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.
The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporatio ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-18-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This matter was heard finally on 04/09/2014. By an order dated 10/12/2001, this petition was admitted and the petitioner MSRTC was granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause D. Prayer clause D reads as under: Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Learned Judge, Labour Court, Ahmednagar in Reference (IDA) No.57/1992 8.8.2000 (Exhibit A) may be kindly stayed. 2. After hearing the parties on 04/09/2014, I have recorded the facts of the case as follows: (a) The respondent joined as a Conductor with the petitioner MSRTC on 14.10.1973 and worked till 7.11.1987, when he was dismissed for failing to issue tickets of the proper fare to seven and half passengers, resulting into loss of Rs.36.80 Ps. to the petitioner. (b) The respondent called in question his dismissal, dated 7.11.1987, by preferring Reference IDA No.57 of 1992. (c) By Part I order, the domestic enquiry was held to be bad in law by the...
Lavesh Ramchandra Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.R. Joshi, J.) 1. Heard rival submissions on both these criminal appeals respectively preferred by the original accused No.2 and accused No.1 challenging the judgment and order of their conviction passed in Sessions Case No.145 of 2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara. As in both the Criminal Appeals, the same judgment and order is challenged, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. By the impugned judgment and order dated 29.3.2012 both the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer SI for six months each. They were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 452 read with Section 34 of IPC and were sentenced to suffer RI for five years each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer further SI for six months each. 3. At the threshold it must be ...
Arun Sharma Vs. Roxann Sharma
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-18-2014
1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Ms. Collasso, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent. By consent and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 06/09/2014 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Adhoc Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao (trial Court, for short) in Matrimonial Petition No. 59/2013/II. 4. The petitioner has filed the said Matrimonial Petition No. 59/2013/II in the Court of the trial Judge, under Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (the Act, for short), for permanent custody of the minor child and also for temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from taking forcible custody of the child. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. He claimed that he is a native of Mumbai and citizen of India whereas the respondent is American citizen. They were married in the year 200...
Mahatma Gandhi Mission's Medical College Vs. Government of India Throu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-2014
AnoopV. Mohta, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. 2. The Petitioner, who is imparting medical education, has challenged impugned communications dated 10 July 2014 and 15 July 2014 thereby, prayed to direct Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to approve the scheme for renewal of permission for 4th batch of MBBS course for the academic session 2014-2015 from 100 to 150 students. The Respondents have approved the scheme partly, by restricting it to 100 but denied an addition 50 students. 3. On 1 August 1989, the Petitioner started the Medical College as per the permission of the Government of Maharashtra and was affiliated to the University of Bombay, for 100 students. The Petitioner has teaching medical hospitals at two locations i.e. MGM Hospital, Kamothe which is within the educational campus and the MGM College, Kalamboli which is at a distance of 1 km. 4. In the year 1993, in view of amendment to Act No.31 of 1993, w.e.f. 27 August 1992, under Section 10(c) of Indian Medical Council Act (for short...
Shree Sai Baba Municipal Market Vyapari Welfare Association (Regd) Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-2014
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Heard both the Petitions finally in view of the urgency so averred and expressed. 2. The Petitioners are Association of the licence vendors having their business in different Municipal markets established by Respondent No.1-Mumbai Municipal Corporation, a statutory body incorporated under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act of 1888). The main prayer is to set aside the impugned communications dated 20.08.2011 and 07.09.2011, issued by Respondent No.1, whereby the re-development proposals submitted by the Petitioners Association of the respective Municipal Markets, rejected mainly on the ground that their proposal to change the redevelopment of market is in pipeline and the same is pending for reconsideration from the side of State of Maharashtra. 3. Admittedly, the Respondent/Corporation has been providing suitable retail markets with facilities in the respective area for the people at large. There are about 62 markets within the j...
Bank of India Vs. R.V. Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-2014
1. Rule. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner bank questions the orders dated 30 June 2004 made by the controlling authority, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (said Act) and the order dated 4 September 2006 made by the appellate authority under the said Act, both of which, in effect, direct the petitioner bank to pay the respondent gratuity in an amount of Rs.1,15,869/- together with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 28 September 2001, till date of payment. 3. The brief facts and circumstances in which the impugned orders came to be made are as follows: (a) The petitioner terminated the services of the respondent, a bank clerk with effect from 28 September 2001 after charges of misappropriation of an amount of Rs.20,000/- were proved against him in a duly constituted departmental enquiry. On the date of termination, the respondent had put in over 24 years of service. (b) On 6 March 2003, the resp...
Sadhna Nitro Chem Ltd. Vs. A.B. Koli, Assistant Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-2014
M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. These two Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge: (a) two separate notices dated 25th January, 2006 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), seeking to re-open the assessment for the Assessment Years 1998-99 and 1999-2000; and (b) two separate re-assessment orders passed on 7th March, 2006 by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act for Assessment Years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 respectively. 2. Originally, the challenge in both the Petitions was the non-disposal of the Petitioner's objections to the reasons in support of the impugned notices dated 25th January, 2005. However, pending the admission of the Petition, the Assessing Officer without disposing of the objections of the petitioner to the reasons in support of the impugned notices, passed two separate re-assessment orders dated 7th March, 2006 for Assessment Years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. This led to the Petitioner to amending...
Aventis Pharma Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 8 (1), Mu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-2014
M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. Both these two Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge: (a) Notices dated 2nd February, 2005 and 3rd February, 2005 both issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), seeking to re-open the assessment for the Assessment Years (A.Y.) 1999-2000 and 1998-1999 respectively; and (b) Two orders dated 10th March, 2006 (one for each assessment year) rejecting the Petitioners objections to the issue of the impugned notices dated 2nd and 3rd February, 2005 for A.Y. 1998-99 and 1999-2000. 2. It is an admitted position between the parties that the facts and the issues involved in both the Petitions are identical, save and except change in the quantum of figures being different in two Assessment Years involved. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the facts stated in Writ Petition No.877 of 2006 relating to A. Y. 1998-99 which are as under: (a) The Petitioner, inter alia, carried on business of export. In the c...
Kumari Gote Rutuja Sunil Vs. State of Maharashtra through Social Justi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-2014
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.12.2013 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating caste certificate on the ground that as per then existing provisions the Petitioner has failed to prove that she belongs to "Lingayat Wani (OBC)". 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has placed on record the Government Circular dated 4.9.2014 whereby the amendment made to the O.B.C. list in State of Maharashtra and where at serial no.190 "Lingayat Wani" has been introduced as caste for all the benefits as Other Backward Class (OBC) candidate. Therefore by keeping all points open on the sole ground as it goes to the root of the matter and that support the case of the Petitioner that she belongs to Lingayat Wani and entitled for all privilege and benefits in accordance with law, the impugned order dated 31.12.2013 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is ...
Pranav Prakash Mandlik Vs. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-2014
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner has challenged order dated 6.2.2014 passed by Respondent No.2-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee (Scrutiny Committee), thereby invalidating the caste certificate of the Petitioner who belongs to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe mainly on the ground that the Tribe Koli Mahadeo is not found in Dhule District as per Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976. On 27.11.1995 the Competent Appellate Authority has granted caste certificate to the Petitioner and to his brother. Through college, his case for validity of certificate was forwarded on 27.11.2007 along with documents. The Petitioner got admission under reserved category in the year 2009-10. The Petitioner is studying in 3rd and final year of Degree course in Catering and Hotel Management. During this period, the Vigilance Cell recorded statement of father of the Petitioner on 21.08.2008, apart fro...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »