Mumbai Court April 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.
M/S. I. P. C. A. Health Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Colabawalla J.) 1. By this reference the Second Bench of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal (MSTT) has referred the following questions of law for the decision of this Court under section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1959:- œ(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in holding for the products œRA THERMOSEAL? and œTHERMOSEAL? are products capable of being used as toothpaste, when their predominant use admittedly is as a medicine for curing, treating and preventing teeth-sensitivity? (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of the two schedule entries viz. C-I-24 and C-II-36 appended to Bombay Sales Tax Act 1959, was the Tribunal justified in law in holding that the œRA THERMOSEAL? is a Tooth Paste covered by schedule entry C-II-36 and not a medicine covered by schedule entry C-I-24 for the sole reason of its being capable of being used as tooth ...
Benaulim Civic and Social Forum Vs. State of Goa, Through Its Chief Se ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Nigel da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, Mr. M.P. Almeida, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.4, Mr. Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.7 and Mr. Parag Rao, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.8. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 3. The above petition came to be filed by the petitioner taking exception to the construction being put up by respondents No.7 and 8 in their respective properties situated in the Village of Benaulim. The main grievance of the petitioner was that the construction activities being carried out by the respondent No.8 are without obtaining the requisite permissions from the Statutory Authorities. The other grievance raised by the petitioner was that the construction was being put up in violation of the CRZ Notification, 1991. In the rep...
Amit Arjun Phale Vs. the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone Iv and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
AnujaPrabhu Dessai, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner herein has challenged the externment order No.37 of 2013 dated 4.10.2013 passed by the Deputy Police Commissioner Zone IV, Pune City under the provisions of Section 56(1) (a) (b) of the Bombay Police Act hereinafter referred to as the œsaid Act?. 3. The externment order was preceded with notice dated 13.8.2013 issued by the Inquiry Officer/ Assistant Commissioner of Police under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, whereby the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be externed from the limits of Pune City and Pune District for a period of two years. The petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer and filed his reply. The inquiry Officer forwarded the report to the Externing Authority for further action. Upon considering the material on record, the Externing Authority passed the impugned order dated 4.10.2013 externing the petitioner from Pune...
Sandeep Shivaji Mhatre and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
Oral Judgment: (Anuja Prabhudessai, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, the petitions are taken up for final hearing. Since the issue involved in these Writ Petitions is common, the same is being disposed of by common order. 2. The petitioners herein challenge the Notices under Section 111 of the Criminal Procedure Code, dated 05.03.2014 and the order dated 25.03.2014 issued by the Special Executive Magistrate, Agripada Division, Mumbai for initiation of Chapter proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. 3. The brief facts relevant to decide the controversy are that the Special Executive Magistrate had issued Notices, dated 05.03.2014 for initiating chapter proceedings against the petitioners. The Notices refer to C.R. No.250 of 2013 under Section 324, 323, 403 r/w Section 34 of the IPC registered against the petitioners with Byculla Police Station. The Notices proceed on the footing that the petitioners are likely to repeat such offence and cause disturbance to ...
Amit Arjun Phale Vs. the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone Iv and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
AnujaPrabhu Dessai, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner herein has challenged the externment order No.37 of 2013 dated 4.10.2013 passed by the Deputy Police Commissioner Zone IV, Pune City under the provisions of Section 56(1) (a) (b) of the Bombay Police Act hereinafter referred to as the œsaid Act?. 3. The externment order was preceded with notice dated 13.8.2013 issued by the Inquiry Officer/ Assistant Commissioner of Police under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, whereby the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be externed from the limits of Pune City and Pune District for a period of two years. The petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer and filed his reply. The inquiry Officer forwarded the report to the Externing Authority for further action. Upon considering the material on record, the Externing Authority passed the impugned order dated 4.10.2013 externing the petitioner from Pune...
RaisoddIn MainoddIn Kazi Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. Original accused no.1, who is the husband of deceased Firdosbee is before this court, since he is aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction recorded against him by the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, dated 7.12.2011, in Sessions Case No. 92 of 2011, for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, by which he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine further to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Shorn of details of the prosecution case can conveniently be stated as under:- On 8.10.2010, Dr. Pravin Deshmukh (PW 7) was discharging his duties as Casualty Medical Officer at the Civil Hospital, Beed. At about 10.45 p.m. a burnt patient Firdosbee w/o Raisoddin Kazi was brought to the hospital by her relatives. Dr. Deshmukh, on examination and after giving preliminary treatment, filled M.L.C. Case paper and shifted patient to Burn Ward and he intimated th...
Haresh Laxman Hargunaney Vs. M/S. Vinayak Builder and Developers and A ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
Narendra Kawde, Member: [1] This consumer complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service against M/s.Vinayak Builders and Developers (hereinafter to be referred to as opponent builders/developers) claiming compensation of Rs.52.57,000/- together with cost of litigation for supplying short area as against the one mentioned in the Development Agreement and not providing 4th parking space, Mahanagar Gas pipe-line and borewell. [2] Opponent builders/developers contested the consumer complaint by filing written version. Main grounds to counter the claim of the complainant is that the possession of the flat allotted to the complainant was taken over from the site supervisor in the month of August 2009 i.e. immediately after obtaining occupation certificate. It is falsely represented that date of possession as of 16/03/2010 just to bring the filing of complaint within the limitation. Complainant was evasive and non-co-operative and he was the last person to hand over the possession of exis...
Natvar Parikh Industries Ltd. Vs. National Insutrance Co. Ltd.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
Narendra Kawde, Member: 1. Complainant is a Company engaged in business of handling, transporting, contracting, hiring, leasing, warehousing of containers and also operators, hirers, manufacturers, dealers and assemblers etc. The Company had given on Charter the dumb barge N.P. Sushila and the motor tug N.K. Enakshi to M/s. Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (India) Ltd., for a period 19th July, 2005 to 23rd August, 2005. Both vessels had made several voyages till April, 1st 2006 when given on charter. Said dumb barge on its voyage from Bhavnagar Port to ONGC Platform at Mumbai High on 1st April, 2006 with bulk cement of cargo capsized at about 06.00 a.m. on 2nd April, 2006 in the mid-sea. The Complainant Company availed Marine Hull Policy No.250600/22/05/41000040 for a period 06.08.2005 to 05.08.2006 to provide insurance cover for hull and machinery for Rs.49,50,000/- with additional coverage for P and I cover for Rs.50,50,000/-. The incident of capsizing the barge was duly intimated to the...
M/S. Texgar Trading Co. Through Its Sole Proprietor Vs. United India I ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
Narendra Kawde, Member: 1. Complainant is a partnership firm dealing with manufacturing and export of the Readymade garments and filed this complaint through its partner Mr.S.A.Narayan alleging deficiency of service against the opponents for not having settled the claims payable under different insurance policies availed by the complainant to provide insurance cover to furniture and fixture, stock, machinery, etc. The complainant availed three different policies from opponents/Insurance Companies as herein below:- (i) From Opponent no.1-M/s.United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Policy No.020300/01/1/32973 for the period from 25/04/1986 to 25/04/1987, Rs.1,00,000/- for machinery, Rs.10,000/- for Furniture and Fixture, Rs.2,25,000/- for Stock. (ii) From Opponent no.2-M/s.United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Policy No.021200/01/1/00249/85 for the period from 07/08/1985 to 07/08/1986, Rs.1,80,000/- for Plant and machinery, spare parts and fittings. (iii) From Opponent no.3-M/s.New India Assurance Co.Lt...
Milind and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-3, Aurangabad, on 15.12.2011, in Sessions Case No.27 of 2008, thereby convicting appellant no.1 Milind for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, and appellant nos.2 to 5 for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 (II) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In respect of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, appellant no.1 Milind was directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. In respect of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Appellant no.2 Yuvraj, appellant no.3 Padmab...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »