Mumbai Court September 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.
Upasana Majgaonkar and Others Vs. State of Goa, through its Chief Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-02-2014
Oral Judgment:(B.P. Dharmadhikar, J.) 1. After the Court Orders dated 29.07.2003, deciding Writ Petition No. 205 of 1999 and Writ Petition no. 357 of 1999, the Mamlatdars working with State of Goa, have filed these Petitions for the direction to State Government to extend to them benefit of pay scale of Rs.6500-200-10500 in terms of recommendation of Fifth Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.1996 along with seven other Officers belonging to that cadre and on same terms as per Order dated 08.10.2003 and 27.03.2006. 2. Learned Addl. Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents, has at the threshold, pointed out that earlier bench after hearing the arguments had adjourned the matter to enable the State Government to take appropriate decision. He submitted that very same Bench while deciding similar issue in Writ Petition nos. 322 of 1998 and 138 of 1999 on previous day, had taken a different view. He, therefore, sought adjournment. However, his request was rejected. 3. In the background of ab...
Savitri Kuldeep Karkhur Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-2014
P.C. 1. Heard. This is an application under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Applicant herein is apprehending her arrest in crime No.249/2013 registered at D. B. Marg Police Station, Mumbai for offences punishable under sections 376, 366A, 344 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Initially on the basis of F.I.R., section 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 were added, however, the report shows that the complainant has attained majority and is more than 18 years old and hence, the said section of the POSCO Act are deleted. 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 19/08/2013, the victim Ms. X lodged a report at the police station alleging therein that she does not know the name of her parents. She was initially working with the present applicant along with her sister, however, she does not know the whereabouts of her young sister. Two months' prior to the lodging of the F.I.R., applicant herein had allegedly brought the complainant to Mumbai and...
Tanaji Maruti Sable Vs. Dhebewadi Police Station, Patan and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-2014
P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Bodake, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard, Mr.Shekhavat, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3. Heard Ms.Sonawane, learned APP for the respondent nos.1 and 4. 2. The petitioner is the first informant in C.R.No.46 of 2009, registered with Dhebewadi police station, Patan, District-Satara, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 325 of IPC, 323 of IPC, 504 of IPC and 506 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. After investigation, the police filed a report alleging commission of the aforesaid offences by the respondent nos.2 and 3 herein who are the real brothers of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner was not satisfied with the investigation that had been carried out, though the same had resulted into filing of the charge-sheet; and, therefore, made an application to the learned Magistrate praying that investigation as contemplated under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure be ordered to be carried out by the local Crime Branch, Sa...
Kamrudin J. Mavany, Since deceased, through L.R.s. and Others Vs. Tajd ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-01-2014
1. Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants. None present for the respondents though they have been duly served. 2. By this review application, the applicants have sought review of the order dated 30.03.1998 passed by this Court (Coram: R. K. Batta, J.) in Appeal From Order No. 90 of 1992. In the said Appeal from Order, the order dated 05.03.1992 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division in Inventory Proceedings No. 19213 of 1980/A was challenged. 3. An application dated 03.03.1986 was filed in the said inventory proceedings by Smt. Gulshan Aziz Cassum and her husband Shri Aziz Cassum (respondents no. 2 and 3), inter-alia, alleging that by deed dated 27.05.1960, Khatijabai sold to a society named Society Per Quotas, formed by her sons, a property known as 'Udego' or 'Mestabata' described in the land registration office under No. 9757 and that this property should be enlisted in the inventory proceedings since the said sale deed ...
Alfa Laval (India) Ltd. Vs. The Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-2014
B.P. Colabawalla J. 1. Rule. The Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the Circular dated 30th December, 2011 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi (CBEC), to the extent that it purports to clarify that an exporter cannot claim the Brand Rate of drawback under Rule 7 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Drawback Rules), after having availed of the All Industry Rate of drawback under Rule 3. As a consequence of this, the Petitioner has also challenged the Order-in-Appeal dated 27th September, 2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) (Respondent No.3) and the orders / letters dated 19th April, 2012, 11th June, 2012 and 24th July, 2012 issued by the Additional Commissioner (BRU) of Central Excise, Pune I (Respondent No.5). 3. The shor...
Sitaram Bhagaji Unawane and Another Vs. Dr. Pradnya Vikram Vaidya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-2014
1. Admit. 2. Respondent Waives service. Returnable forthwith and by consent of parties heard finally. 3. This appeal is directed against the order and Judgment dated 24/06/2013 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Malegaon allowing the application filed by the respondent who is real maternal aunt of the minor child inter alia praying for her appointment as guardian of the minor Kumari Arya Unawane under Section 10 of Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under. 4. The appellants are the natural grand parents of the minor Kumari Aarya Unawane (herein after referred as 'the said minor'). Son of the appellants was married to Pallavi on 02/12/2001 at Aurangabad. After her marriage Pallavi started residing at her matrimonial home at Bhandup with the appellants and her husband. Thereafter she resided with her husband at Dombivili. Out of the said wedlock, the said minor Kum. Arya was born on 10/09/2002. On 20/04/2005, s...
G. Subbaraju Vs. Archana Rajesh Shivhare and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-2014
1. This petition has been filed for revocation of the probate of the will of the deceased testatrix one Sheelabai Maneklal Shivhare @ Venkata Ramanamma. The deceased had one daughter who was adopted by her. Her biological mother is stated to be the sister of the deceased. Her daughter is the sole legatee. The will shows that she was married to one Maneklal Shivhare. Two persons shown as Rajesh Shivhare and Mukesh Shivhare who are stated to be the sons of Maneklal Shivhare are the attesting witnesses. There are two executors in the will. One executrix is the wife of Rajesh Shivhare who has filed the petition. The other executor has reserved his right to administer the estate and has not been as the petitioner. The deceased is shown to have left behind as her only heir and legal representative her married daughter and her husband under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. These relatives would be her only heirs. Her husband has consented to the grant of probate to the adopted daughter...
M/s Kayco Engineering, Engineering and Contractor and Another Vs. Stat ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-01-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Rodrigues, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30/12/2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bicholim (trial Judge) in Special Civil Suit No. 4/1993/A. 3. The appellants and respondents no. 2 to 6 were the defendants and respondent no. 1 was the plaintiff in the said suit. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said suit. 4. The plaintiff had filed the said suit against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,32,781/- together with interest at the rate of 12.5 % from the date of filing of the suit till final payment. Case of the plaintiffs was as follows:- The defendants no. 2 to 8 are the partners of the defendant no. 1. On 01/12/1983, the plaintiff had invited item rate tender and contract for construction of right bank main...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vir Vikram Vaid
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-2014
A.K. Menon, J. 1. The Appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 9th September, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Tribunal whereby the tribunal negated the Appellant's claim that the Respondent was beneficiary of certain amounts by way of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) by virtue of certain expenses incurred on construction/renovation of the premises owned by the Respondent and let out by the Respondent to a limited Company of which the Respondent was a majority share holder. 2. The question of law raised by the Respondent is whether the tribunal had erred in directing/concluding that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) were not attracted in the case of the Respondent in view of the Appellant's contention that the expenditure made by the private limited Company of the Respondent in which the Respondent - assessee is a majority share holder and that the expenditure in fact was made for benefit of the Respondent - assessee himself. 3. A few facts may be adverted to : The Respon...
Raju Bihari @ Rajesh Kumar Patel Vs. State of Goa, Through the Chief S ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-01-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. The prisoner Raju Bihari, has approached this Court with a grievance that as immediate steps are not taken on request for furlough and parole, the occasion lapses and legal right of prisoner is defeated. 2. Learned Advocate Shri John Lobo, (appointed under the Legal Aid Services) argues that though furlough may not technically lapse, in case of exigencies like serious illness or death in the family, if parole application is not granted immediately, the occasion is over and the Petitioner therefore cannot attend to any ailment of the relative or the funeral, etc. Learned Counsel has taken the Court through relevant provisions and submitted that this Court must therefore intervene and lay down a time limit. He further submits that earlier time limit of eight weeks granted by this Court is being used to the prejudice of prisoners. According to him, when reports are called for from concerned Police Station and those reports are not received, as de...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›