Mumbai Court February 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.
State Through Public Prosecutor Vs. Ulhas Kadam
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-25-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. In this appeal, the appellant/State has challenged the judgment and order dated 29/06/2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji thereby setting aside the order dated 9/12/2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panaji, dismissing the application for an acquittal under Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by the respondent. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that a complaint was lodged by the complainant/victim for sexual assault under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code against her superior. The alleged act of sexual harassment has taken place at the work place. Pursuant to the complaint offence was registered against the respondent/accused. Plea was recorded, he pleaded not guilty, trial commenced and the complainant/victim tendered evidence and also was cross-examined by the accused. After completion of her evidence, an application under Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying stoppage of proceedings was moved on 11/11/2...
Mandrawati Vs. Maruti and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2014
1. Heard counsel for both sides. The Revision Application has been admitted and finally heard with consent of learned counsel for both sides. 2. The Applicant is original Plaintiff. Respondents are legal heirs of original Defendant No.1 Maruti. Respondent No.1C is Legal Heir of Defendant No.1 and also original Defendant No.2. I will refer to the Applicant as Plaintiff and Respondent No.1C as Defendant. 3. The Plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.151 of 2007 for partition against her brother Defendant Maruti and his son Defendant No.2 Datta. According to the Applicant-Plaintiff, Defendants prepared a compromise deed and compelled the Plaintiff for her signature on the compromise and the same was filed in the trial Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur at Exhibit 16 on 2nd January, 2008. She did not give free consent to the said compromise. The same was obtained by force. Defendants succeeded in getting decree passed by the trial Court on 7th February, 2008. The same is illegal a...
Mohammad Hifzur Rehman and Others Vs. Maharashtra State Handloom Corpo ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-25-2014
1. The dispute in all these petitions pertains to the retrenchment of 30 employees working in the Maharashtra State Handlooms Corporation on account of they being rendered surplus in the establishment. Separate complaints were filed by all these employees under Section 28 read with Item I of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, which were allowed by the Labour Court, Nagpur, by its separate judgments and orders, granting a declaration that the termination of all these complainants amounts to such unfair labour practice and the direction was given to reinstate all the complainants in employment with continuity in service and full back wages. 2. In the separate revisions preferred by the Corporation under Section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act, the Industrial Court has set aside the order of reinstatement with continuity in service and full back wages and instead, the Corporation is directed to pay to every complaina...
Adv. Aires Rodrigues Vs. Communidade of Serula, by Its Attorney and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-25-2014
Smt. R.S. Dalvi, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. This PIL Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner who is an Advocate practising in this Court as a public spirited citizen to challenge the order of respondent No.3, Administrative Tribunal (allowed to be deleted vide order dated 22/10/2013), dated 27th September, 2012, regularising the encroachment of respondent No.4 and also for removal of the said encroachment and for an order restraining respondent No.4 from alienating the encroached property and using the same for any purpose. 3. The petitioner has set out how respondent No.4 came to encroach and consequently came to be in possession of the disputed property. It was initially an open land. Respondent No.4 put up a shed under the umbrella of a resolution passed by respondent No.1, permitting construction on an area of 9 x 11 metres (99 sq. metres) in survey No.366/6 of Village Sucorro for an annual rent of Rs.600/-. Respondent No.4 was leased an area of ...
Sharada Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary, Department of ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-25-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Counsel Shri Rajnish Vyas for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri P.V. Bhoyar for the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 3. This petition challenges the order passed by the Commissioner of Police in exercise of his power as District Magistrate under Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (in short œthe Act?). The petitioner Smt. Sharada Premlal Chhadi, aged about 65 years, was occupier of House No.6, City Survey No.175/528, Nagpur and she was allegedly running brothel in the said premises. The District Magistrate i.e. respondent No.2 after giving notice to the petitioner, had passed an order on 26-9-2012 directing sealing of the said premises and further directed that the premises shall not be let out for a period of three years. The said order was challenged before this Court by the petitioner in Criminal Application (APL) ...
Datta Rao and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through the Secreta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
RavindraV. Ghuge, J. 1. Heard the respective advocates. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. This petition is filed by 3 petitioners who are agriculturists, under Article 226, 227, 300A, 31 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, 1950 for challenging an order dated 30.6.2011 passed by respondent No.2 / Land Acquisition Officer, Nanded. By the impugned order dated 30.6.2011, the application of the petitioners filed u/s 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came to be rejected. 3. The submissions of the petitioners can be summarized as follows: a. The agricultural lands of the petitioners were sought to be acquired for the construction of Upper Paneganga Project (Canal). b. Compensation at the rate ranging between Rs.5,500/- to Rs. 6,000/- per hectre was granted. An award dated 2.3.1981 was passed granting compensation at the rate of Rs.5,500/- to Rs. 6,000/- per hectre by an award dated 2.3.1981. c. One agriculturist, Sambharao Tukaram Deshmukh, being aggrieved ...
M/S. Ashok Commercial Enterprises and Another Vs. Parekh Aluminex Limi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
P.C. : 1. The Summary Suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs. 68,37,96,666/- which comprises of principal amount of Rs. 67 crores and interest of Rs. 1,37,96,666/- calculated at the rate of 12% p.a. The suit is filed inter alia on the basis of dishonoured cheques. 2. The Plaintiffs had given short term loans aggregating to Rs. 67 crores for business purposes to the Defendant, the amounts of which were duly credited to the Defendant's account through RTGS. Towards repayment of these loans, the Defendant drew cheques of varying sums aggregating to Rs. 67 crores in favour of the Plaintiffs. The Defendant also by its letters (Exhibits D1 to D12 of the Plaint) acknowledged each of the loans advanced and promised to repay the amounts and also to honour the cheques. The cheques were dishonoured upon presentation for œinsufficient funds?. The Plaintiffs, therefore, seek to recover the amounts with interest as aforesaid. The Plaintiffs rely upon both the dishonoured cheques as well as the le...
Karad Merchant Sahakari Credit Sanstha Maryadit and Others Vs. Reserve ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
M.S. Sonak, J. 1. Rule. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. As substantially common issues of fact and law arise in these two Petitions, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment and order. 3. The Petitioners in these Petitions question the interpretation adopted by the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC) in relation to the provisions contained in Section 16(1) of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (œsaid Act?) and in the alternate challenge the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 16(1), Section 19 and Section 21(2)(a) and (b) of the said Act and the proviso to sub-Section (10) of Section 43A of The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (B.R. Act). 4. The facts as obtain in Writ Petition No. 2082 of 2010, which are sufficient for appreciating the setting in which the aforesaid challenges arise are that the Petitioners are Credit Societies ...
Apm Terminals India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
Oral Order: (Chief Justice) 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. By consent taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner-company is engaged in providing maritime transport services from India. The petitioner had filed Bill of Entry dated 20 February 2009 for the clearance of the œReach Stacker? with accessories (impugned goods) under license No.0310438457 issued under Served From India Scheme (SFIS) of the Foreign Trade Policy. The petitioner had claimed classification of the said goods as œmaterial handling equipment? and the benefits of the customs duty exemption under Customs Notification No.92/2004-Cus. dated 10 September 2004 as amended, which extends the benefits of the utilization of duty credit earned under SFIS for payment of customs duty in case of goods covered by the above Notification. 3. The Asst.Commissioner of Customs had by order dated 30 March 2009 rejected/disallowed the petitioner's claim for the benefit of Customs Notification No.94/2004 dated 10 September ...
Nandkishor and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the Secreta ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Four Corporators of Respondent No.5 “ Municipal Corporation seek a direction to quash and set aside the order of Respondent No.2 “ the Hon'ble the Chief Minister, State of Maharashtra and consequential orders / steps in pursuance thereto. They submit that amount of Rs.25 crores released to Respondent No. 5 “ Municipal Corporation must be permitted to be used by Respondent No.5 “ Municipal Corporation in its discretion as per law. Respondent No.5 is a Body Corporate constituted under Maharashtra Municipal Corporation's Act,1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It has filed reply dated 18.12.2013 in support of the petitioners. This Court has on 24.07.2013 restrained Respondent No.5 “ Municipal Corporation from parting with funds which it has received. That order continues to operate even today. In this situation, with the consent of the parties, writ petition i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »