Mumbai Court March 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.
Arjun Shankar Wagh Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, T ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
Oral Judgment:- 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner, presently aged 67 years, joined the services of the respondent MSRTC in the year 1977 as a Conductor at Shrirampur Depot. On 4.5.1990, the petitioner was on duty on the State Transport Bus plying between Shrirampur and Nanded. He felt uncomfortable and became unconscious. As a consequence of which he could not issue few tickets to some of the passengers and was unable to maintain the way bill. 4. The said Bus was inspected at Majalgaon by the Checking Staff of the respondent. On noting that certain passengers were travelling without tickets and having claimed that they had paid the fare of the journey to the petitioner - Conductor, the Checking Staff prepared a report. The petitioner submits that he was unconscious and yet the Checking Squad compelled him to record his statement when he was un...
M/S. Bharat Bijlee Limited, Mumbai Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
Oral Judgment: (S.J. Vazifdar, J.) 1. The petitioner has challenged a notice issued by respondent No.1 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and an order dated 12.10.2012, passed by respondent No.2 Deputy Commissioner of the Income Tax, Assessing Officer, disposing of its objections challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings. Respondent No.3 is the Commissioner of Income Tax. 2. An agreement dated 31.05.2004 was entered into between the petitioner, Tiger Elevator Private Limited and Kone Elevator India Private Limited (TEPL). Under the agreement subject to the orders of this Court under sections 391 and 394 of the Act, TEPL and the petitioner agreed to implement the scheme of arrangement whereby the petitioner was to transfer its lift field operations business to TEPL for the consideration and on the terms and conditions stipulated therein. Clauses 1.9, 1.10, 1.55 and 4.1 of the said agreement read as under:- œ1.9 &oeli...
Zarina Dada and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra Through the Government ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) Rule, returnable forthwith. 1. The learned counsel for the respective Respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioners have challenged impugned letter/order dated 5 September 2013, apart from merit, also on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice whereby, without giving any opportunity, before passing the impugned order, the Head of Social Development Ward of Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (for short, œMMRDA?) has decided the compensation for the affected area of land owned by the Petitioners, after deducting the alleged Authority's expenditure from the amount to the extent of Rs.1,68,00,000/- (Rupees one crore sixty eight lacs only), without providing any details in the order. 3. The submission is made by referring to Sections 299 and 301 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, (for short, œthe MMC Act?) as those sections deal with the procedures to be followed ...
Kandra Rameshbabu Naidu Vs. Superintendent (A.E.) Service Tax, Mumbai ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
Oral Order: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. Also heard the learned Special Counsel for the respondent No.1. Also heard the learned APP for the respondent No.2. 2. Present application for bail is preferred by the applicant in the matter of offence punishable under Section 89 read with Section 90 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. During the arguments it is submitted on behalf of the applicant that he is the Director of M/s. Prashant Transport Exchange Division, and the Managing Director of M/s. Naidu's Infracon Private Limited. He was arrested on 22nd January, 2014 at 9:00 p.m. under Section 89 read with Section 90 of the Finance Act, 1994 for non-payment of Service Tax for the period from 2010 to December, 2013. 4. Prior to discussing the rival submissions, the factual position is required to be mentioned inasmuch as the applicant had collected Rs.2.59 Cores of Service Tax during the period 2010-2011 to 2013-2014 but had not deposited the said amount except Rs.15 Lakhs. The a...
Gasper Fernandes and Others Vs. State of Goa, Through Its Chief Secret ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri Supekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Shri S. G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 4, Shri V. Rodrigues, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent nos. 1, 2, 7 and 8 and Shri Raghunandan, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 6. 2. The above Petition takes exception to the acquisition initiated by the Respondent-Government to acquire a portion of the property surveyed under no. 169/10 admeasuring 201 square metres situated at Betalbatim Village, to rehabilitate the Respondent no. 4 in view of his displacement of a portion of a property acquired for the construction of a road by a Notification dated 16.03.2006 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Petitioners claim to be a share holder of the Communidade, Respondent no.3 herein, and has filed the present Petition to protect the interest of the Communidade on the...
Mohammed ZulfekharuddIn Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard with consent of both the parties. 2. By the present Criminal Application, the Applicant is seeking quashing of First Information Report bearing CR No.I 124/2012, dated 3rd November, 2012, registered with Satara Police Station, Aurangabad for the offences punishable U/Section.s. 109, 114, 120(B), 468, 471, 419, 420, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, to the extent of present Applicant only. 3. Few facts leading to the present Criminal Application can conveniently be narrated as under:- [i] Non-Applicant No.3 “ Sow. Mangala w/o Kamlakar Yelnoorkar lodged a report with Satara Police Station, Aurangabad, stating five persons have committed the offences, as enumerated in the said First Information Report. The present Applicant is shown as Accused No.2 in the said report. [ii] Non-Applicant No.3 Sow. Mangala is the citizen of Great Britain. She resides there since last 36 years. Her brother Sharad Nandedkar...
Ashok Teofilo Vaz and Others Vs. State of Goa, Through, Chief Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. This petition is directed against an order passed on 18.03.2013, passed in Civil Suit No. 76/2010, by learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Panaji, thereby partly allowing the amendment application of the petitioners and partly rejecting the same. 3. The civil suit was filed by the petitioners against the respondents seeking various reliefs including the relief of mandatory injunction ante against the respondents. During the pendency of the suit, it was learnt by the petitioners that Section 4 notification under Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of suit property came to be issued by Government of Goa and it was also learnt in response to the query made by the petitioner under R.T.I. Act that respondent no. 4 was not a Government Contractor, who carried out the work at the suit property at the instance of the Government and therefore, the petitioners sought amendment to their pleadings by incorpora...
PravIn Rajendra Rathod and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
Oral Judgment: ( P.V. Hardas, J.) Criminal Appeal 1330 of 2012 has been filed by original accused No.3, while Criminal Appeal 1364 of 2012 has been filed by original accused Nos.4 and 6 who take exception to the judgment of the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Malegaon, District Nashik dated 5 April 2010 in Sessions Case No.49 of 2001 convicting and sentencing the Appellants for offence punishable under Section 363 read with 34, 396 and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay file of Rs.1,000/- in default of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for nine months and imprisonment for life respectively. Since both these Appeals arise from the same judgment, these Appeals are being decided by this common judgment. 2. At the outset it may be stated that original accused No.5 had filed Criminal Appeal 1212 of 2011 which was allowed by this Court by its judgment dated 3 May 2012. It appears that the present Appellants had not filed any appeal que...
Subhash Govinda Ambhore and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellants have been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. They are also convicted of the offence punishable under Section 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. Appellant No.1 Subhash Ambhore has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-. The victim of the offence of gang rape was P.W.1-Usha Lokhande and victim of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code was her friend P.W.2-Rekha Thakare. P.W.1 and P.W.2 both are residents of village Koldara, Tahsil-Malegaon, District-Washim. Both the appellants are also residents of the sam...
Karbhari and Others Vs. Devidas and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
1. Both the appeals are admitted.By consent, both the matters are heard for final disposal, after making the notice returnable forthwith after admission. 2. The learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.2 insisted for early hearing in view of the order made by this Court on 3.3.2014 by which stay was granted to the operation and implementation of the judgment and order of First Appellate Court and further, some relief of interim nature was given to the present appellants. 3. The two appeals are filed against judgment and order of Regular Civil Appeal No.615/2012 and Regular Civil Appeal No.614/2012, respectively. The appeals were pending in the Court of Ad-hoc District Judge-2, Ahmednagar. R.C.A. No.615/2012 was filed against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No.176/2007 and that suit was filed by present respondents. R.C.A. No. 614/2012 was filed against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No. 179/07 and that suit was filed by the present appellants. The present app...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »