Mumbai Court July 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.
Hanuman P. Shingan and Others Vs. Vithal Deo Karad Public Trust and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. With the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 16-8-1993 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT for short) holding that no revision lies against the order passed under Section 88-B and the MRT therefore directed the application to be returned to the Applicant for presentation to the proper authority. The Petitioners were the Applicants before the MRT in the said revision proceedings. The Petitioners claim to be the tenants of the land bearing survey Nos.235 and 234 totally admeasuring 2 Hectors and 46 Ares situated at Kasbe Karad Taluka Karad, District Satara. The Respondent No.1 is a public trust who had filed an application under Section 88-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1946 (for short the said Act), seeking exemption certificate as postulated in the said Se...
Yeshwant Balwant Badave and Others Vs. Yogi Rajendra Shivacharya Guru ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2014
1. In Regular Civil Suit No.167 of 1985 for grant of injunction restraining the Defendant Nos.1 to 14 perpetually from obstructing the exclusive rights of the Plaintiffs of performing puja, archa, dahibhat, abhishek and other pujas etc before the deity Shri. Shambu Mahadeo, Amruteshwar and the other deities of Shikhar Shingnapur Devsthan as priest and to take income of the same and claiming permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from using the said rights unauthorisedly, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dahiwadi has passed a decree and operative portion of the order is reproduced below : (1) The suit of the Plaintiffs is hereby decreed with costs. (2) The Defendant Nos.1 to 11 and 14 are hereby restrained permanently from causing any kind of obstruction to the plaintiff's exclusive right of performing puja, archa, dahibhat pja, abhishek and other pujas etc. before deities Shri Shambhu Mahadeo, Amrutheshwar and other deities of Shikhar Shingnapur temple, Tal. Man to re...
Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs. Vijay Narh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2014
1. The Petitioner-Maharashtra State Electricity Board challenge the orders passed by the Labour Court, Satara and the Industrial Court, Satara allowing the complaint filed by the Respondent and declaring that the order of retirement of the Respondent with effect from 31 January 1998 were illegal and the Respondent deemed to have retired on 31 July 2001, with further direction to pay the monetary benefits to the Respondent. 2. The Respondent joined the services of the Petitioner-Board on 6 February 1968 as a 'helper.' Thereafter, he was working as a 'Lineman.' In 1993, he was promoted as 'Line Foreman.' He was drawing basic salary of Rs.3,480/- p.m. His service record showed his date of birth as 4 January 1940. On 14 December 1987, a letter was issued to the Respondent by the Executive Engineer of the Petitioner for verification of his birth date. It was stated that after perusal of the service record, it was noticed that the date of birth of the Respondent was not attested and for that...
Ashok Bhaurao Sardar Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secreta ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-17-2014
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard submissions at the bar. 2. The Petitioner was facing the eviction proceedings initiated at the instance of respondent no.4/Trust to evict the petitioner from the agricultural land bearing Survey No.52/2, Gat No.10, admeasuring 3 Hectares, 76 R situated at Mouza Sukali, Tq. Daryapur, District Amravati the land owned by the Trust. The proceedings were dismissed on 15.7.2002. As the Trust did not apply for restoration, the dismissal order had attained finality. The Trust filed fresh eviction proceedings being Tenancy Case No.59/27/Sukali/3/20092010 under Section 120C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the BTAL Act) on the same grounds as in earlier eviction case. Respondent no.2, despite this objection, decided the case on merits and allowed the case for summary eviction. The petitioner had challenged the order in Revision No.Ten/B/78/2012. The revision was dismissed by the Maharshtra Rev...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Prakash Parshuram Shirke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2014
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. The appellant-State of Maharashtra has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.1.1993 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. Khalapur, Raigad in R.C. No.40 of 1985. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent-accused of the offence under Sections 408, 467 and 477(A) of I.P.C. 2. It is the prosecution case that the respondent was working as a Salesman in Khalapur Taluka Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh, Khopoli during the period from 1.7.1981 to 12.9.1982. It is the prosecution case that during the said period the respondent was working as a Salesman in the Sahakari Sangh and he committed breach of trust, forgery of valuable security and falsification of accounts. The complaint was lodged by PW-1 Shri. Mhatre who was working as an Auditor in the Department of Agriculture and Co-operative. The work of the Audit of the said Sangh was entrusted to the complainant by the Department of...
Rohit Gera Vs. Pune Cantonment Board Golibar Maidan and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2014
A.S. Chandurkar, J. 1) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges notice dated 21st May, 2009 issued by respondent No.1 Pune Cantonment Board issued under Section 248 (1) of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for short), order dated 30th November, 2013 passed in Appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 340 of the said Act and consequent notice dated 12th February, 2014 issued by the Board calling upon the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction in question. Considering the nature of controversy, we have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. Hence, Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2) The petitioner who is an occupant of residential premises within the limits of the Cantonment Board had sought sanction of building plans by applying to the Board on 2nd August, 2007. On 6th May,2008 the Board accorded sanction to the building plans und...
Anantram @ Moru Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station O ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-17-2014
Oral Judgment: 1] The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The victim was 6 years old at the time of incident and she belongs to Scheduled Caste. The appellant had allegedly attempted to commit rape on her in his agricultural field. There were three child witnesses present at the time of incident. Their statements were recorded during the course of investigation. Victim was sent for medical examination. Appellant was also sent for medical examination. The seized articles were sent for chemical analysis. After receipt of the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2] The prosecution had examined 9 witnesses i...
Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2014
B.P. Colabawalla J. 1. By this Appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961, challenge has been laid by the Commissioner of Income Tax-2 to the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ITAT) dated 15th July 2011 whereby the ITAT allowed the Appeal filed by the Assessee and set aside the order dated 23rd March 2009 passed by the Appellant invoking his powers under section 263 of the Act. 2. Mr Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant / Revenue submitted that the ITAT has totally misdirected itself in setting aside the order passed by the Appellant under section 263 of the Act. According to Mr Suresh Kumar, it was noticed by the Appellant that a sum of Rs.87.11 lakhs had been wrongly debited to the profit and loss account by the Assessee as a loss on account of transfer of securities held under the category Available for Sale to Held to Maturity which was allowed by the Assessing Officer in his Assessment Orde...
Tulsi Castings and Machining Limited and Others Vs. India Venture Trus ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2014
Oral Judgment: 1) The Petitioners in Arbitration Petition No.769 of 2014 which is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 have impugned the interim order passed by the learned Arbitrator under Section 17 of the Act and in particular in paragraph-44(v) and 44(vi). The petitioner in Arbitration Petition (L) No.1003 of 2014 has also impugned part of the order passed by the learned Arbitrator refusing to direct the respondent to deposit an amount or to provide any other sufficient security in regard to the claim of the petitioner. Both the petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 2) On 01/03/2012, the respondents (India Venture Trust) entered into Share Subscription cum Shareholder Agreement and invested 40 Crores in the petitioner company (Tulsi Castings and Machining Limited). The disputes arose between parties. It was the case of the respondents before the learned Arbitrator that the petitioners no.2 and 3 have mismanaged the...
M/s. Leopold Cafe and Stores and Another Vs. Novex Communications Pvt. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2014
PC:- 1. By an order dated 26th June 2014 (corrected on 8th July 2014), I granted an ad-interim injunction in terms of prayer clause (b) of the present Notice of Motion. 2. Since then, the Defendant has filed an affidavit in reply and two supporting affidavits on behalf of the Yash Raj Films Private Limited and Shemaroo Entertainment Limited. 3. The controversy between the parties is narrow. The only question is whether the Defendant (Novex) is entitled to grant licenses in the fashion that it does on behalf of owners of copyright in various works. 4. At an earlier stage, there was also an issue about the showing of special events such as World Cup soccer broadcasts and other television programs etc. on behalf of the MSM Discovery Pvt. Ltd (MSMD) and Big Net Communications. In paragraph 24 of its affidavit in reply Novex says that it is no longer authorised to represent MSMD and Big Net Communications and that it will not, without such authorisation, make any representation on their beh...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »