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.
Gangabisan Mayaramji Paliwal Vs. Sindi Vividha Karyakari Sahakari Soci ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-28-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Mr. Deopujari, Advocate holding for Mr. Paliwal, learned counsel for the appellants, makes a request for adjournment of the matter on the ground that Advocate Paiwal is unable to attend the court today. In view of the peculiar facts of the case, request for adjournment is rejected. 2. After having heard Mr. Gode, learned counsel for respondent no.8, following substantial question of law arises for my determination. (i) Whether the courts below committed error in law in not following the mandate of Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC having concurrently held that the civil Court did not have jurisdiction to try the suit namely; Reg. C. S. No.176/1974 and that the Cooperative Court has? Answer: Yes 3. It is not in dispute that the appellant filed Reg. C. S. No.239/1992 claiming certain reliefs against respondent no.1 and the purchaser of his property that was sold in auction for non payment of dues. The appellant was a member of the cooperative society. The courts below, therefo...
Suryakiran Shripat Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2014
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K.Tahilramani, J.) 1. The Appellant / original accused has preferred this Appeal against the judgment and order dated 10th May 2012 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai. By the said judgment and order the learned Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under: i) The Appellant was the son of Shailabai and P.W.1 - Shripat. Shailabai is deceased in the present case. The Appellant was residing with his mother Shailabai and his father P.W.1 - Shripat at room No.1, Nutan Colony at Malad. The room was 10 ft x 10 ft in size. The Appellant was jobless. ii) The incident occurred on 20th August 2011. At about 8 p.m. Shailabai, Shripat and the Appellant - Suryakiran were present in the house. The Appellant w...
Suryakiran Shripat Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2014
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K.Tahilramani, J.) 1. The Appellant / original accused has preferred this Appeal against the judgment and order dated 10th May 2012 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai. By the said judgment and order the learned Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under: i) The Appellant was the son of Shailabai and P.W.1 - Shripat. Shailabai is deceased in the present case. The Appellant was residing with his mother Shailabai and his father P.W.1 - Shripat at room No.1, Nutan Colony at Malad. The room was 10 ft x 10 ft in size. The Appellant was jobless. ii) The incident occurred on 20th August 2011. At about 8 p.m. Shailabai, Shripat and the Appellant - Suryakiran were present in the house. The Appellant w...
Commissioner of Income-tax-11, Mumbai Vs. Jyoti Prakash Dutta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2014
1. It is unfortunate that the Revenue files Appeals year after year pertaining to the same Assessee and raising the same issues and questions which have been raised earlier duly considered and have not been answered in favour of the Revenue by this Court. 2. This is one more instance of the Revenue urging before this Court that firstly a film production unit or a Company is not an industrial undertaking within the meaning of section 80IB of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for short the said Act). Assuming it is so and conceding that position, in so far as the present Assessee is concerned, now it is urged that the Assessee does not fulfil the condition which would make it eligible or qualified for deduction in terms of the above provisions. 3. In this Appeal, which impugns the order of the Tribunal dated 2nd November 2011 for assessment year 2007-08, all that the Tribunal has done is to maintain and uphold the view of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner followed the ord...
M/s. United White Metals Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2014
1. Both these Petitions raise common issues of fact and law and therefore can be conveniently disposed of together. The challenge in the two Petitions is directed against the Order dated 22 December 2006 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai, referring under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("said Act"), a dispute with the following terms of the reference: "By cancelling the Order dated 29.12.2003 the workmen be absorbed in the establishment of M/s. Otis Elevators (India), Mumbai (List is enclosed herewith)" 2. The brief facts and circumstances in which the challenge arises is that the 252 employees referred to in the list annexed to the Order of Reference dated 22 December 2006 ("impugned order") were admittedly the employees of M/s. Otis Elevator Co. (I) Ltd., (hereafter referred to as "the Otis") at least upto 29 December 2003. On and from the said date, the services of such employees were purported to be transferred on "as is where is basis" to M/s. U...
Munna Mohammad Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25th March, 2010 delivered by the learned 5th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai in Sessions Case No.569 of 2009 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for Seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The said prosecution emerged out of the charge-sheet filed by PW-9 PI. Ajay Krushanaji Lonare as a result of investigation in Crime No.180 of 2009 of Nagpada police station registered by PW-8 PSI. Dhananjay Yashwant Fadatare on the basis of report (Exh-28) submitted by police head constable PW-4 Sandip Mariba Wankhede regarding the incident of quarrel reported to him by one person approaching at Mumbai Central police chowky on 18th June, 2009 at about 1.15 p.m. According to the prosecution said person has ...
Commissioner of Income-tax-11, Mumbai Vs. Jyoti Prakash Dutta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2014
1. It is unfortunate that the Revenue files Appeals year after year pertaining to the same Assessee and raising the same issues and questions which have been raised earlier duly considered and have not been answered in favour of the Revenue by this Court. 2. This is one more instance of the Revenue urging before this Court that firstly a film production unit or a Company is not an industrial undertaking within the meaning of section 80IB of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for short the said Act). Assuming it is so and conceding that position, in so far as the present Assessee is concerned, now it is urged that the Assessee does not fulfil the condition which would make it eligible or qualified for deduction in terms of the above provisions. 3. In this Appeal, which impugns the order of the Tribunal dated 2nd November 2011 for assessment year 2007-08, all that the Tribunal has done is to maintain and uphold the view of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner followed the ord...
Sukhdeo Govind Gawari and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-2014
A.S. Oka, J. 1. Parties were put to notice that the Petitions will be taken up for final disposal at admission stage. Accordingly, we have heard the learned counsel representing the Petitioners and the learned AGP for Respondents at length. FACTS OF THE CASE 2. The issue in these Petitions is as regards the right of rehabilitation claimed by the Petitioners who are claiming to be project affected persons. As far as the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.6195 of 2013 is concerned, he claims to be the owner of the agricultural lands more particularly described in paragraph 1 of the Petition. The Petition has been filed in his capacity as the Legal representative of his father Govind Dhondu Gawari. It is contended that the lands of the Petitioner were acquired for the submergence of Bhama Askhed Irrigation Project (for short the said Project). Award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the said Act of 1894) was declared on 30th April, 1997 and the possession of the sa...
Devakibai Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-24-2014
Oral Judgment: (S.S. Shinde, J.) 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the applicants and learned APP for State. 2. Since all these criminal applications raise a common question of law, they are being disposed of by this common Judgment and Order. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants, inviting our attention to ground No.3, raised in the application, submits that in the light of provisions contained in Section 142 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act (for short, the MRTP Act), no prosecution can be instituted without obtaining prior sanction from the competent authority. In support of this contention, learned Counsel invited our attention to the judgment of this court in the matter of Mahesh Shivram Puthran Vs. Commissioner of Police, Thane and Ors. reported in 2011(3) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 383 and submits that in the instant cases since no previous sanction was obtained before initiation of the subject prosecution, all these criminal applications deserve to be allowed. 4....
Vilas Dhondu Nichite Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-2014
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) 1. Appellant/ Original accused no.1 who stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 r/w. 511, 452, 324 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- i.d. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, by the VIIIth Addl. Sessions Judge, Thane, by judgment dated 30.06.1992, in Sessions Case No.475 of 1991, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. The facts as are necessary for the decision of this appeal may be stated thus: P.W.11 P. I. Ashok Wankhede, who on 3.2.1991 was attached to Shahapur Police Station, recorded the complaint of P.W.1 victim (whose name is deliberately withheld) at Exhibit 11. On the basis of the said statement, offence vide Crime No.56 of 1991 under Section 376(g), 324, 452, 506 of Indian Penal Code was registered. P.W.11 P.I. Wankhede proceeded to the scene of incident and drew scene of incident panchanama at Ex...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »