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.
Sanjeev Sitaram Ambekar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-2014
P.C. 1. Heard the rival arguments on both the applications for anticipatory bail. Also heard the learned Counsel for the intervener - original complainant. 2. Both the anticipatory bail applications are preferred by the respective applicants apprehending their arrest in C.R. No.189/2014 registered with Kalachowki police station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 474, 477, 477A read with Section 34 of IPC and also under Sections 65, 66, 66A, 66B, 66C and 69 of the Information Technology Act. 3. Prior to discussing the rival submissions and ascertaining the role of the applicants in the offences alleged against them, certain factual position as to the partnership business of Trimurti Enterprises and other Partnership Firms are concerned, is mentioned hereunder. 4. Initially in November, 1994 a Partnership Firm was registered having the workshop at Shirdhon, Taluka - Panvel, District - Raigad. The original complainant / intervener and the...
SICOM Ltd. Vs. Indrajeet Arya and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-2014
1. This petition is filed by SICOM Ltd. which is a unit of State Financial Corporation (SFC) for liabilities incurred by the respondents as guarantors under four deeds of guarantee. The petition is filed under Section 31(1)(aa) and Section 32 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (the Act) for enforcing liability of the sureties under the contract between the SICOM and the principal borrowers. 2. The principal borrower is the company of which the two guarantors, the respondents herein are directors. The company of the respondents executed agreements for bills discounting facility with the petitioner on 8th November, 2004 for Rs.5 Crores, on 15th March, 2005 for further Rs.5 Crores, on 19th July, 2005 for further Rs.5 Crores and an agreement for further Rs.5 Crores dated 5th May, 2008 totaling to Rs.20 Crores. Thus the earlier facilities were extended and renewed from time to time. The last of the agreement specified that the facility for Rs.15 Crores till then granted was furth...
Walter DâSouza Vs. Anita DâSouza and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-2014
1. The question that has arisen during the trial of this contested probate action is one that is likely to affect a very large number of similar contested testamentary matters. The question is this: in such matters, i.e., contested matters seeking probate or Letters of Administration with Will annexed, is it necessary that the evidence of the attesting witness be taken first, before the evidence of the Plaintiff (original Petitioner)? 2. The context in which this question arises is this. The Plaintiff, Walter DSouza, (Walter) is the brother of the deceased testatrix, one Lydia DSouza (Lydia), who died in Mumbai on 17th June 1995. Walter says Lydia left a will dated 2nd November 1983, one that he propounds in the petition. The caveatrix, Alba DSouza (Alba) is Lydias sister-in-law, i.e., Lydias brothers widow. Lydias brother (Albas husband), Victor DSouza, died before Lydia. Alba passed away after she filed her caveat. Her three children, Anita, Valerian and Vitrus filed caveats (the two...
Commissioner of Income-tax- 8 Vs. Digiwave Infrastructure and Services ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-2014
1. This Appeal by the Revenue challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Appeal, which was filed by the Revenue, is numbered as Income Tax Appeal No.690/Mum/2009. The Assessment Year is 2005-06. 2. We are essentially concerned with the correctness of the view taken by the Tribunal in so far as this Appeal is concerned. The Appeal of the Revenue before the Tribunal was challenging the order of the First Appellate Authority dated 22 December 2008. 3. Mr. Tejveer Singh, appearing on behalf of the Revenue in support of this Appeal, submits that the questions of law and which have been framed at page 5 of the Paper Book are substantial questions of law and require determination by this Court. He submits that the Tribunal failed to note that section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "IT Act") deals with value of any benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not, arising from business or the exercise of a profession. 4. In the instant case...
Haresh Kedare and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-2014
P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the University and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Management. 2. By this Petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioners are seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondent Nos.1 to 5 to hold fresh viva/oral examination for the subjects in which Petitioners have been declared as fail by Respondent No.5 and to take fresh viva under the supervision of Supervisor appointed by this Court. 3. Brief facts are that Respondent No.5 is a Medical College which is conducting the Medical Course known as Bachelor in Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery and Respondent No.4 is a Trust on whose behalf Respondent No.5 is managing the said College. 4. The grievance of the Petitioners is that the viva examination which was held in the month of May, 2014 has not been properly held and that, according to them, Respondent N...
Alard Charitable Trust, Through Trustees Vs. Padmakar P. Chikate and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-2014
P.C. 1. Since similar question of fact and law arise in these group of petitions, these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. The learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties too submitted that facts of all the proceedings are similar, therefore, these petitions can be disposed of by a common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, only the facts of Writ Petition No.2301 of 2014 are being discussed in this order. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, since the issue involved in the matter is in very narrow compass, the writ petitions were immediately taken up for final hearing. 3. By this petition, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 23rd September 2013 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Pune Region, Pune [for short "the ACC"] whereunder Respondent No.1 is directed to be impleaded as Objector in a proceeding initiated by the Petitioner under section 22 of the ...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Kisan Nivrutti Choudhari and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-2014
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/State questioning the acquittal of original accused Nos.1, 2 and 3. As per the death certificate of original accused no.1-Kisan Nivrutti Choudhari since he is expired this appeal is dismissed as against respondent no.1/original accused no.1. Mr.Kate learned counsel for the respondents has tendered before us the death certificate of original accused no.4-Nivrutti Vishnu Choudhari. The said death certificate is taken on record and marked 'X' for the purpose of identification. As per the said death certificate the original accused no.-4 Nivrutti Vishnu Choudhari expired on 23rd September, 2005. This appeal is therefore, dismissed as abated as against respondent no.4/original accused no.4. 2. We have heard learned APP with whose assistance, we have perused the depositions of the witnesses and have also examined the findings recorded by the trial Court. The trial Court has convicted original accused no.1 for the...
Manohar Dattatray Dole Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-2014
P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant-appellant. Also heard learned A.P.P. for the State. This application is preferred by the applicant-appellant convicted accused praying for suspension of his conviction in the matter of offence punishable under section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. For each section, accused-applicant was sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.2,000/-. Substantive sentence were directed to run concurrently. The said judgment and order of conviction is dated 30.11.2012. 2. The appeal preferred by the present applicant-appellant was admitted by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2012 and also on the same day he was directed to be released on bail, as during the trial, the applicant-appellant was already on bail. 3. Now, according to the applicant-appellant, there are following special circumstances for suspending the conviction in the matter. The said circumstances can be summarized as under:- I) There is in fa...
Bela Rajan Vs. Sangita Arta (P) Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-2014
P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant on this application for leave to file appeal challenging the acquittal of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the matter of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with section 141 of the said Act. 2. The impugned order is dated 5th April,2013 passed by the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate 40th Court at Girgaum, Mumbai. Prior to that the matter was transferred to the said Court and on 5th March, 2013, Notice was issued against the present applicant/original complainant. Even prior to that the matter came to be transferred to the different courts and without much going into the details as to the causes for which the matter came to be transferred, suffice it to say that the complaint for taking action against the respondents accused for the offence punishable under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 came to be lodged in the year 1997 and almost six times the matter...
M/s. Railtech Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. 1. The above Application is filed by the Applicant under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (the Act) for the following relief: That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to appoint any retired judge of the Hon'ble High Court or such other persons, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes pending between the parties herein. 2. According to the Applicant, tenders were invited by the Respondents Union of India through the General Manager, Central Railway, pertaining to Deep Screening and through Ballast Renewal using BCM and Manual Method including cess formation and miscellaneous work in the Pune-Lonavla Section (the works).The Applicant submitted its bid and was declared as the successful bidder and an acceptance letter dated 24th April, 2009 was issued to the Applicant. The total cost of the works awarded to the Applicant under the tender is Rs. 1,43,49,245.79. A formal contract being Contract Agreement No. A/N 297/PA...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »