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.
Rohidas and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-07-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-original accused Nos.1 and 2 against their conviction under sections 363 and 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC in short). Each of them has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is as under: (a) On 7.5.1996, complainant Nivrutti, Resident of Ashtur, Taluka Loha, District Nanded filed F.I.R. at Crime No.38/1996 with Police Station Malakoli, Taluka Loha, District Nanded. The complainant is father of the victim girl. The complainant informed police that, he has been working at the place of one Laxman Ishwarrao on the field and residing there. He has three sons and two daughters. Victim (named in the F.I.R.) is aged 16 years. She was at the place of her maternal uncle at Malewadi, Taluka Gang...
Suswarajya Foundation, Satara and Others Vs. The Collector, Satara and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2014
P.C.: 1. These Public Interest Litigations have been filed essentially for bringing to the notice of the Court that in all major cities in the State there are large number of illegal banners, hoardings, posters, digital flexes, arches etc. displayed mainly by the political leaders/workers. Occasions for such display are birthdays of political leaders, appointments made of the political leaders to a particular post, alleged achievements of the political leaders. There are posters and banners displayed for welcoming the political dignitaries to various cities. There is a display of banners, posters, flexes, Arches etc by the political leaders for conveying good wishes on account of religious festivals. Apart from illegalities committed by political leaders/workers, there are others who indulge in such illegalities. The illegalities are causing defacement of private and public properties in the cities. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the Municipal/Police Authorities are not ...
The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Dr. Kiran Sonu Ahire Krishna a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2014
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The aforesaid Criminal Appeal No.659 of 1992 has been filed by the State of Maharashtra against the acquittal of the respondent-Mr. Kiran Ahire i.e. the original accused in Sessions Case No.163 of 1991 under Section 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code by the impugn judgment and order dated 28.4.1992 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No.163 of 1991. The Respondent herein will be termed as accused hereinafter for the sake of brevity. The accused Kiran Ahire has preferred the Criminal Appeal No.382 of 1996 against his conviction under Section 498A and 506of the Indian Penal Code thereby sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of which to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months by the impugned judgment and order dated 28.4.1992. It is to be noted here that, as the appeal preferred against acquittal of accused was admitted by this Court, the appeal preferred by the accused was ther...
Ram Padarth Tiwari Vs. The Union of India, Through the Secretary of Mi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2014
Ravindra V. Ghuge J. 01. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 02. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the orders of punishment dated 10/04/2009 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, dated 08/07/2009 passed by the Appellate Authority and dated 25/09/2009 passed by the Revisional Authority. 03. The submissions of the petitioner can be summarized as follows:- a) The petitioner participated in the direct recruitment selection process for the post of Constable initiated by the respondents in the year 1992. b) By the appointment order dated 14/08/1992, the petitioner was appointed on the post of constable (GD). c) In the year 2008, the petitioner was deployed at the Central Gate of the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (hereinafter referred to as JNPT). d) A Morcha means a small bunker of 3 ft. x 3 ft. wherein a single armed constable is deployed in a standing position to guard the said location. e) A Morcha is at the Central ...
Ashok @ Chati Ladke Jadhav and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2014
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The appellants, original accused nos.1,2 and 3, have challenged the judgment and order dated 23rd December 2011 passed by the learned Extra Joint Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, C.R. No.2, Sewree, Mumbai, thereby convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- by each in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year by each. 2. The facts which can be enumerated from the record, may briefly be stated thus: (i) The deceased Dashrath Bujad and his wife Laxmi (PW-1) along with their four children were residing at Palaspada, Mulund (West). PW-1 Laxmi and her husband used to bring fruits namely Tadgole from the forest of Bhandup and were dealing in the said fruits seasonally and in the rest of the season, they were doing the work of carrying sand at the site of building construction. That Smt. Jay...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Pune Vs. D.V. Paranjape
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2014
B.P. Colabawalla, J. By this Income Tax Reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the following questions of law, arising out of the order of the Tribunal relating to the Assessment Year 1978-1979, have been referred for opinion of this Court: "(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the re-opening of the assessment u/s 147(a) of the Income Tax Act was valid in law inasmuch as the date of bonus shares was not disclosed and in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the reopening of assessment was invalid because: (I) it was not done at the behest and direction of CIT without applying independent mind. (II) The fact of issue of bonus shares was already declared in the immediately preceding year and there could not be "non disclosure" of facts already known to the department and (III) In the context of the fact that the entire controlling interest with entir...
Gulf Air Vs. Gulf Air Employees' Association
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2014
1. By this petition, the petitioner-Gulf Air challenges the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal dated 18 August 2004, answering the reference against the petitioner and holding that the order of dismissal of Vinod Malhotra, a member of the respondent Union, as illegal, with a direction that he should be reinstated with back wages and continuity of service. 2. Mr.Vinod Malhotra was working as a Passenger Service Supervisor with the petitioner. One Ms.Shalini Vaswani was employed as a Passenger Service Agent. The Petitioner issued a charge-sheet to Mr.Malhotra on 28 January 1997. Gist of the charge-sheet was that Ms.Vaswani checked in a passenger who had excess baggage of twelve kgs., and she asked the passenger to pay Rs.1400/- for excess baggage. Ms.Vaswani collected Rs.1000/- from the passenger and when Mr.Malhotra came to know, he asked her to give him half of the amount. The passenger then asked Ms.Vaswani for return of the amount which she repaid. Mr.Malhotra was ch...
Gerald A. Fernandez Vs. The Bandra Gymkhana and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-2014
P.C. 1. The Notice of Motion is taken out by the Plaintiff / Applicant praying for stay of an expulsion order. The Plaintiff is a member of Defendant No.1 gymkhana. By the impugned expulsion order, the Plaintiff was expelled from the membership of Defendant No.1. The expulsion order is challenged in the present suit. 2. The Plaintiff is a senior citizen of 64 years and has been a member of the first Defendant gymkhana over the last 40 years. It is the Plaintiff's case that the Plaintiff has been victimized by the Defendants for raising his voice and objecting to the violations of the Rule Book by the members of the managing committee. It appears that on 29 March 2012, after the Plaintiff's complaint in respect of certain violations in respect of guests to the club, who were allowed entry in the card room without paying guest fees, the Plaintiff was given a show cause notice on 29 March 2012 calling upon the Plaintiff to explain why no action should be taken against the Plaintiff for in...
Rashtrasant Tukdoji Regional Cancer Hospital and Research Center, thro ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-05-2014
1. Heard Mr.S.N.Bhattad, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.C.Naukarkar, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Award, dt.11.8.2006 passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur in Complaint (ULPN) No.203 of 2005 whereby the respondent (Original Complainant) was ordered to be given work with effect from 11.8.2006 after declaring termination of the respondent from service as unlawful. Consequential relief that she shall not be forced to work under any other Contractor was also granted. 3. Sometimes in the year 2000, the petitioner had decided to recruit the workers for class III and class IV category of employees. According to the petitioner, the work was not of regular or permanent nature, but as per need of the hospital. The respondent had joined the service with the petitioner as a Sweeper in the hospital on 14.1.2000. The respondent had joined as a Sweeper, but her service was discontinued by coercing her to work under another Contractor while ob...
Rosmerta Technologies Ltd. Vs. State of Goa, through its Principal Sec ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-05-2014
Ranjit More, J. 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs: (i) Issue a Writ(s), Order(s) or Direction(s) against the respondents declaring that Clause 29 of the Bid Document via reference No: D.Tpt./EST/e- Tender/1894/Smart Card/2013/2964 dated 14-08-2013 issued by the Directorate of Transport, Government of Goa is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional and ultra-vires to the provision of Constitution of India; (ii) Issue a Writ(s), Order(s) or Direction(s) directing the respondents to issue letter of intent in favour of petitioner in pursuance to the Tender Notice referred in D.Tpt./EST/e-Tender/1894/Smart Card/2013/2964 dated 14-08-2013 issued by the Directorate of Transport, Government of Goa where petitioner has been declared as lowest (L-1) and successful bidder and to execute the concession agreement with the petitioner for preparation of Driving Licence and Registration Certificates in Smart Card Forms i...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »