Mumbai Court November 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.
Satelite Developers Limited and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2014
P.C. V.M. Kanade, J. 1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. By this Petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioners are seeking an appropriate writ order or direction that the provisions of the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975 have no application to the Petitioners' land and for other consequential reliefs. 3. Shri Doctor, the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that the question raised in this Petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (2014) 3 SCC 430). He has invited our attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the said case and submitted that the ratio of the said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 4. It is not in dispute that notices under section 35(3...
Chalisgaon Education Society and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-26-2014
1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties at length. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. The basic contention, by way of a grievance of the petitioners is that the Division Bench of this Court, having concluded that the State Information Commission ought to be a multi member Bench, the State Government, as yet, has either not taken a note of the pronouncement of this Court or is not taking steps for appointing a multi member State Information Commission. 4. While issuing notice to the respondents, the impugned order dated 3.7.2013 was stayed by this Court. 5. The case of the petitioners in brief can be summarised as under:- (A) The petitioner institute is an educational trust, registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. (B) Respondent No.2 had sought information from the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. (C) As the said information was not made available to respondent ...
Sonia Raman Sabharwal Vs. Ashok Rochiram Asrani and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This is a Suit for partition. The Plaintiff is the sister of the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant. Partition is sought Flat No. 74 in Ashoka Apartments, Rungta Lane, 68, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai 400 006, as also Garage No. 20. The flat, situated in a upmarket residential locality, is about 1,380 square feet. 2. The principal dispute relates to the interpretation of two clauses of the Will of one Rochiram P. Asrani, the father of the Plaintiff and Defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Briefly stated, the Plaintiffs case is that the flat in question was given absolutely to the Plaintiff and her two siblings, Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in distinctly specified proportions: the 1st Defendant was to get a 40% undivided share, right, title and interest in the flat and the Plaintiff and the 2nd Plaintiff were to get a 30% share each. The case of the 1st Defendant is that this is not an absolute bequest and that the two sisters, i.e., the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant, obtained only a li...
Asma Amin Siddiqui Vs. Maharashtra University of Health and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-2014
A.P. Bhangale, J. 1. Rule. Heard. Civil Application No. 2338 of 2014 for early hearing and disposal of this Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer (a) thereof. Writ Petition is heard finally on merits by consent of rival counsels. 2. The petitioner challenges the cancellation of her admission to the BUMS Health Science Course in the Tibbia College Malegaon, District Nashik. 3. It is case of the Petitioner that in the admission process to the Health Science Course BUMS, she was selected on 15-10-2013 in the open category. She reported to the M. Tibbia College, UMC (Unani Medical College) Malegaon, District Nashik and paid fees on 18-10-2013. She started attending classes from 21-10-2013. However on 25-10-2013, she was informed by the Principal of the College that as per DMER letter dated 24-10-2013, her admission is cancelled on the ground that she had secured less percentage of marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology to be eligible for the the admission to the college. 4. Central ...
Deepak Nivrutti Rede Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-26-2014
1) The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 142/2013 which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded. The Sessions Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence punishable under section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. He is also directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, sentence of R.I. for six months is given. Both the sides are heard.2) As per the case of prosecution, the incident in question took place on the night between 2.12.2012 and 3.12.2012. Accused, Deepak was living with his wife, Usha near Mujampeth, Tahsil and District Nanded. In the vicinity of his house, one Mahendra Edke was living and he knew both the accused and his wife Usha. On 2.12.2012 at about at about 7.00 p.m. Mahendra was passing by the side of the house of the accused and at that time, Usha was alone in the house. She invited him inside of the house. When she was saying ...
Congnizant India (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
1. This petition challenges : (a) notice dated 25 March 2011 issued under Section148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961("the Act") seeking to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2007-08; (b) draft Assessment Order dated 30 December 20911 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 144C(1) of the Act; and (c) order dated 4 September 2013 passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP). 2. The petitioner's grievance is that the impugned notice dated 25 March 2011 for reopening the assessment for Assessment Year 2007-08 is without jurisdiction. Consequently the draft assessment order dated 30 December 2011 and the impugned DRP order dated 30 December 2011 are also without jurisdiction. 3. We find that the petitioner has not challenged the impugned notice dated 25 March 2011 seeking to reopen the assessment and the reasons in support thereof when the notice was issued nor did the petitioner challenge the draft assessment order dated 30 December 2011 when it was passed in this Court as being w...
Shradha Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Adhithri Trading Company and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
1. This revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II Margao, ("Appellate Court", for short) in Criminal Appeal No.61/2013. 2. The said Criminal Appeal No.61/2013 was, in turn, filed against the judgment, order and sentence dated 17.4.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 'B' Court Vasco ('J.M.F.C.', for short) in Criminal Case No.113/OA/NIA/ 2011/B. Applicant was the complainant whereas respondents were the accused in the said Criminal Case. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said Criminal Case. 3. The complainant had filed a complaint against the accused persons for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('N.I. Act', for short) which gave rise to the said Criminal Case. The case of the complainant, in short, was as follows:- Complainant was a company engaged in the business of operating barges for ...
H.R. Rana and Others Vs. Princes Estate Supervising Agency and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Dani and Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. Petitioners, by this petition are challenging the order dated 6.5.2014 passed below Ex.11 in MARJI [Obstructionist Notice] No.395 of 2011 taken out in T.E. and R. Suit No.310/369 of 2000. By the said order, petitioners have been directed to deposit mesne profits at the rate of Rs.30/- per sq.ft. per month from 1.12.2000 to 31.03.2007 and at the rate of Rs.45/- per sq.ft. per month from 1.4.2007 till the disposal of the said obstructionist notice. 3. T.E. and R. Suit No.310/369 of 2000 filed by the respondent no.1 against the respondent no.2 for eviction in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai came to be decreed and respondent no.2 is directed to hand over possession of the suit premises to the respondent no.1. This decree has achieved finality. The execution proceedings are obstructed by the present petitioners and, therefore, the respondent no.1 is constrained to take Obstructio...
Vaishali Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-25-2014
1. The application is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to challenge the order made on Exhibit 14 in Sessions Case No.75/2013 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. The application filed by the original complainant, present applicant, for giving direction to make investigation under section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") is rejected by the trial Court by holding that the Courts of subordinate judiciary have no such power. 2. The case is filed by the police for offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent -Sanjay Diwate. Sanjay is managing one educational institute where deceased husband of the present applicant was working as Assistant Teacher. The deceased was terminated from service by issuing oral order. This order was challenged before the School Tribunal. The School Tribunal set aside the order and directed reinstatement of the deceased and to pay back wages. In view of this order, the ...
Dr. Makrand Balkrishna Patwardhan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-24-2014
N.W. Sambre, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. The petitioner, pursuant to a complaint dated 20/10/2001 preferred for and on behalf of respondent No.2 in the matter of theft of electrical energy, suffered prosecution under the provisions Section 39, 44 and 50 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and amended in 1986 (for short "said Act"). Pursuant to the said complaint, charge was framed against the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 39 of the said Act on 04/09/2008 by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule in Regular Criminal Case No.624 of 2001. 3. Having regard to the policy of the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (for short, "Distribution Company") particularly as reflected in Commercial Circular No.86 dated 25/07/2008, the petitioner approached the Superintending Engineer of the Distribution Company for compounding of offence. 4. The said request of compounding of offence was placed before the Court ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »