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.
Shaikh Wajid Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-05-2014
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The brief facts for filing this Petition are as under:- On 29.04.2010, the plot no.1 out of survey no.86/2 situated at Ahmedpur was purchased by the petitioner and the complainant- Shivkant Lasune. On 24.05.2010, one Gundappa Vishwanath Nijwante had challenged the said sale-deed in Regular Civil Suit No.03/2010 and has prayed for the declaration of ownership and injunction. The said Regular Civil Suit is pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedpur. During pendency of the said suit, the complainant - Shivkant Lasune has sold his interest in the said property in favour of the petitioner and executed an agreement of sale on receipt of Rs. 21,000/- on 20.01.2012. The petitioner has constructed 15 tin sheds in plot no.1. On 23.08.2012, the Municipal Council, Ahmedpur has issued No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner for getting electric ...
Sunanda Bansi Koparge Vs. Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-05-2014
A.M. Badar, J. 1. As the points for determination in the instant petitions filed by Sunanda Koparge are interlinked, all of them are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Facts necessary for deciding these petitions are thus:- WRIT PETITION NO. 3236 OF 1999 [i] By this petition, petitioner Sunanda Koparge, Clerk, has challenged the order of her dismissal from service issued by the respondent No.1 Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapith, Rahuri, (hereinafter referred to as, the respondent Krishi Vidyapith). It is her case that, her grandfather shifted from Karnataka to the State of Maharashtra and settled at Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar, prior to 1950. She belongs to Lingder community, which is recognized as Scheduled Caste. On her application, the Executive Magistrate, Shevgaon, issued a caste certificate dated 17.8.1983, stating that she belongs to Hindu Lingder Scheduled Caste. Thereafter, by an order dated 19.9.1984, she came to be appointed as a Clerk with the respondent Krishi Vidyap...
Pramila Vs. Bandu and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-05-2014
1. Petitioner, who is working as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Ner, Tq. Telhara, Distt. Akola, felt aggrieved by the order dated 7th April, 2011, passed by the Additional Collector, Akola, and confirmed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, in Appeal No.198/BVP Act 16 (2)/2010-11 of Ner, Tq. Telhara, Distt. Akola, by order dated 7th June, 2011, filed the present Writ Petition. FACTS : 2. For Gram Panchayat, Ner, the post of Sarpanch was reserved for Scheduled Castes [Woman] and as such the petitioner was elected on the said post on 10th August, 2010. Respondent No.1 applied under Section 14 (1) (h) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958, against the petitioner and stated in the said application that the petitioner is residing in undivided Hindu family of her father-in-law Yashwant Tukaram Tayde along-with her husband Punjab Yashwant Tayde in House No.328, which stands in the name of her father-in-law Yashwant. The House Tax in respect of House No.328, so...
Sanjay Murlidhar Chaugule Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-05-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. By the present Cri.Revn.Appln., the applicant is questioning the correctness of the Judgment and Order dated 29th May, 1997 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhule in Reg.Trial Case No.305 of 1993 whereby the applicant alongwith co-accused Sanjay @ Babu Ramdas Ahirrao were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 380, 457 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. For both these offences, the learned Magistrate was pleased to sentenced them to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. No fine was imposed upon them. It is to be mentioned here that other accused Sushilabai w/o Ramadas Ahirrao was acquitted by the learned Magistrate, together with the Judgment and order of dismissal dated 5th July, 2001 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Dhule in Cri.Appeal No.17-A/1997. 2. I have heard Mr. R.M. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Applicant and Mrs. Pratibha Bharad, A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra...
Prabhakar Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-05-2014
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. This criminal appeal is by original accused No.1 Prabhakar, who was tried along with his father Kaduba (accused No.2), mother Gayabai (accused No.3) and sister Kusumbai (accused No.4) for offen ce punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short), alternatively Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Only the appellant accused (hereinafter referred to as accused) came to be convicted under Section 498-A and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. For offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months; for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. His old aged father Kaduba, who was 80 years when charge s...
Dudhsagar Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-05-2014
Ranjit More, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 2. Both the appeals arise out of the common order dated 10/01/2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA Nos. 71 and 72/PNJ/1998 and, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Both the appeals were admitted on the following substantial question of law: Whether income received by an investment company in the course of its business, towards letting of a fully furnished office premises, is not to be assessed as business income, failing which income from other sources as claimed by the Appellant, but as income from house property as assessed by the Respondent ? 4. The assessee let out its premises on the 15th floor of Jolly Maker Chambers No. 2, Block No. III at Nariman Point, Mumbai along with four open garages, for compensation of Rs. 1,31,800/- per month for office premises and for garages and Rs. 8,000/- as hire charges for furniture, fixtures and fitt...
Devdas Gangaram Khedekar and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-2014
P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have impugned the order dated 08.05.2014 passed by the learned Jt. Judicial Magistrate F.C., Khed below Exhibit 126 in R.C.S.No.155 of 2004. Vide the said order, the learned Judge was pleased to reject the application preferred by the accused No.4, for recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure through the Indian Embassy, in the United States of America. 4. The petitioner's ex-wife lodged a complaint/FIR as against the petitioner and three others alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed as against the petitioners. The case is pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khed and is numbered as R.C.S.No.155 of 2...
Essel Propack Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) 1. Notice for final disposal of the Writ Petition was issued as per order dated 29.1.2014. Though in the Writ Petition, there is a challenge to the assessment and the demand notice dated 26.5.2008 as well as the order dated 1.3.2012 passed by the learned District Judge-5, Thane refusing to condone the delay, the challenge in the Writ Petition has been confined to the order dated 1.3.2012 refusing to condone the delay. Hence, in view of the limited challenge raised in the present Writ Petition, the same is taken up for being decided finally as per the aforesaid order. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 are duly served with the notice for final disposal of the Writ Petition. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. None appears for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 though served. 3. By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 1.3.2012 passed by the learned District Judg...
U.L. Telgaonkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-05-2014
S.S. Shinde, J Present Contempt Proceedings are arising out of Reference dated 18/20th April, 2013 by the District Judge-3, Ambajogai to this Court. (I) As per the contents of said reference, it appears that, on 8th April, 2013, the four accused namely (i) Dhammanand S/o Gangadharrao Munde, (ii) Shakuntalabai @ Sabiya Raosaheb Gode, (iii) Raju s/o Mukund Munde, and (iv) Sudam @ Sudhakar s/o Mukund Munde, all resident of Parli-Vaijnath were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 81/2009. They were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. After passing the order of sentence, all the four accused were handed over to Police Head Constable Aniskhan Pathan, Railway Police Station, Parli Vaijnath, Taluka Parli-Vaijnath, Dist. Beed along with conviction warrants with direction to deposit them in the District Prison, Beed. (ii) ...
Group Captain Nitin Kanitkar (Retd.) Vs. Meenu Nitin Kanitkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-2014
Oral Order: (A.S. Gadkari, J.) 1. The present Family Court Appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 24th October 2013 passed below Exhibit 1 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.9 of 2013. The said Application No.9 of 2013 was filed by the wife, Respondent herein, under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree dated 6th March 2012 passed in Petition No.A-801 of 2011 which was filed by the Appellant herein for seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty as contemplated under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. The record discloses that the Appellant - husband had filed a Petition bearing No.A-801 of 2011 in the Family Court at Pune under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act as stated earlier. The learned Judge of the Family Court No.5, Pune in its judgment and order dated 6th March 2012 had observed that the Respondent - wife was duly served with the summons, but remained absent continuously and so the sa...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »