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.
Shrenik Jayantilal JaIn and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra Throu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-2014
1. The learned Sessions Judge of Greater Mumbai, pending hearing of Anticipatory Bail Application before it, refused to grant interim protection by its order dated 19th April, 2014. Hence, this application is preferred seeking interim bail, till the final decision on the Anticipatory Bail Application 754 of 2014, which is pending before the learned Sessions Judge. 2. In the course of submissions, the following proposition was made: œWhen an application for anticipatory bail under section 438 is preferred, the Sessions Court or the High Court shall either reject the said application forthwith or issue an interim order in respect of anticipatory bail. No third option is open to the Court to adjourn the application without granting any interim relief to the applicant/accused?. 3. This proposition or the interpretation of section 438 of the Code by the learned Counsel for the applicants gave rise to the question of law as follows: Whether the Sessions Court or the High Court, while e...
Vijay Sudhakar Patil Vs. Asha Vijay Patil
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally with consent of both the sides. Perused record. 2. The present petitioner has filed these proceedings under Section 407 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code requesting for transfer of Misc. Criminal Case No. 158 of 2013 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Court No. 3) Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana to Jamner, District Jalgaon. 3. The petitioner claims that the respondent is wife of the petitioner. Both are residents of Neri Digar, Taluka Jamner District Jalgaon and had resided there as a couple. There has been matrimonial discord and parties are now living separate. The respondent prosecuted the petitioner for offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of FIR registered at Jamner. The petitioner filed a petition under section 9 and 13(B) (4) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of Marriage and the same is pending before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon. According to the pe...
Debashu Services Private Limited Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, C ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-08-2014
P.R. Bora, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Validity of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 served on the petitioner company, whereby reassessment has been ordered is challenged by it in these two writ petitions. Notice in Writ Petition No.2005/2013 relates to reassessment for A.Y. 2006 “ 2007 whereas notice in Writ Petition No. 6606/2013 pertains to the reassessment for A.Y. 2008 “ 2009. Since grounds of challenge in both the writ petitions are same, they are being decided by this common Judgment. 3. Petitioner is a private limited company duly registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is a regular assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short œthe Act?). The petitioner company is the authorized dealer for spare parts of Kirloskar Pumps and does exclusive supply to mines of Western Coalfields Limited and South Eastern Coalfields Limited. 4. Petitioner...
Zircon Venture Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. M/S. Zircon Ventu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-2014
1. Rule, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The contentious issue whether the Promoter/Developer has made a true and full disclosure of the entire scheme and is consequently entitled to put up construction in the plot in question has once again engaged the attention of this Court. 3. The Petitioner No.1 is a Society comprising of 288 flat purchasers of the 9 buildings developed by the Joint Venture i.e. the Respondent No.1, of one M/s. Vascon Engineers Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Sreemangal Pristine Builders, the Petitioner has taken exception to the order dated 03/02/2014 passed by the learned District Judge-17 Pune by which order the Appeal filed by the Petitioner-Society being Misc. Civil Appeal No.498 of 2012 came to be dismissed and resultantly, the dismissal of the application for temporary injunction (Exhibit 5) by the Trial Court by order dated 09/11/2012 came to be confirmed. The Petitioner is the original Plaintiff, ...
Dilipkumar Bherumal Kucheriya Vs. Subhashchandra Nemichand Kucheriya a ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-08-2014
1) The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Regular Civil Appeal No. 182/2001, which was pending in the Court of Principal District Judge, Dhule. The appeal filed by present appellant against judgment and decree of Special Civil Suit No. 69/1995 is dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Decree is given in favour of present respondent Nos. 1 to 5 of possession. Both the sides are heard. 2) The suit was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 for relief of possession of house property bearing C.T.S. No. 1252 situated at Dhule. It is contended that one Khivraj was predecessor of plaintiffs. It is contended that defendants were in relation with Khivraj, but they were from different branch of Hindu family. 3) It is the case of plaintiffs that Khivraj was owner of the suit property and in the year 1928-29 he had made construction of the suit house. It is contended that as Khivraj had good relations with Bherumal and Samirmal, the predecessors of defendant/present appellant, he had given th...
Zircon Venture Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. M/S. Zircon Ventu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-2014
1. Rule, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The contentious issue whether the Promoter/Developer has made a true and full disclosure of the entire scheme and is consequently entitled to put up construction in the plot in question has once again engaged the attention of this Court. 3. The Petitioner No.1 is a Society comprising of 288 flat purchasers of the 9 buildings developed by the Joint Venture i.e. the Respondent No.1, of one M/s. Vascon Engineers Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Sreemangal Pristine Builders, the Petitioner has taken exception to the order dated 03/02/2014 passed by the learned District Judge-17 Pune by which order the Appeal filed by the Petitioner-Society being Misc. Civil Appeal No.498 of 2012 came to be dismissed and resultantly, the dismissal of the application for temporary injunction (Exhibit 5) by the Trial Court by order dated 09/11/2012 came to be confirmed. The Petitioner is the original Plaintiff, ...
Quazi Syed SalahuddIn Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard petitioner in person, learned A.P.P. for State and Mr. C.V. Thombre, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of parties. 3. In the present Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad on 18.12.2013 in Criminal revision No.262/2012 reversing the order of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, passed in S.C.C. No.1093/2007. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class had passed orders below Exh.164 in S.C.C. No.1093/2007 that in spite of change of Magistrate, in proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it was not necessary to have de novo trial. However, the Sessions Judge reversed the order of Judicial Magistrate, First Class and directed de novo trial. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. The petitioner(party-in-person) has taken me through the evidence which was recorded in S.C.C. No.1093/2007. The evidence of the complainan...
Rashmi Ashok Joshi Vs. Subhash Damodar Tigde
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-2014
Usha S. Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member: [1] Executants [Original Opponents in Consumer Complaint No.302 of 2013 (In the matters of Mr. Subhash Damdoar Tigde Vs. M/s. Rashmi Enterprises and Ors.) have filed present execution application under Section-27(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for execution of the order dated 28/08/2013 passed by this Commission in Consumer Complaint No.302 of 2013. [2] According to the Executants, vide an order dated 28/08/2013 passed in Consumer Complaint No.302 of 2013, certain directions were given to the Mr. Subhash Damodar Tigde “ Complainant therein/Respondent herein. Those directions read as follows:- œComplainant to address as to how this interest can be claimed (within the scope of Section-14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) when there is no prayer for refund of consideration but the Complainant insists upon implementation of the contract witnessed by a memorandum of understanding, obviously, keeping it alive and not consen...
Kisanlal and Others Vs. Harischandra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-07-2014
1) The civil revision application is filed against the order made on Exhibit 40 which was filed in Special Civil Suit No.393 of 2007 pending before the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad. The application was filed under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure by the present applicants. It is their contention that the suit is not within limitation. The application is rejected by the trial Court. The trial Court has observed that from the contents of the paint and from the cause of action shown in the plaint, it cannot be said at present the suit is not within limitation. Both the sides are heard. 2) This Court has gone through the copy of plaint and also the written statement. This Court has also gone through the terms and conditions of so called agreement. The suit is filed for specific performance of contract against the present applicants. The agreement took place on 1-4-1991. The defendants predecessor agreed to sell area of 6000 square f...
Anil Barmu Patil Vs. State of Goa, Through the Secretary, Public Works ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-07-2014
Z.A. Haq, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. This Writ Petition and the other connected writ petitions raise the issue about the entitlement of the petitioner to join/continue on the post of œLabourer? Group œD? Non-Gazetted posts on Work-charged Establishment in the Public Works Department- P.W.D. of the State. 3. The relevant facts are: An advertisement was published in the œTimes of India? Goa Edition dated 11/2/2011 inviting applications for the posts of Labourer on Work-charged establishment of the Public Works Department of the Government of Goa. Forty posts of Labourers were advertised and the reservations were also shown. It was stated that the number of vacancies shown in the advertisement were tentative and likely to increase. It was further stated that the additional vacancies likely to occur within the validity period of DSC will also be considered for filling up from amongst the candidates who applied in response to the advertisement an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »