Mumbai Court August 2013 Judgments
Arvind Pradhanbhai Dama Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2 The Appellant-original Plaintiff has challenged the show cause notice under Section 351 issued under MMC Act and in a suit prayed for injunction as the threat was given to demolish the unauthorised structure through the Municipal Corporation's Agency. The Trial Judge has refused to grant ad-interim relief on 21.3.2013. The Plaintiff has been in possession of the premises even prior to 1987 as a tenant and paying the rent regularly to the landlord/owner. 3 To the show cause notice, being tenant in occupation, the Appellant filed reply dated 27.2.2013 and reference is also made to the various documents including ration card, electricity bill and rent receipts. The averments are specifically made that no such notice was issued and/or received by the owner/landlord of the property. It is neither the case of the Respondent-Corporation that they have served the show ca...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax City-15 Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
M.S. Sanklecha, J. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the revenue challenges the order dated 31 December 2012 passed by respondent No.1-Settlement Commission under Section 245-D(2C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) rejecting the petitioner's prayer to declare the Settlement Application filed by respondent No.2-applicant on 14 November 2012 for Assessment Year 2010-11 as invalid. 2 Brief facts relevant to this petition are as under:- (a) For Assessment Year 2010-11, the respondent No.2-applicant filed its return of Income with the revenue on 26 September 2010. (b) The time/period to issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act for Assessment Year 2010-11 expired on 30 September 2011. Admittedly, no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act has been issued till 30 September 2011 or even thereafter. Therefore, it was not possible to complete the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act before the expiry of the time to complete assessment under ...
Tag this Judgment!Hemant Dayalal Bhatt Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2013
P.V. Hardas, J. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure questioning the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai in Case No.32/M/2008 directing re-investigation and transferring the investigation to an officer other than a police officer attached to Malabar Hill Police Station. 2. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this application may briefly be stated thus:- The respondent no.2 herein had filed a complaint under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court had passed an order on 12/5/2008 under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that pursuant thereto, ultimately, on 22/6/2008, the Malabar Hill Police Station had submitted a "C" Summary. The trial court did not accept the "C" Summary and directed further investigation by its order dated 14/6/2011. Pursuant to the further investigation, as was dir...
Tag this Judgment!Shyamrao S/O Pandurang Sambare Vs. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpu ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The order under challenge is passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur on 22-3-2013 classifying the suit under the provisions of Section 6(iv)(ha) of the Bombay Court Fees Act for the purpose of payment of court fees. Hence, the original plaintiff before this Court. 3. In the plaint, the reliefs are claimed as under :- "(a) Declare that plaintiff is the lawful owner of 0.46 Hrs. of land in suit property, (b) Declare that sale deed dated 07-01-2002 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and sale deed dated 20-01-2005 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 are illegal, non-est and therefore, are not binding upon plaintiff. (c) Permanently restrain defendants from interfering with the peaceful and lawful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit property. (d) Cost of suit be saddled upon defendants....
Tag this Judgment!Kalidas Namdeo Saruk and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2] Petitioners before this court claim to be project affected persons and therefore, seek order to quash communication sent to them rejecting the demand to issue certificate regarding that status. 3] Respective counsel for the petitioners state that the certificate is rejected only on the ground that the norms prescribed by the Government Resolution dated 3.5.2010, are not fulfilled. According to them, the employment is to be provided as a part of scheme which was in force when land was acquired. Thus, right to employment crystallized on the date on which land was acquired is relevant and subsequent change in the scheme thereafter is, therefore, not relevant. They rely upon judgment dated 18th October, 2010 in W.P. No. 6921 of 2010 to substantiate their contention. 4] Learned AGP, for the respondents states that Government Resolution dated 3.5.2010, has been issued to regulate the grant...
Tag this Judgment!Yogeshbhai Maheshchandra Jani, Heirs and Legal Representative Vs. Prag ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2013
1. The oft-quoted œH. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N.Thimmajamma and Ors., AIR 1959 SC 443? was yet again pressed into service in support of the submission that Will in the present case is suspicious. 2. The facts of the case are somewhat interesting. One Hasumatiben had executed aWill on 2.3.1985. At the relevant time, she was a teacher in the Sanand Girls School, District - Ahmedabad. Hasumatiben had bequeathed her property to two girls i.e. Ritaben and Pragnaben and she had appointed one Jayantilal Kalidas as executor of the Will. The present appellant is the only son of deceased Hasumatiben. Ritaben and Pragnaben are not related to the deceased, while Ritaben is the daughter of Jayantilal Kalidas, the executor and Pragnaben is the daughter of one Rameshbhai. Jayantilal and Rameshbhai are the neighbourers of the deceased Hasumatiben. At the relevant time, the appellant “ son of the deceased, was serving in the Co-operative Bank at Patan. It is the say of the appellant that ...
Tag this Judgment!Afcons Infrastructure Limited and Others Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corpo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-2013
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 Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution the Petitioners have sought to challenge the validity of a decision which has been taken by the First Respondent in the course of a tendering process by which a consortium consisting of the Second and Third Respondents has been held to be technically qualified for bidding for the contract. Following that decision the price bids of the eligible bidders were opened and the Second and Third Respondents were found to be the lowest bidders. 3. The First Respondent invited bids for the award of a contract which envisaged the conversion of Sagar Pragati, a Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) to a Mobile Offshore Production Unit (MOPU). Sagar Pragati is a drilling rig...
Tag this Judgment!Anandi Roy S/O Dilipkumar Roy Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Pub ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. The respondents waive service. By consent, heard finally forthwith. 2. The petitioner had lodged a report with Osmanpura Police Station, Aurangabad alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code by unknown persons. It was reported that, theft in respect of the gold ornaments and cash belonging to the first informant and his wife, totally valued at Rs.89,300/- [Rupees Eighty Nine Thousand Three Hundred only] had been committed by some unknown offenders. The investigation commenced and three (3) persons came to be prosecuted in respect of the said offences. The trial held by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad resulted in the acquittal of all the accused persons. In the course of investigation, the stolen property was, allegedly, recovered by the investigating agency and this property was produced before the Court during trial. At the conclusion of the trial, th...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkisan Shamrao Musale and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Throu ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-28-2013
Sunil P. Deshmukh, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent. 2. Petitioners assail, in this group of writ petitions, propriety, legality and validity of communications / letters dated 21.02.2013 and 28.06.2013 issued by respondents No.3 and 4, respectively communicating their revised pay fixation. Petitioners pay fixation has been done taking into account the date of their appointments and accordingly giving them benefit of Career Advancement Scheme (herein after CAS for brevity). By communication dated 21.02.2013 it was informed that CAS benefits given are not according to the Government Resolution dated 18.10.2001 whereunder the benefits would be available from the date of acquiring requisite qualifications and as such their pay fixation needs revision. It is further communicated that accordingly their pay be fixed and revised pay fixation be recorded in their service books and the same be sent for certification. 3. Indisputable position emerging in thi...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Vivek S/O Vishwanath Mane Vs. Akhtarkha Ganikha Pathan and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-28-2013
1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 6-4-2013 passed by the respondent No.8-Additional Collector, Washim, on the applications filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 7 on 19-3-2013 for calling of the detailed inspection report of the Gram Sevak of Gram Panchayat Malegaon and permitting to cross-examine the said Gram Sevak. 3. In the proceedings of Application No.25 of 2012 filed under Section 14(1)(j3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 seeking disqualification of the petitioner as Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat on the ground that he has encroached upon the Government land or public property, the application for calling of the report of the Gram Sevak was filed. The said application was allowed and the report was submitted on 19-3-2013 by the Village Development Officer, stating that no encroachment was found on the Government land or public property. Immediatel...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »