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.
Ibrahim Samsher Pathan and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and An ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-27-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 3rd March, 2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No.82 Of 1998, convicting the Appellants [original accused Nos. 1 and 2] for the offences punishable U/Section 436 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three [3] years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- [Rs. Five Hundred Only] each and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six [6] months, the original accused have preferred present Criminal Appeal. 2. In short, the prosecution case is as under:- Complainant - Rambhau Piraji Shinde and present Appellants inter se resides in the neighbourhood in a public field reserved for grazing the cattle of the villagers [xk;jk.k]. Earlier there used to quarrel between the two families. In the circumstances, on 5th May, 1998 at about 12.30 a.m. to 1.00 a.m., the complainant noticed that roof of his house had caught fire and ...
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2014
1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. The challenge in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to an order dated 11 November, 2009 passed by the Revisional Authority, namely the Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance in the Department of Revenue. The order dated 11 November, 2009 and communication thereof dated 11 March, 2010 are challenged in the below mentioned factual background. 2. The Petitioner is a Government of India undertaking and termed as a Government Company under Section 617 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It has its registered office at the address mentioned in the title to this Writ Petition. The Respondents are officers exercising powers under the relevant statute namely the Central Excise Act, 1944 end Rules framed thereunder. In this case, we concerned with Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. The claim of the Petitioner is that it procured Aviation Turbine Fuel, f...
Vitthal @ Baban Narayan Hingane and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-2014
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) 1. The Appellant/Original Accused Nos.1,2,3 and 6, who stand convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to each pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of which to undergo further R.I. for one year, by the 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai, by Judgment dated 5.10.2007, in Sessions Case No.446 of 2004 and Sessions Case No.106 of 2005, by this Appeal question the correctness of their conviction and sentence. 2. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this Appeal may briefly be stated thus :- PW-6 ASI Kondiba Malhari Thengil, who, on 3.4.2004, was attached to the Mulund Police Station and was present in the Hindusthan Police Chowky, was informed by two persons about assault on Yogesh Rathod. PW-6 ASI Thengil, therefore, accordingly went with those two persons in an auto-rickshaw to the scene of the incident which was in front of Gidwani High Scho...
Amit Satish Shah Vs. Archana Amit Shah and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2014
1. This petition is directed against the order dated 11 March 2013 made by the Family Court directing the petitioner to pay rent / licence fee towards the 'share household' i.e. flat No. B/20, Pournima Park, Salisibury Park, Pune or in the alternate to make arrangement for alternative premises for the respondent and minor child on or before the termination of the leave and licence in respect of the share household or pay an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month towards rent for acquisition of alternate premises by the respondent. 2. As of now, the respondent and the minor child have acquired alternate premises, in respect of which the respondent claims to pay rent of Rs.9,000/- per month. The petitioner disputes this position by asserting that the premises wherein the respondent now resides, are premises owned by her own brother and therefore the respondent cannot be said to be paying any rent for such premises. Besides, the petitioner points out that the respondent owns yet another premises,...
M/s. Anand International Vs. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2014
A.K. Menon, J. 1. By this order, we dispose of two references pertaining to the same assessee pursuant to Reference Application Nos.137 and 138 of 2003 which pertain to assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. 2. The facts in both the cases are similar. The common question in both these appeals is as follows:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant is not entitled to set-off under Rule 41D of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, in respect of the export sales of the fountain pens sold at Rs.30/- per piece and ball pens sold at Rs.25/- per piece during the period 01-04-1995 to 30-09-1995 covered by Notification Entry 304 and export sale of fountain pens and ball pens sold at a price upto Rs.30/- per piece during the period 01-10-1995 to 31.03.1997 covered by Notification Entry A-23 ? 3. For the sake of convenience, we will refer to the facts in Reference Application No.137/2003 in brief :- By notification issued und...
Shah Investments, Financials, Developments and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2014
R.M. Borde, J. 1. Since both the petitions raise common question for adjudication, both the petitions are considered together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 3. In Writ Petition No.7843 of 2014, presented by Shah Investments, Financials, Developments and Consultants Pvt. Ltd., and Control Automation Projects Pvt. Ltd., challenge is raised to the decision taken by Aurangabad Municipal Corporation to declare the petitioner disqualified on consideration of technical bids and further declaring Respondent No.3 as L1 Contractor. Whereas, in Writ Petition No.8211 of 2014 apart from seeking to quash the decision declaring concerned petitioner disqualified on opening the technical bid, a further relief is sought in the nature of issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the decision awarding contract to Respondent No.3 in pursuance to the Tender Notice20142...
Jyotindra R. Shah and Another Vs. The Divisional Jt. Registrar, Co-ope ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2014
1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, Rule was made returnable forthwith. 2. In the course of final hearing on 1 October 2014, Ms Meena Pomal respondent no. 4, who appears in person urged that this petition be dismissed in limine, inter alia on the following grounds:- (A) That the petitioners have made several misstatements of facts with regard to their having furnished certain documents to respondent no. 4; (B) That extension of interim relief was obtained on 22 August 2014 without disclosing to the court that there was no order extending the interim relief made on 4 July 2014. 3. In so far as the first objection is concerned, the same can by no means be regarded to be 'preliminary'. This is because the entire dispute in the present petition concerns the non furnish of certain documents by the petitioners to respondent no. 4, despite orders for furnish, thereby prompting the respondent no. 1 to grant a sanction under Section 148 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960...
Avinash Vitthalrao Choudhary Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2014
Oral Judgment: A.S. Oka, J. 1. A notice for final disposal was issued. The submissions of the learned Counsel for parties were heard in the last week. The petitioner who was a Judicial Officer has challenged the order dated 28th September,2011 passed under the directions of and in the name of the Hon'ble Governor of Maharashtra which is an order of compulsory retirement. The order of compulsory retirement has been passed in purported exercise of powers under the Maharashtra Judicial Services Rules 2008 as amended on 6th August,2011 ( for short 'the said Rules') as well as under clause (a) of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension Rules), 1982 (for short 'the Pension Rules'). 2. The date of birth of the petitioner is 17th June,1960. He was appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class with effect from 14th August,1995. The case made out by the petitioner is that he was granted benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme in ...
Arun Vs. Varsha and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-14-2014
V. K. Jadhav, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the petitioner-husband challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge of Family Court, Aurangabad in petition No. 38 of 2001, dismissing the petition of petitioner-husband filed under Section 13 (1-A) (ii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the said Act), praying therein for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce. (For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties shall be referred by their status before the Family Court i.e. petitioner and respondent). 2. Brief facts, giving raise to the present appeal, are as follows:- a) The marriage between the petitioner-husband and respondentwife was solemnized on 7.6.1983 according to Hindu rites and rituals. They have a son and a daughter out of their marital wedlock. Their marriage is still subsisting. b) According to petitioner-petitioner-husband in the year 1988, respondent-wife on her own accord left the house of petitioner-...
Cyrus Keki Balsara and Others Vs. Jasmine K. Gandhi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2014
P.D. Kode, J. 1. Both the aforesaid proceedings connected with the events occurred in Criminal Case No.99/SW/2008 of the 51st Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla, Mumbai heard together are disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. Criminal Application No.514 of 2011 under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by three applicants, i.e. accused Nos.1 to 3 in said Criminal Case No. 99/SW/2008. They have prayed for quashing the order dated 20-12-2008, passed issuing process against them under Sections 506(II), 504, 323, 324, and 384 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC) upon a private complaint made by respondent Nos.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred as complainant No.1 and 2) in said application. 3. The said complainant had made said complaint amongst other on the allegation that on 4-12-2008, at about 11:30 p.m., the accused No.3 sent two goondas at their house at Dadar Parsi Colony. Upon complainant No.2 opening the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »