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.
Dr. Shivaji Asraji Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-04-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard Shri Joydeep Chatterjee, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri A.S. Shinde, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State extensively. With the assistance of both the learned counsel and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, I have minutely perused the entire charge sheet placed before this court and also the reply and the annexures with the reply filed by the State. 2. The applicant is accused no.9 in the Sessions Trial No.170 of 2012, pending on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed. The applicant is one of the accused amongst others. The allegation against the applicant and other accused is of having committed offences punishable under Sections 312, 313, 315, 316, 318, 304, 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code; also under the provisions of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and the Medical Ter...
NRC Limited Vs. Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-2014
P.C. : 1). This is a common order on the above Writ Petitions between the same parties and having identical subject matter. 2). The petitioner, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act is the owner of a large property at Kalyan. Respondent no.1, Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation (KDMC for short) issued bills to the petitioner during the period 1996 to 2004 for the property taxes. Being aggrieved by the rateable value fixed of the properties and the tax charged thereon, the petitioner filed eight appeals under Section 406 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (BPMC Act for short) in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan (CJSD for short). The details of the appeals are tabulated below:-Municipal Appeal No.Amount (Rs.)Bill No.52/961,20,44,430.003360218/972,31,98,033.5o3362819/983,41,45,421.5o520109/994,28,93,736.5oo1030104/015,15,74,599.5o20533/016,23,37,714.005433523/027,31,00,828.006105420/047,82,27,274.006713 3). The petitioner had earlier filed...
Global Exim Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-2014
P.C. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the parties. Counsel for Respondents waive service of notice. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The applicant has impugned the order dated 25th April, 2014, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 56th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai, below Exhibit - 83 in C.C.No.2856/SS/2012. 4. Before adverting to the impugned order, it would be necessary to place on record the following facts :- It appears that an application was previously preferred by the respondent no.2 herein i.e. Stonemannn Royale Limited, before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Exhibit - 73 praying therein for calling an expert to examine the age of the ink in respect of the writing on the cheque. In the said application, Exhibit - 73, the respondents - accused had prayed that the Court should appoint a Forensic Expert to examine the age of the ink in respect of the subject cheque, exhibited by the complainant, being Cheque No.041245 drawn on IDBI B...
Shrimant Pundalik Dudhal Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-2014
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) 1. The appellant who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 376(i) and 506(ii) of the IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and R.I. for 2 years respectively, with a direction that the substantive sentence shall run concurrently by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay by judgment dated 9th April, 2009 in Sessions Case No.871 of 2006, by this appeal challenges his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts as are necessary for the decision of the appeal may briefly be stated thus :- 3. PW-5 PSI Santu B. Khamkar, who on 4th April, 2006 was attached to the Deonar Police Station, recorded a report of the victim (whose name is deliberately withheld) at Exh.10. On the basis of the report of the PW-1 victim, an offence vide Crime No.124 of 2006 was registered under Sections 376 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. PW-5 PSI Khamkar, thereafter recorded statements of PW-4 Shahubai. The appellant was arres...
Girish Satyanarayan Shukla Vs. High Court of Judicature at Mumbai and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-2014
A.S. Oka, J. 1. The Petitioner was appointed as a Civil Judge, Junior Division and the Judicial Magistrate, First Class on 23rd October 1992. The Petitioner joined the service on 19th November 1992. By an order dated 4th October 1996, the appointment of the Petitioner was terminated. Prior to that, by an order dated 22nd March 1995, the probationary period of the Petitioner was extended by one year with effect from 24th November 1994. The challenge in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is essentially to the said order dated 4th October 1996 by which the employment of the Petitioner was terminated. A declaration is sought that the Petitioner be held to have completed his probation period satisfactorily on 19th November 1994. Another prayer made in the Petition is for directing the first Respondent or any authority or any Judge of this Court to grant personal hearing to the Petitioner in the matter of his representations dated 23rd September 1996, 11th November ...
E. I. DuPont India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Union of India (Through the Secre ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Colabawalla J.) 1. Rule, by consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard finally. The grievance made by the Petitioner in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is against the action of Respondent Nos.2 to 5 in loading 1% Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) on the imports made by the Petitioner and/or their purchasers, and against the action of Respondent Nos.4 and 5 to withhold out of charge order unless 1% of EDD is paid under Bills of Entry No.593135601 dated 26th June 2014 and Bill of Entry No.5626428 dated 27th May 2014. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that charging of 1% of EDD by Respondent Nos.4 and 5 despite the SVB order dated 23th June 2014 being brought to the notice of Respondent No.3 along with the conditions of the Circular No.11/2001-Cus dated 23rd February 2001 that 1% EDD cannot be recovered once the decision is given by the Special Valuation Branch (SVB), or where no SVB order i...
Pandurang Dharmadhikari, L.Rs. and Others Vs. Kusumtai @ Malini and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-04-2014
1. The petition arises out of the order passed by the learned trial Judge in Special Civil Suit No.3/1998 below Exh.396 on 1st December, 2011 by which the learned trial Judge has allowed the objection of the respondents, has impounded the document dated 13th May, 1992 as per the provisions of Section 33 of the Bombay Stamp Act and has sent the document to the Collector for necessary action as per the provisions of Section 37 of the Bombay Stamp Act. The petitioners have also challenged the conclusions of the leaned trial Judge that the document dated 13th May, 1992 was required to be registered as contemplated by the provisions of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act and as the document is not registered, it is inadmissible in evidence as per the provisions of Section 49(c) of the Registration Act. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed the civil suit against the petitioners and the respondents 3 to 5 praying for the decree for partition by metes and bounds in respect of 1/7th share...
M/s. Exide Industries Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-2014
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. Rule. By consent of parties made returnable forthwith and heard finally. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of revision dated 25th May 2011 passed by Respondent No.3 and the consequent demand notice of the same date, demanding an amount of Rs.2,16,98,270/- under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (BST Act). The challenge has also been laid to the order of Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal (MSTT) in Appeal No.224 of 2011 confirming the aforesaid demand of sales tax. 2. At the outset, Mr. Ankhad, the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the Respondents raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that the Petitioner had not exhausted the alternate remedies under the BST Act. He submitted that the alternate remedy available to the Petitioner was filing a Reference Application against the final order of the MSTT under section 61 of the BST Act. This remedy h...
Rohan Amrut Gaonkar and Others Vs. State of Goa, through the Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-04-2014
Ranjit More, J. 1. The petitioners in both the Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are challenging common order/memorandum dated 12.4.2013 cancelling the offer of appointment given to each of them. Both the petitions involve common issue and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the above petitions are as follows:- Respondent no. 2 issued an advertisement on 12.1.2011 inviting application from eligible candidates for filling up vacancies to the posts of Commercial Tax Inspectors. By this advertisement, respondent no. 2 proposed to fill 21 vacancies and these vacancies were subject to variation. In response to this advertisement 1710 candidates including the petitioners in both the petitions applied for the post of Commercial Tax Inspector. The written test was held on 26.6.2011 and thereafter 250 candidates were short listed based on the marks obtained by them in the written test. Short listed candidates...
Prabhakar D. Shirwaikar and Others Vs. Malini Xete Parker @ Malini Xet ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-04-2014
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. 2. Heard rival arguments at length on this criminal revision application challenging the orders dated 23/09/2008, 17/01/2012 and 10/01/2014 passed by Civil Judge Junior Division, Ponda Goa passed on respective applications made on different dates and which are exhibits D-11, D-47 and D-63, respectively. Last impugned order was passed on 10/01/2014 on the application preferred by the present petitioners/original defendants no.1,2 and 3 filed under the provisions of Section 151, Order 7 Rule 11(d) and Order 14 Rule 2(2)(a) of Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court framed three points as follows and answered them in negative. 1) Whether the plaint is liable to be dismissed/rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC? 2) Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed by invoking powers under Section 151 of CPC? 3) Whether the suit is liabl...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »