represented Through Its P ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-11-2013
U.V. Bakre, J. 1. Heard Mr. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General, on behalf of the respondents in both the petitions. 2. By these Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought following reliefs: (a) Grant a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent no. 2 to follow the law enunciated by the Supreme Court and complete the admission process based on the examination GCET 2012 by preparing a single merit list of all the candidates including, if any, OBC candidate in merit list and grant admissions on the basis of the merit without adjusting them in reserved category candidate who qualify in the general category on their merits and grant the admissions to the OBC candidates (to the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 27/2013) who are the less meritorious candidates of the OBC rese...
M/S. Jindal Poly Films Ltd. and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2013
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. The constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax (Levy, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2009 is challenged. The challenge, during the course of the hearing is to the retrospective operation of the amendment and validation which relates back to 1 April 2005 when the principal legislation came into force. Package schemes of incentive 2. Since 1964, the Government of Maharashtra had introduced Package Schemes of Incentives to achieve a dispersal of industries outside the Bombay-Thane-Pune belt and to attract industries to underdeveloped and developing areas of the State. The Package Scheme of Incentives of 1964 was followed by amended schemes in 1969, 1973, 1976, 1979 and 1983. On 30 September 1988, the State Government notified a new package scheme of incentives for the period between 1 October 1988 and 30 September 1993 with a view to rationalize the scope, scale and mode of release of incentives and accelerate the dispersal of industries from the d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »