Mumbai Court December 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.
MIDC Industries Association Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-18-2014
P.R. Bora, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. 2. In the present petition, validity of rule 7 (1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Taxes and Fees Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the 1970 Rules) is challenged by the petitioner-Association. Petitioner is an Association of Industries situated at MIDC, Hingna Industrial Estate, Nagpur. The said MIDC consists of 764 hectare of land which situate within the jurisdiction of respondents no. 2 to 5 Gram Panchayats. 3. Rule 7 (1) of the 1970 Rules validity of which has been challenged, reads thus: 7. Rate of tax on buildings and lands (1) Every panchayat which decides to levy a tax on buildings and lands shall subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) and after following the procedure prescribed in Rules 3 and 4 levy it at such rate based on the total area on the basis of per square foot of the lands and buildings, as may be decided by it, but not below the minimum and not exceeding the maximum rate, specified in the...
Sayeeda Gulamrasul Sayed and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2014
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents waive service. Since the issue involved in the writ petitions is in narrow compass, by consent of the learned Counsel and Senior Counsel appearing for the respective parties, writ petitions are forthwith taken up for final hearing. 2. As all these writ petitions are off-shoot of a common order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mumbai Division, Mumbai [for short the DJR] in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 [for short the MCS Act] and the issue involved in the petitions being the same, these three petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, only the facts of Writ Petition No. 8410 of 2014 are being discussed in this common order. 4. By this writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the order dat...
Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. Vs. Capital Controls India Privat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2014
INDEX AND STRUCTURE I. PRELIMINARY ....................................................................................3 Summary of Final Conclusion....................................................... 4 II. BACKGROUND and HISTORY OF THE PETITION.......................5 A. The Original Petition.....................................................................5 B. Admission of the Petition, and appeals........................................... 9 C. The Supreme Court Judgment of 2008......................................... 11 D. The amendment of 2008 ..............................................................13 III. QUESTIONS FOR DETERMINATION ........................................15 IV. RIVAL SUBMISSIONS and FINDINGS ............................................16 A. Maintainability and Sufficiency of Pleadings...................................16 B. Limitation...................................................................................23 C. Admissions and Indebtedness;...
State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary, (Housing Depart ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2014
AnoopV. Mohta, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The Petitioners (The State) have challenged Judgment dated 13 October 2014 passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (Tribunal) in Original Application No.839 of 2014, by which a mid-term transfer order dated 30 August 2014 issued by the State has been set aside. 3. The basic events of the case are as under: On 16 august 2014, a letter proposing Respondent No.1's (the employee) transfer was submitted to the Principal Secretary, Housing Department. On 19 August 2014, the Under Secretary, Housing Department submitted a note proposing transfer of Respondent No.1. On 19 August 2014, the Deputy Secretary, Housing Department approved the note. On 20 August 2014, the file reached the office of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and on the same date, it was approved. On 21 August 2014, the file came back to the Principal Secretary, Housing Department. On 22 August 2014, the Principal Secretary, Housing...
Peninsula Petroleum Ltd. Vs. Bunkers on board the vessel, m.v. Geowave ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2014
1. The Plaintiff's claim in the suit is that of unpaid seller. The Plaintiff claims to have supplied bunkers to the 2nd defendant vessel at the instance of and pursuant to a Purchase Order dated 14th November, 2012 issued by Defendant No.3. The counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that an oral order for the supplies was placed by Defendant No.3. At that time Defendant No.3 was the Bareboat charterer of the 2nd defendant vessel. The Bareboat Charter Party dated 29th June, 2012 was entered into between the Defendant No.3 and the owners of Defendant No.2 vessel, viz., Master and Commander AS, Norway. The counsel also submitted that Defendant No.3 was located in the same office building as the Plaintiff and they had past dealings. The oral order which was given on 12th November, 2012 was confirmed subsequently in writing. 2. Based on this requisition, on or about 14th November, 2012, the Plaintiff supplied 669.416 M.T. of MGO (bunkers) to the 2nd defendant vessel when she was at Singapore. ...
Radhakrishna Carriers Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. M/s. Pelhar Automobiles
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 08.07.2013 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Greater, Mumbai, by which order, Notice of Motion No.427 of 2013 filed by the Petitioners herein came to be dismissed. The Petitioners are the original Defendants in the suit in question being Summary Suit No.4914 of 2012 filed by the Respondent herein under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,06,110/- towards the supply of petroleum products to the Petitioners between the period 2006 to July 2011. In the said suit, summons came to be served on the Petitioners. The Vakalatnama on behalf of the Defendants came to be filed on 10.12.2012. The same was taken on record and marked as Exh.2. The suit was thereafter adjourned to 4th February, 2013 for directions. It seems that on 28th December, 2012, a sum...
Sonia Kunwar Singh Bedi Vs. Kunwar Singh Bedi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2014
V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1. What is the period of limitation for preferring an Appeal against a final order passed by the Family Court Is it 90 days as stipulated in Section 28(4) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide amendment by Act 50 of 2003 which had come into force with effect from 23.12.2003 or is it 30 days as stipulated under Section 19(3) of the Family Courts Act This is the only question which arises for consideration before us in this application. 2. A brief reference to the vital facts in the background of which this question arises appears to be necessary and they are as under: The applicant and the respondent are both Hindus and were married as per Hindu Vedic rites and ceremonies. Thereafter disputes arose between the parties and the applicant-wife filed Petition A-849 of 2011 before the Family Court at Mumbai seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The respondent-husband filed Petition No. D-68 of 2011 for custody of 2 minor daughters. Both the petitions were disposed of ...
The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Yuvraj and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-17-2014
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. In Sessions Case No.100 of 2012 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon has awarded death sentence to the accused no.1 therein, the proceedings in the said case, have been therefore forwarded to this Court for confirmation under section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused no.1-Yuvraj Kashinath Sabale and accused no.2- Pankaj Maruti Sandanshiv have also preferred an appeal, which was admitted by this Court and same is registered as Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2014. So also accused no.3Maheshkumar Rameshchandra Varma has also preferred an appeal, which was admitted by this Court and same is registered as Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2014. As all the matters are arising out of onejudgment, the arguments in these matters are simultaneously heard and we find it expedient to decide all these cases by common judgment. However, since the very conviction has been challenged by the convicts, the only proper course would be to first decide the Criminal Appeals so f...
Ramesh Bhartu and Another Vs. State of Goa and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-16-2014
1. Heard Mr. Teles, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 and 3 and Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2.2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable and heard forthwith.3. By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the Charge Sheet No. 12/2012, filed by the respondent no. 1, based on F.I.R. No. 168/2003 and consequently, to quash and set aside criminal proceedings before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panaji, bearing No. IPC/213/2013/A against the petitioners and others.4. The said charge sheet has been filed under Section 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short) against the petitioners and one another. The complaint was filed by Shri Mohandas Ramdas, Manager (Recovery) of the respondent no. 2 against the petitioners and seven others alleging that the accused persons hatched criminal ...
Namdeo and Others Vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Commi ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-16-2014
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Adv. Mr. K.P. Sadavarte waives service on behalf of respondent no. 1, and learned AGP Mr. N.R. Patil, for respondent nos. 2 and 3. With the consent of rival parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 14th December, 2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Malkapur, in the matter of refusal to issue Caste Certificates to the petitioners, and confirmed in appeals by the Appellate Authority vide its orders dated 18th February, 2014, the petitioners have approached this Court by present petition. 3. In support of the Writ Petition, learned counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions:- [a] The petitioners belong to Thakur, Scheduled Tribe enlisted at Sr. No. 44 in Part-IX [Maharashtra] of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. [b] All the petitioners applied to Sub-Divisional Officer, Malkapur, for issuance of Scheduled Tribe Caste...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »