Mumbai Court October 2014 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.
Kashinath Rajaram Kasabe and Others Vs. Ramchandra Tukaram Kasabe, dec ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-2014
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26th August, 1992 in Civil Appeal No.512 of 1986 passed by 7th Additional District Judge, Nasik by which the appeal was partly allowed and the decree for execution of sale deed in favour of the appellants plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No.63 of 1982 passed on 27th June, 1986 by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik was modified only to the extent of 1/5th share of deceased Ramchandra Tukaram Kasbe, the present Appeal was filed by the partly unsuccessful plaintiffs. The facts of the case are as follows: 2. The appellants plaintiffs who are the original plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No.63 of 1982 and stated that the suit land Gut No.368 admeasuring 4H 69.4R belonging to the defendant Ramchandra Tukaram Kasbe was agreed to be sold to the plaintiffs by him for a total consideration of Rs.24,200/. The defendant Ramchandra had mortgaged the land with Nasik District Coop. Land Development Bank for sinking the well in Gut No.109 i...
Gurudas Mangruji Kamdi and Another Vs. The Honâble Chancellor of ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-08-2014
B.R. Gavai, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. An important question as to the scope of, powers of the Honble Chancellor to appoint a person to act as a Vice Chancellor as an interim measure, as provided in sub-section (7) of Section 12 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 arises for consideration in the present writ petition. 3. The respondent no.3- Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University is duly established in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity). Dr. V.S. Sapkar was working as a Vice Chancellor, of respondent no. 3,who tendered his resignation on 30.03.2014. As such the Honble Chancellor vide an order dated 30.03.2014 appointed the respondent no.4- Shri Anup Kumar, who is working as the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur, to act as a Vice Chancellor of the respondent no.3- University in additi...
Sandip Sahadev Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-2014
Oral Judgment: A.R. Joshi, J. 1) Heard rival arguments on this appeal preferred by the appellantoriginal accused No.2 challenging the judgment and order of conviction in Sessions Case No. 1043 of 2004. 2) The impugned judgment and order was passed by 6th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Sewree Mumbai dated 25th June, 2008. The appellantaccused No.2 was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 and also under Section 452 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and one year imprisonment respectively. Also respective fine amounts of Rs.500/ and Rs.100/ were imposed. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Original accused No.1 was acquitted of the said charges. The State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of accused No.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, appellantaccused No.2 preferred this appeal. 3) The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under : The incident o...
Shraddha Vinod Deo Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-2014
Naresh Patil, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner challenges the order of her compulsory retirement passed by the respondents. The contention of the petitioner is that by an order dated 1st September 1990, she was appointed as Judicial Magistrate First Class and posted at Jalgaon. She served at Jalgaon from 1st September 1990 to 3rd March 1991. Thereafter she worked at various places like Wardha, Thane, Karjat, Pune. From 2000 to 2004 the petitioner was posted as Judge, Industrial Court, Mumbai. In the year 2007-08, the petitioner served as Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mumbai. In the year 2011, the petitioner was posted as Member, Family Court, Bandra and thereafter as Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Mumbai. The first assured progression scale was granted to the petitioner in the year 2003 and the second was granted on 14th December 2011. It is contended that Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs for short) for the ye...
Satish Vs. The Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-08-2014
A.M. Badar, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner is praying for setting aside his order of termination of service and for directing the respondents to calculate his service as continuous service and to award all consequential benefits to him by holding that termination of the petitioner amounts to his release on medical ground. The petitioner is also praying for directing the respondents to give him disability pension. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. On behalf of the petitioner, Shri L.V. Sangit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner joined army as a Clerk after undergoing due selection process; for a period of 16 years by executing a bond. According to the learned counsel, in the year 1989, the petitioner suffered head as well as chest pain at Jalandhar and he was admitted at the hospital for about 5 to 6 months. On 23.1.1990, the petitioner was discharged from his duty and he was sent back to home by the Army Officer. The learned co...
Revathi V. Amin Vs. Mahesh Dasappa Karkera
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-2014
1. The testamentary suit is filed by the petitioner for letters of administration of the deceased Dasappa Dhomba Karkera with the will of the deceased dated 2nd August, 1996 annexed thereto. The deceased had 3 sons and 3 daughters. The deceased lived with one son, the caveator herein. The deceased has bequeathed the movable properties to his 3 daughters who were his joint holders in his investments. The deceased has bequeathed his immovable property being his residential flat to 5 out of his 6 children excluding only the caveator who lived with him. He has directed sale of the flat and equal distribution of the proceeds to his 5 children further directing that the caveator be vacated from the flat by his nominees who were his eldest daughter and youngest son. The deceased has declared that his son, the caveator herein who lived with him was not looking after and taking care of him in his old age. The will is attested by two witnesses on 2nd August, 1996 and registered before the Sub-Re...
Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) Vs. Fomento Barges Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. On 12.3.2007, the appeal has been admitted on the following two questions as substantial questions of law:- "A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the transaction of purchasing shares over and above the quoted rate of shares amounts to excess payment, without consideration and therefore deemed to be gift made under Section 4(1) (a) of the Gift Tax Act 1958? B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the purchase of shares by the assessee over and above the quoted rate without consideration and therefore attracts Gift-tax under section 4(1)(a) read with section 2(xxiv)(d) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958?" However during the arguments, it is not disputed that answer to second question is contingent upon the first question and accordingly, parties have advanced arguments only on first question. 2. Learned counsel for the revenue has taken us through the order of CIT (Appeals) to urge that in fact a loan transaction has been camouflage ...
Abhishek Bhaskarrao Jadhav Vs. Maharashtra Animal Fishery Sciences Uni ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-2014
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The Petitioner, who belongs to open category, but falls within the ambit of"Freedom Fighter category" as contemplated in Clause 9- Reservation of Seats, Clause 9.3- Other Reservations (Horizontal Reservations), sub-clause (B) Freedom Fighter (FF) - 2%-30% shall be reserved for female candidates, of Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University, Nagpur, Prospectus for B.V.Sc and A.H. 2014-15. (for short, "Prospectus"). 3. Admittedly, a female candidate for the said category is not available. The Petitioner is otherwise eligible for consideration under this category. There is no issue in this regard. 4. Respondent No.1, through an affidavit referring to various steps which need to be followed as prescribed in Clause 8 of Prospectus, being admission procedure, read and referred to following steps. The relevant steps/procedure is as under : "xviii) The seats remaining vacant afte...
Zubair Malik and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, t ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-2014
Oral Judgment: Anoop V. Mohta,J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The Petitioners have filed the present Petition, as the Respondent/Corporation has issued notice under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short, MMC Act), basically with a prayer that as the landlord is not in a position to provide alternate temporary accommodation, though expressed intention to provide permanent accommodation (tenanted or ownership), based upon the actual commercial exploitation of the premises/land, that is after development of the land/building based upon the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 (for short, DCR) and other related provisions. 3. The Respondents are under obligation to take effective steps if building is declared in C-1 category being in dangerous and dilapidated condition. The Respondent/Corporation's affidavit dated 22 September 2014 further supports the case that the building is required to be demol...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Manisha Enterprises
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-07-2014
1. Heard. 2. Aggrieved by the decree directing the present appellant insurer to pay an amount of Rs.9,23,003/- with interest @ 6% per annum from 21/4/1988 up to the date of filing of the suit towards the claim of fire insurance policy, the present appeal is preferred. 3. The respondent plaintiff came with the following case before the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Beed in Special Civil Suit no. 94 of 1991: That the plaintiff operates the proprietary concern which deals in all types of Televisions, Refrigerators, Air Coolers, Water Coolers etc. at Beed. In the month of November, 1987, he has obtained the fire insurance from the present appellant defendant insurer vide fire policy B for a period between 18/11/1987 to 18/11/1988. The risk was covered for Rs.2,00,000/-. Thereafter, another policy A for covering the risk of Rs.10,00,000/- was obtained for a period from 21/4/1988 to 20/4/1989. In the very night of obtaining of second of the policy i.e. on 21/4/1988, fire broke...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »