Mumbai Court May 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.
Zaheda and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-09-2014
1. The present Petition has been filed to quash complaint filed by Appropriate Authority (hereafter referred as "complainant") under the provisions of Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereafter referred as "Act") and the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (hereafter referred as "Rules"). 2. The Petition is Admitted and has been heard finally. Learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondents submitted elaborate arguments. With this matter some other similar matters were also argued and Counsel for Petitioners adopted arguments of each other on law points to request for quashment of Criminal Trials against Accused. 3. The case of Petitioner is that Mundadatai Charitable Trust runs Faijan Multi Speciality Hospital, Kaij, Dist-Beed and Petitioner is President of the Trust. Under necessary certificate and permission from Appropriate...
Dr. Dattatraya Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-09-2014
1. The present Petition has been filed to quash complaint filed by Appropriate Authority (hereafter referred as "complainant") under the provisions of Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereafter referred as "Act") and the Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (hereafter referred as "Rules"). 2. The Petition is Admitted and has been heard finally. Learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondents submitted elaborate arguments. With this matter some other similar matters were also argued and Counsel for Petitioners adopted arguments of each other on law points to request for quashment of Criminal Trials against accused. 3. The Petitioner claims that he is running his hospital at Rahata. On 16th July, 2007 Medical Superintendent, Rural Hospital, Rahata-Respondent No.2 along with other Officers visited his hospital and carried out inspe...
Perma Container (Uk) Line Limited and Another Vs. Perma Container Line ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-2014
1. Petitioners in Arbitration Petition No. 259 of 2013 are the original claimants in the arbitration proceedings and seek a declaration that the arbitration award dated 30th January, 2013 is enforceable as a decree of this court and seeks enforcement of the said award under sections 44 to 49 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Act). Respondents to this petition are the original respondents in the arbitration proceedings. Arbitration Petition No. 406 of 2013 is filed by the original respondents to the arbitration proceedings under section 34 of the said Act inter alia praying for setting aside the partial award dated 7th December, 2009 and partial final award dated 30th January, 2013. The petitioners in Arbitration Petition No. 259 of 2013 i.e. Perma Container (UK) Line Ltd. are hereinafter referred to as the claimant. The original respondents i.e. Perma Container Line (India) Pvt. Ltd. are hereinafter referred to as the respondent. Some of the relevant fac...
Savitribai Narsayya Guddapa and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, T ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-09-2014
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. These petitions are filed with following prayers, - œB) By writ, order or directions the Government Resolution dated 30.10.2009 issued by the Department of Finance kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent of denying the benefits of revised pension provisions of M.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1982 to the petitioner and similarly situated employees retired in between 1.1.2006 to 26.2.2009 in respect of 20 years minimum qualifying service and formula of 50% pay on average 10 months pay or 50% last months pay which is beneficent to the retired employees. C) By writ, order or directions to quash and set aside the impugned order of fixation of pension of the petitioner dated 3.3.2010 issued by the respondent No. 3 Zilla Parishad on the basis of G.R. Dated 30.10.2009. D) By writ, order or directions the respondent No.1 to 4 be directed to apply revised provisions of pen...
Zaheda and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-2014
1. The present Petition has been filed to quash complaint filed by Appropriate Authority (hereafter referred as "complainant") under the provisions of Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereafter referred as "Act") and the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (hereafter referred as "Rules"). 2. The Petition is Admitted and has been heard finally. Learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondents submitted elaborate arguments. With this matter some other similar matters were also argued and Counsel for Petitioners adopted arguments of each other on law points to request for quashment of Criminal Trials against Accused. 3. The case of Petitioner is that Mundadatai Charitable Trust runs Faijan Multi Speciality Hospital, Kaij, Dist-Beed and Petitioner is President of the Trust. Under necessary certificate and permission from Appropriate...
Sanjay Suganchand Kasliwal Vs. Jugalkishor Chhaganlal Tapadia
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-09-2014
1. Heard Shri P.M.Shah, learned Sr. Advocate i/b Shri S.V.Adwant, Advocate for the appellant and Shri R.F.Totala, learned Advocate for the respondent, at length. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.4.2014 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Aurangabad in MARJI No. 103 of 2014. 3. The appellant formed a partnership firm with the respondent on 7.3.2007 under the Partnership Act, 1936. 4. Contentions of Shri Shah, learned Sr. Advocate can be summarised as follows:- (A) The partnership deed gives the partnership firm the name and title of M/s Kasliwal Empire. (B) The partnership deed is signed at Aurangabad. (C) Addresses of both the partners are at Aurangabad. (D) Object of the partnership deed is to construct and develop housing projects at village Satara, district Aurangabad. (E) Registered office of the firm is at Aurangabad. (F) Clause 16(e) prohibits withdrawal of any amount by any partner for his own profit, benefit or use or otherwise except rem...
Shobha Dipak Behde Vs. Umakant Reva Fegade and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-09-2014
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of learned advocates for the parties. 2. The matter was heard and Mr. Girase learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 1,3,6 to 8 and 10 submitted that he would furnish written notes of arguments along with authorities and a brief synopsis with index. The matter was initially reserved for judgment on 26-02-2014. On 04-04-2014, Mr. Girase sought time for aforesaid purpose. On 23-04-2014, parties were heard again for quite some time in the matter. Then as well, Mr. Girase sought time for the purpose referred to hereinbefore. The matter as such was reserved for judgment. Subsequently, Mr. Girase submitted written notes of arguments on 28-04-2014. 3. Petitioner questions propriety, legality and validity of order dated 30th April, 2012 passed in Disqualification Petition No. 26 of 2011 by the District Collector, Jalgaon and prays to quash and set aside said order under a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate wr...
Dr. Ajit B. Kerkar and Another Vs. Dr. Shailendra P. Mittal and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-08-2014
1. Heard Mr. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Jagtiyani, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. By this revision application, the petitioners have taken exception to the order dated 23/05/2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa ('trial Court'), on an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Arbitration Act', for short), filed by the petitioners, in Special Civil Suit No. 07/2007/A. 3. A Memorandum of Understanding dated 26/04/2000 (MOU, for short) was executed between the petitioner no. 2-Company (THPL, for short) represented by the petitioner no.1 (ABK, for short) and respondent no.1 (SM, for short) whereby it was proposed to incorporate a Private Limited Company i.e. Joint Venture Company (JVCO, for short) for the purpose of managing and running Bogmolo Beach Resort (BBR, for short) belonging to the respondent no. 3-Company (TWHL, for sho...
M/S. Madgavkars Salvage and Towage Company Pvt., Limited Vs. United In ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-08-2014
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. D. Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. E. Afonso, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal challenges the judgment dated 31.05.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji, in Special Civil Suit No.105/90 whereby the suit filed by the appellant came to be dismissed. 3. In the nutshell, the case of the appellant is that they are one of India's leading salvage companies and had carried out salvage operations on different occasions and that they were sanctioned to purchase a secondhand foreign vessel known as œSayremar Dos?. Accordingly, the said vessel was purchased for Rs.38,13,842.10/- which was partly financed by Bank of Maharashtra. It is further their case that they had carried out various improvements to the vessel and the insurance policy was renewed in February, 1988. The value of the vessel was increased to Rs.60 lakhs based on the valuation of the vessel. It is further their ca...
The Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. M/S Kirloskar Copeland Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Colabawalla J.) 1. This Sales Tax Application is directed against the order dated 8th November 2011 passed by the First Bench of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal (MSTT) rejecting the Reference Application of the Applicant under section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1959 (BST Act) for a reference on the following questions of law for a decision of this Court:- œ(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of the term 'sales' defined under sub-section 28 of section 2 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1959, Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in holding that the impugned transfer of compressor effected by the respondent to its customers is not sale of goods under this Act as there is no consensual agreement of sale of the said compressor? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of the definition of sales under sub-section 28 of section 2 of the Bombay ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »