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.
Renuka Vishnu Ghule Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Principa ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-14-2014
R.M. Borde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. The petitioner is praying to quash notification dated 01.01.2014 and consequential orders of removal communicated by the Deputy Commissioner of Child Development, Maharashtra State, Pune, District Women and Child Development Officer, Aurangabad, on 24.01.2014, thereby directing termination of petitioner from the post of Chairperson of Child Welfare Committee, Aurangabad. 3. The petitioner came to be appointed as a Member of Child Welfare Committee, Aurangabad, by virtue of Notification issued in that behalf by the State Government on 02.06.2008. It is the contention of the petitioner that there were certain complaints received against the then Chairperson and Members of the Child Welfare Committee, Aurangabad. In pursuance thereof, a show cause notice came to be issued on 08.02.2010 by the Commissioner, Women and Child Development Department, Maharashtra Sta...
Veena Vs. The Chairman, Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-14-2014
P.C. 1. The petitioner has prayed for to quash and set aside Order No. 657 dated 08/05/2009 passed by the Chairman, Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur (NIT) and order dated 14/09/2009 passed by the NIT respondent no. 1 under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Gunthewari Developments (Regulation, Upgradation and Control) Act, 2001 as wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the principles of natural justice and for issuance of the direction to respondent no. 1 to call upon respondent no. 3 restraining the enforcement of the said order. 2. Facts stated are that the petitioner came across the advertisement issued by respondent no. 2 in the year 1990 for sale of the plots at Khasra no. 83/1, PH No 44 Ward No. 15 situated at Mauza Somalwada, Nagpur. The petitioner purchased Plot No. 2, area 464.25 Sq. Meters (5000 Sq. Feet) out of total 104 plots layout for the consideration of Rs. 7500/vide registered Sale Deed dated 26/09/1990 from respondent no. 2. The Government of Maharashtra enacted...
Textile Kamgar Sanghatana and Others Vs. Hon'ble Member, Industrial Co ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-14-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the order dated 19.07.2013 passed below Exhs. 14, 17 and 20 in Reference (BIR) No. 5 of 2012 whereby all the aforesaid applications have been rejected. 3. The respondent no.2 is an Industry wherein its employees have formed petitioner No. 1 Trade Union registered under the provisions of Trade Union Act, 1926. The service conditions of the employees of the respondent no. 2 Industry are governed by various agreements/settlements between the Industry and elected representatives of the employees. An earlier agreement dated 07.07.2009 was for the period from 01.11.2008 to 31.10.2011. After expiry of aforesaid agreement, in absence of any representative union, four elected representatives gave fresh charter of demands in terms of provisions of Section 42(2) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (for short the s...
Red Chillies Entertainments Private Limited Vs. Hathway Cable and Data ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2014
P.C. 1. I have heard Mr. Dhond, learned senior counsel for the Plaintiff. An ad-interim order sought is in the nature of a "John Doe" order in the sense that it seeks reliefs against a person or persons unknown in addition to the present Defendants Nos.1 to 3. An affidavit of service on Defendants Nos.1 to 3 has been filed. 2. Defendants Nos.1 to 3 have been served. Defendant No.4 is joined in a representative capacity on behalf of those who, according to the Plaintiff, though persons known and unknown, are likely to infringe the copyright of the Plaintiff in a film about to be released and titled 'HAPPY NEW YEAR'. 3. The apprehension of the Plaintiff, based on previous experience, is that there is a likelihood of pirated copies of this film being released on different media, including Blu-Ray, CD, DVD, VCD etc., and even of a film being transmitted through the service of Defendants Nos.1 to 3 or through cable service operators. 4. Various High Courts have in the past issued similar or...
Inox Leisure Limited Vs. Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporat ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-14-2014
1. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the parties. 2. Mr. Jain, learned Counsel waives service of behalf of respondent. 3. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Company challenges the order dated 07/09/2013 passed by Principal District Judge, Panaji (PDJ hereinafter) allowing the application at Exhibit- 20 for amendment of petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 4. The earlier orders passed by this Court showed an effort being made to dispose of the matter finally at the stage of admission. It is not necessary to narrate facts for present adjudication. Pendency of application filed under Section 34 of above mentioned 1996 Act by the present respondent challenging the award dated 28/12/2009 by Arbitrator is not disputed. The application seeking leave to raise additional grounds vide Exhibit-20 came to be filed in the month of January, 2012 i.e. more than two years after the filing of Section 34 applicati...
North Karnataka Expressway Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-10, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2014
S.C. Dharmadhikari,J. 1] This is Appeal by the Assessee challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench at Mumbai, dated 30th August, 2011 in Income Tax Appeal No.3978/Mum/2010. The assessment year in question is 200506. 2] An order of the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') dated 17th March, 2010 was under challenge before the Tribunal and at the instance of the AppellantAssessee. The Commissioner had exercised his powers under the above provision and held that the assessment made by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 3] The Appeal raises substantial question of law and which is formulated as under: "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 directing the Assessing Officer to examine th...
Arunkumar Vinaychandra alias Vinodchandra Bhagat Vs. Rukmani Vinaychan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2014
RevatiMohite Dere, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the respondent's notice of motion seeking dismissal of the appellant's suit for partition on the ground, that it is barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC'). The learned Judge held that the suit was barred under Order II Rule 2, as the appellant omitted to take leave of the Court and sue for other reliefs in the earlier suit i.e. in suit No.6848/1993. 2. Few facts which have a bearing on this appeal are recounted. The appellant is the son of the respondent. The dispute between the parties is with respect to a flat (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit flat'). 3. Both parties started litigating in 1993 by filing proceedings in the City Civil Court, Mumbai in respect of the 'suit flat'. In 1993, the respondent filed a suit as against the appellant and his wife in the City Civil Court at Bombay, being Suit No.3781/1993 inter alia for restraining the appellant and...
Shantaram Shankar Jamsandekar and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2014
Oral Judgment: G.S. Kulkarni, J. Both these petitions are heard together as the controversy in both these petitions concerns reservation in respect of land bearing R.S.No.779/2. WRIT PETITION NO. 313 OF 2012 1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners pray for a direction that the reservation in respect of land bearing R.S.No.779/2, situate at B Ward, Kasba Karveer, Taluka and District Kolhapur being reservation Nos.250 and 251, in the second revised final development plan for Kolhapur, has lapsed as per the provisions of Section 127 (1) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short MRTP Act) and that the respondents be directed to permit the petitioner to develop the said land. 2. Petitioners nos.1 to 12 are the owners of land bearing R.S.No.779/1 situate at B Ward, Kasaba Karveer, Taluka and Distict Kolhapur and Petitioner nos. 13 to 15 are owners of survey No.779/2 (Both lands for short referred as said lands). Respondent no.1 ...
Tao Publishing (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2014
N.M. Jamdar, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Counsel for the respondents waive service. 2. By consent, writ petition taken up for final disposal. 3. The Petitioner challenges the notice dated 28 March 2012 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), by the Respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax seeking to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2005-2006. Besides, the challenge is also to the order dated 3 September 2014, rejecting the objections raised by the Petitioner. 4. The Petitioner M/s.Tao Publishing is a Private Limited Company, engaged in the business of printing and publishing books, magazines and Compact Discs. The Petitioner had filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2005-2006 declaring total loss of Rs.5,34,230/-. In it's books of accounts, the Petitioner had debited an amount of Rs.32,34,652/- as of expenditure for advertising. The notice was issued under Section 142(1) of the Act, pursuant to which, scrutiny pro...
Pradip Vs. First Labour Court, Nagpur and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-13-2014
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. Petitioner has questioned validity and legality of the Award dated 5th September, 2005 passed by the 1st Labour Court, Nagpur in Reference No.IDA53/2005 under the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. 3. The facts, briefly stated are as under: Yugantar Education Society is carrying on activities such as running of educational institutions, hospital etc. in Nagpur. The petitioner was appointed as a peon in the Office of said Yugantar Education Society, Nagpur pursuant to letter dt.10.9.1980 on a consolidated salary of Rs.200/ per month. The petitioner was promoted to the post of clerk w.e.f. 1.9.1983 and was posted as a Storekeeper-cum-Clerk in the Family Welfare Centre in Smt. Nimbunabai Tirpude Hospital, Kamptee Road, Nagpur. He was serving in the pay scale of Rs.950201150EB251550 plus allowances as admissible and was paid Rs.4700/per month. He was working under the supervision of Medical Officer at the Centre and under over all in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »