Mumbai Court August 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.
Shilpa Co-operative Housing Society Vs. Smt. Janabai Gulabrao Wangal T ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-11-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned counsel for rival parties. 2. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 29.11.2008 passed by Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Nagpur holding that notice under section 164 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act,1960 (in short the "MCS Act") was not necessary before instituting a suit, Regular Civil Suit No.354/2004 and thereby reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.502/2007, the present Appeal has been filed by original defendant no.11- Shilpa Cooperative Housing Society. FACTS:- 3. The respondents/plaintiffs filed suit for declaration that they are owners of the suit land having 1/7th share each and that the sale deed dated 16.12.1987 executed in favour of the defendant no.11-appellant-society is illegal and void ab initio and they were entitled to partition. They also claimed relief of injunction regarding construction activity etc. It is the case of the...
Kalpika Sharad Naik Vs. Sharad G. Naik
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-11-2014
1. Heard rival submissions at length on this First Appeal preferred by the appellant/wife, original respondent challenging the judgment and order dated 12/12/2012. By the said order impugned in the present appeal the Matrimonial Petition No.23/2011/A filed by the present respondent/original petitioner for decree of divorce under Article 4(4) and 4(5) of the Law of Divorce applicable to Goa, Daman and Diu, was decreed. The marriage between the appellant and respondent registered under the entry no.255/2002 of the marriage registration book in the office of Civil Registrar of Mormugao was dissolved by decree of divorce. Civil Registrar, Mormugao was directed to make necessary endorsement against the said entry. The parties were directed to bear their own costs. Appellant and respondent are hereinafter referred to as wife and husband, respectively. 2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of divorce, wife had preferred the present appeal. At the threshold, the thrust of the argu...
KPMG India Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. National Commission for Women (NC ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-2014
A.K. Menon, J. 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. Petitioner No.1 is a private limited company of which Petitioner No.2 is the Company Secretary. For the sake of convenience Petitioner no.1 and 2 are referred to as Petitioner. Respondent No.1 is a statutory body set up under the National Commission for Women, Act, 1990 and is empowered to deal with various issues concerning women as set out in the Act. Respondent No.2 was employed with the Petitioner at all material times and filed a complaint against the Petitioner no.1 with the Respondent no.1. 3. The Petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings initiated by Respondent No.1 - National Commission for Women (NCW / National Commission) against Petitioner No.1 (KPMG) pursuant to the complaint made by Respondent No.2 and restrain Respondent No.1 from conducting any further proceedings in the matter. 4. We may now advert to the facts leading upto the filing of this petition. Respondent No.2 joined the Petitioner comp...
Vilas Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-11-2014
P.C. 1. On 11/7/2014, we had issued notice in the matter and directed respondent No.2-the Collector, Buldhana to remain present in this Court and show cause as to why he has not given effect to the order passed by the appellate authority. 2. While issuing of notice what is urged before us is that under a rule of hierarchy, when a superior officer passes the order, the subordinate officer is bound to comply with the same. Relying on the same basic principle, without going into the entire brief, we thought that it was necessary to secure the presence of the Collector to show cause as to why he has not complied with the order passed by the appellate authority. 3. When the matter is listed before us, perusal of the affidavit in reply shows that the facts of the case are somewhat otherwise and not as simple as were presented before us when an order was passed on 11/7/2014. 4. Today, with the assistance of the learned Government Pleader, learned Assistant Government Pleader and the learned A...
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-11-2014
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties taken up for final hearing. 2. These two Writ Petitions can be disposed of by this common judgment, since both involve the same question. 3. Facts in respect of Writ Petition No.983 of 2013. By the present petition, the petitioners are questioning the correctness of the order of issuance of process against them for violation of provisions of Section 7(ii), Section 2(ix)(k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (herein after referred to as, 'the Act' for the purpose of brevity) r/w Rules 38 and 39 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter for short herein after referred as, "the Rules"), punishable under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act in Regular Criminal Case No.634 of 2011 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed, together with the prayer that the complaint Regular Criminal Case No.634 of 2011 be quashed and set aside. 4. Petitioner no.1 is a Company...
Casimiro Correia Vs. Executive Engineer, P.W.D. I, Irrigation Departme ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This common judgment shall dispose of both the above appeals since they pertain to land acquired under the same notification published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act, for short). 3. Vide notification issued under Section 4(1) of the L. A. Act and published in the Official Gazette dated 24/11/1989, land was acquired for the purpose of strengthening and improvement of bund and defending the paddy field at Pato Kator at Chirculem Khazan at St. Cruz, Tiswadi Goa and this included land admeasuring 477 square metres classified as paddy field and an area of 123 square metres, classified as bund from survey no. 571/2 of St. Cruz and this land was subject matter of Land Acquisition Case No. 15 of 2007. The Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O., for short) by award dated 02/08/1991 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per square metre for the rice land (paddy field) and at the rate of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax-2, Mumbai Vs. Larsen and Toubro Infotech Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2014
1. This appeal by the revenue challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 23rd September, 2011 in Income Tax Appeal No.2683/Mum/2009. The assessment year in question is 2004-05. 2. The assessee-respondent before us brought the appeal before the Tribunal challenging order dated 24th March, 2009. That order was passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai, under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Mr. Chhotaray submits that the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act exercised by the Commissioner has not been interfered with by the Tribunal. The Commissioner was of the opinion that the order of the Assessing Officer dated 23rd November, 2006 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act was erroneous and so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Commissioner was of the opinion that the expenditure of Rs.172,56,43,532/- incurred in foreign currency for providing technical services outside India was not reduced fr...
The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another Vs. Lawrence Caetano ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Afonso, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Redkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This First Appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 22/11/2006 passed by the learned Ad hoc District Judge (2), FTC-II (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 8/2005. 3. The parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said Land Acquisition Case. 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 25/07/2002, land was acquired for construction of Underground Drainage Scheme to Margao Town, North Zone - Additional land in Comba area of Margao. This included land admeasuring 82 square metres from Chalta No. 213 of P.T. Sheet No. 55 of Margao Town in which the applicant was interested. By award dated 28/05/2004, the learned Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O., for sho...
Maruti Enclave Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. Dr. Jyoti Anan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2014
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant, a Co-operative Housing Society filed a private complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, being Regular Criminal Case No.535 of 2003, as against the respondent nos.1 and 2 (Original accused nos.3 and 4) and three others, alleging offences punishable under Sections 5, 7 and 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 and under Sections 403, 409, 420 r/w 34 and/or 36 of the Indian Penal Code. After recording the verification, the learned Magistrate issued process as against the respondents, for the offences punishable under Sections 5, 7, 11 r/w 31 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 and under Sections 403, 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Against the said order issuing process, the respondent nos.1 and 2 (origi...
M/s Mahadhan Real Estates Ltd. and Another Vs. M/s. Anjali Real Estate ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The above petitions challenge an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji whereby an application filed by the respondents to issue summons to the witness PW2 came to be allowed. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the suit filed by the petitioners is for specific performance of a contract and in such suit after examining PW1 the evidence of PW2 was in progress. It appears that PW2 was substantially cross examined but however on the date fixed for further cross examination PW2 remained absent and the learned Judge refused to adjourn the matter for such cross examination. The mater was thereafter posted by the learned Judge to examine as to what action is to be taken with regard to the incomplete evidence. In the meanwhile, the respondents filed an application to issue a warrant of arrest against PW2 to remain present in the Court for his further cross examination. The learned Judge by an order dated 25.11.2003 issued a warrant of arrest. P...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »