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.
Vidya Vikas Mandal and Another Vs. The Education Officer (Secondary), ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-11-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Sharma, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Tekade, learned advocate for respondent nos.2(a) to 2(c) and Mr. Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1-Education Officer. 2. The original respondent no.2 had been working as an Assistant Teacher in the school administered by the petitioner-management, since 01.07.1989. There is no dispute that the appointment of original respondent no.2 was made as per the rules and his appointment was granted approval by the respondent no.1-Education Officer. The school administered by the petitioner-management receives grant-in-aid from the State Exchequer and therefore, the salary of original respondent no.2 was being-disbursed by the respondent no.1-Education Officer. In the year 2000, on complaints against original respondent no.2, an enquiry was conducted against him as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as...
Manoj and Another Vs. Vijaya and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-11-2014
Oral Judgment: (Vasanti A. Naik, J.) Since both these appeals arise from the common judgment of the Family Court, Nagpur dated 15-4-2009 and similar issues arise for determination in the same, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment. The appellant in First Appeal No.547 of 2010 is the husband of the appellant in First Appeal No.129 of 2010. The parties are legally wedded husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 29-3-1998 at Indraprastha Mangal Karyalaya according to the Hindu rites and customs. It is not in dispute that after the solemnization of the marriage, the parties started residing in the house of the husband at Ujjawal Nagar, Nagpur and thereafter shifted to Bhusawal. Two children are born from the wedlock namely Kum. Rachita, who was aged about 5 years at the relevant time in the year 2005 and son Ayush, who was then aged 2 years. Both the children are residing with their mother, the appellant in First Appeal No.129 of 2010. In the year 200...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, through General Manager Vs. G ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-2014
1. This petition is directed against the order dated 16th August 2007 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in an appeal under Section 84 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1946 (said Act), directing reinstatement of Shri. Haibatrao B. Dhembre (bus driver) with continuity of service and full back-wages. 2. The factual matrix in which the aforesaid challenge arises is that on 10th October 1999 at about 20.05 hours, public transport bus No.6074 in route No.67 collided with a Maruti car, almost head on near Chowpatty at Teen Batti bus stop. Both the public transport bus as well as the Maruti car suffered extensive damage. The Maruti car driver succumbed to the injuries. The bus driver was chargesheeted on 26th October 1999 for having committed misconduct under Standing Order 20(j), i.e., gross negligence. A domestic enquiry was conducted by Shri. Robert Fernandes, Senior Traffic Officer (Trying Officer), in which the bus driver was represented by Shri. Walke, Controller 23 (Wadala). ...
Communidade of Quitol Vs. President, Fabrica of Betul Church and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-11-2014
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 04/10/2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-III, South Goa, Margao (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No.72/1993. 3. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said L.A.C. No.72/1993. 4. Vide notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('L.A. Act', for short) and published in the Official Gazette dated 04/01/1990, land was acquired at Betul and Quitol villages in Quepem Taluka for setting up an Institution of Safety and Environmental Management for Petroleum Industries of India. This included an area of 61,425 square metres from Survey No.73 and an area of 43,400 square metres from Survey No.71/4 of Quitol village. By award dated 17/06/1992, the Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O., for short) awarded certain compensation for the said land but since there was dispute amongst t...
The State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Anil and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-11-2014
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. In Sessions Case No.28 of 2013 the learned Additional Sessions Judge Shrirampur has awarded death sentence to the accused therein, the proceedings in the said case, have been therefore forwarded to this Court for confirmation under section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused has also preferred an appeal, which was admitted by this Court and same is registered as Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2014. As both the matters are arising out of one judgment, the arguments in both the matters are simultaneously heard and we find it expedient to decide both the matters by common reasoning. However, since the very conviction has been challenged by the convict, the only proper course would be to first decide the Criminal Appeal so filed by the accused, for the reason that, only if the order of conviction is maintained by this Court, the further question will arise whether or not the death sentence awarded by the trial Court is sustainable and is to be confirmed or otherwis...
Commissioner of Income Tax-4 Vs. M/s Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Colabawalla J.) 1. This Appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax 4 against the judgment and order dated 26th August 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'H' Bench, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the ITAT). The Assessment Year in question is 2006-07. Mr Malhotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that in the facts of the present case, substantial questions of law arise in this Appeal and they read as under:- (A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal, in law, was right in allowing the claim of the Assessee on account of delayed payments of P.F. Of employees' contribution amounting to Rs.1,82,77,138/- by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd. (319 ITR 306)? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal, in law, was right in deleting...
Narayan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-11-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This criminal appeal takes exception to the judgment dated 30/11/2001 passed by the Special Judge, Nagpur in Special Case No.30/1991 by which appellant/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. The appellant is also convicted for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the said Act and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case can be briefly stated as under : Complainant Ratan Deole had purchased part of agricultural field from his grandmother Tulsabai Deole in the year 1984 and wanted to dig a well on obtaining loan, for which purpose he required 7/12 extract of the field of his share and accordingly...
Ramesh Ramchandra @ Dhenu Rathod Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-2014
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The appellant, original accused, has questioned the correctness of his conviction and sentence by the present appeal, challenging the judgment and order dated 30th January 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, in Sessions Case No. 21 of 2010 thereby convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for six months. The learned Trial court has acquitted the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts which can be enumerated from the record, may briefly be stated thus: (i) PW-3 Smt. Kasturabai Ram Pawar was the sister of deceased Kavita @ Jyoti Ramesh Rathod. The appellant is the husband of deceased Kavita @ Jyoti. The complainant and the family of the appellant originally hail from the State of Karnataka. They had been...
Francisco Colaco Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-11-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant. Also heard learned Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is the Criminal Revision Application preferred by the petitioner/original accused challenging his conviction in criminal case no.148/S/2004/D passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, D-Court, Margao for the offences punishable under Sections 292 of Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of Cinematography Act. For the offence punishable under Section 292 of Indian Penal Code, present petitioner/accused was convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two months and directed to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. For the offence under Section 7 of Cinematography Act, he was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. This judgment and order was challenged before the first appellate Court in Criminal Appeal no.44/2012. Said Criminal Appeal was finally heard and was dismisse...
Abdul Rehman Sheikh Hussein Vs. Ravindra Vassant Quencro and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-10-2014
1. Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1. 2. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 02/08/2007 passed by the learned District Judge-I, North Goa Panaji (First Appellate Court, for short) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2006, thereby confirming the Judgment and decree dated 31/12/2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ponda, Goa (Trial Court, for short) in Regular Civil Suit No. 43/2004/D. 3. Respondent no.1 was the plaintiff whereas the appellants and the respondents no. 2 and 3 were the defendants. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said suit. 4. The plaintiff had filed the said suit for permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and demolition of the illegal construction. Originally, the suit was filed only against one Sheikh Lukruddin Sheikh Mohammed as sole defendant to restrain h...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »