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.
Ranjana Bhagwan Gotarne Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2014
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. The appellant, original accused, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 20th February 2012 passed by the learned Extra Joint Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No. 36 of 2007. By the said judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 302 of IPC, and for the said offence sentenced her to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine S.I. for one year. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (i) Deceased Sunita was the daughter of PW7 Lata and PW1 Dattu. Sunita was about three years old at the time of incident. Bhagwan was the elder brother of Dattu. The appellant is the wife of Bhagwan. The appellant and Bhagwan had two children. Dattu was residing in Varsale Navpada along with his wife, children and his parents. The house of the appellant was situated near the house of victim-girl...
Coca-Cola India (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Registrar representing Income ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2014
1. Rule. 2. The respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench at Pune, on 6th December, 2013 in a Misc. Application styled as M.A. No.150/PN/2010 arising out of Income Tax Appeal Nos.1258/PN/2003, 182 and 610/PN/2004, 256 and 144/PN/2007, 1103/PN/2005 and 896/PN/2008. The assessment years in question are 1998-99 to 2004-05. 4. The few facts which are referred for the purpose of this Writ Petition are that the petitioner before us is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It has its registered office at the address mentioned in the cause title of this Writ Petition. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessment years in question were as noted above. The case of the petitioners is in relation to allowance of service charges ...
Francisco Milagres Colaco and Another Vs. Mohandas Damodar Dhaimode an ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-14-2014
1. By this petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing and setting aside of the order dated 12.2.2014 passed by the Civil Judge, Jr.Dn., Quepem, Goa, in Regular Civil Suit No. 153/2010/B, thereby allowing an application filed by the respondents for production of additional documents. 2. The respondents are the original plaintiffs and the petitioners are the original defendants. The respondents have filed Regular Civil Suit No. 153/2010/B against the petitioners for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction and also for payment of damages. The evidence in the suit was closed and final arguments were also heard. On 10.1.2014 the respondents prayed for adjournment as they wanted to produce the entire proceedings of Inventory No. 17014/57 along with Survey Form No. III of Survey Nos. 239/12 and 239/15 of Cacoda village, the same being necessary for deciding effectively the real controversy involved in the suit. The respondents also filed an application vide Ex.81 seeking leave of th...
Balasaheb Vs. The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-14-2014
P.R. Bora, J. 1. Petition heard finally. The petitioner has filed the present petition, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh only) and seeking direction against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take stern action against respondent No. 3, who according to the petitioner is responsible for his illegal detention in police custody, and his false implication in chapter proceedings. 2. The petitioner claims himself to be an active worker of Bharatiya Janta Party. It is his contention that the chapter proceeding No. 68/2005 was falsely initiated against him at the instance of respondent No. 3, on the basis of a single crime registered against him. It is his further contention that the said sole crime registered against him was also absolutely false, and he was no way involved in the said crime. It is his further contention that in the said chapter proceeding, though he was arrested at 10.00 am on 23-02-2005, he was not immediately produced before the Special Executive Magistrat...
Sambhaji Savkar Jadhav Vs. Insurance Regulatory and Development Author ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2014
Mohit S. Shah, CJ. 1. All these three petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India purporting to be public interest litigation, have been filed by the same petitioner - Sambhaji Savakar Jadhav, mainly alleging violation of Guidelines for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), particularly the Guideline imposing 26% Cap on FDI in Insurance Sector. 2. In PIL No.34 of 2013, the petitioner is complaining about alleged violation of FDI Regulations by Future Generali Life Insurance Company Ltd. (Future Generali) and for seeking suspension of its licence and for removing its Directors and members of the Managing Committee. 3. In PIL No.42 of 2013, the petitioner is seeking a direction against Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) to : (i) levy monetary penalty on Future Generali for alleged FDI violation; (ii) to conduct probe into capital structuring by Future Generali and to direct IRDA to withhold its approval to the transaction of stake sale by Future Generali's any ...
Knowledge Infrastructure Systems Private Limited and Another Vs. Mahar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2014
Oral Order:- (S.J. Vazifdar, J.) 1. Petitioner No.2 is a director of petitioner No.1. The reference in this judgment to the petitioner is to petitioner No.1. Respondent No.2 is MSTC Limited - a public sector undertaking. 2. Respondent No.1 issued a notification dated 27th May 2014 inviting bids on line from eligible bidders for supply of 3.462 MT of coal of a particular specification of foreign origin for its Bhusawal, Khaperkheda, Chandrapur, Koradi Thermal Power Stations/ projects. The bids were invited in the usual two bid system viz., techno-commercial bid and price bid. The notification stated that the process would be done on e-tendering basis. Separate tenders were to be submitted for the supply of coal for each of the four power stations. The bidders submitted bids in respect of all four power stations. On 15th July 2014, the techno-commercial bids were opened. 3. The petitioners have challenged the entire tender process. In the alternative the petitioners have sought an order ...
Bhartiya R.B.Damle Gram Sudhar and Shikshan Prachar Society and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-14-2014
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. The petitioners have questioned legality of the Judgment dt.30.11.2013 passed in Appeal No.STN/65/2012 (in Writ Petition No.49 of 2014), Appeal No.STN/66/2012 (in Writ Petition No.50 of 2014), Appeal No.STN/64/2012 (in Writ Petition No.51 of 2014) and Appeal No.STN/63/2012 (in Writ Petition No.6886 of 2013) by the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal at Nagpur whereby the appeals filed by respondent no.1 (original appellants) were partly allowed and the orders terminating their services were set aside and the petitioner/Management was directed to reinstate them in service on the same post with continuity within one month from the date of Judgments. 3. On 21.12.2009, respondent no.1 in Writ Petition Nos.49 of 2014, 50 of 2014 and 51 of 2014 were appointed as Shikshan Sevaks and on 21.1.2011, respondent no.1 in Writ Petition No.6886 of 2013 was appointed as a 'Shikshan Sevak' for three years. On 27.3.2012, the Educati...
Udaykumar Jethamal Khiwansara Vs. Usha Uday Khiwansara
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2014
A.S. Chandurkar, J. 1. This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenges the judgment and order dated 19th June, 2007 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.2, Pune in Petition No.486 of 2004 whereby the aforesaid petition filed by the present appellant for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion has been dismissed. 2. The appellant-husband and the respondent wife were married on 7th February, 1992 at Pune. The appellant was residing in the joint family. After their marriage, the parties had gone to Matheran where the petitioner noticed that the respondent was suffering from some physical ailment. After some medication the petitioner realized that the respondent was suffering from said ailment even prior to her marriage. The respondent did not conceive from said marriage. While taking treatment the respondent indicated that she was not interested in having a child. The petitioner made attempts to adopt a child but the same was not permitted by the resp...
Dr. Sudhir Vithal Medhekar Vs. Government of Maharashtra, Through the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2014
Naresh Patil, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 18th April 2013 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.1151/2012. The petitioner was working as Associate Professor in Bhausaheb Hire Government College, Dhule. On promotion he was posted as Professor in Grant Medical College, Mumbai by order dated 30th June 2012 in the place of respondent No.3-Dr. M.M.Kura who was transferred to Bhausaheb Hire Government Medical College, Dhule. It is alleged that the petitioner was not allowed to join duty by the Dean of the Grant Medical College, Mumbai. By order dated 4th December 2012, the petitioner was posted as Professor at Government Medical College, Aurangabad. The transfer order of respondent No.3-Dr. Kura from Grant Medical College to Bhausaheb Hire Government Medical College was cancelled. The petitioner was aggrieved by the same and hence he approached...
Anil Dhondu Shinde and Another Vs. Govind Jagnnath Samant, Since decea ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2014
Oral Judgment : 1. Regular Civil Suit No.657 of 1991 was filed by two brothers, namely, Anil Dhondu Shinde and Kishore Dhondu Shinde against the original owner of the suit property, namely, Govind Jagannath Samant, joined as the defendant No.1. The lessee of the suit property, Laxman Vishnu Parulekar, was joined as the defendant No.2 along with his wife Chhaya Laxman Parulkar as the defendant No.3. It is was for declaration that the defendant No.1 has no right to obstruct the entry of vehicles and disturb the possession of the plaintiff and also for a decree of injunction permanently restraining the defendants from disconnecting the electric supply and using the 10 feet road from the suit property. 2. Regular Civil suit No.814 of 1991 was filed by the owner of the suit property Govind Jagannath Samant against Laxman Vishnu Parulekar and Chhaya Laxman Parulekar, joined as the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 respectively in the capacity as lessees of the suit property. Anil Dhondu...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »