Mumbai Court January 2015 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.
Kedar Sanjeev Khadke Vs. Anant Krishnan Narayanan and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2015
P.C. 1. Admit, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties taken up for final hearing forthwith. 2. The revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is invoked against the judgment and order dated 3/12/2013 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune thereby decreeing the suit filed by the Respondent No.1 herein under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act 1971. Consequential to the decree passed, the Defendant No.1 i.e. the Petitioner herein is directed to hand over the possession of the premises in question being Show Room No.3 in Akshay Complex Aundh, Pune to the Plaintiff. 3. The facts giving rise to the filing of the above Civil Revision Application in brief can be stated thus: The Respondent No.1 is the original Plaintiff and the Defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the Developers of the plot of land in question being Plot No.3 admeasuring 513.75 sq.mtrs, out of the sanctioned lay out of the land bearing survey No.13...
Selvel Publicity Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Altaf-ul-Rahim
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-15-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the orders passed below Exhibits 46 and 47 thereby directing the present petitioner plaintiff to deposit hoarding charges in terms of provisions of Order 15A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code). 3. The facts relevant for adjudication of this writ petition are that according to the petitioner, it is engaged in the business of Publicity and Consultancy. Said activities are undertaken by erecting hoardings on various sites. Such hoardings were duly erected by the petitioner on the building owned by the defendant by executing an agreement in that regard. As per the agreement between the parties, the plaintiff was liable to pay hoarding charges to the defendant. According to the petitioner, it was a lessee and its possession of the said site was in that capacity. On obstruction being caused b...
Sandeep Sudam Vavale Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2015
P.C. 1. Office objections are removed. Rest of the office objections are dispensed with. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for State. Perused the papers. 3. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant herein has surrendered before the Paud Police Station on 7/8/2014 in Crime No.127 of 2014 registered at Paud Police Station for offence punishable under Section 307, 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed on 26/9/2014. The case is committed to the Court of Sessions. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 27th June, 2014 the wife of the present applicant lodged report at the police station alleging therein that she got married to the present applicant on 11th May, 2009. She had not conceived pregnancy. She was harassed and ill-treated at the hands of her husband as well as other members of the matrimonial family. She...
Gujabrao Vs. Punjabrao (Dead) through its LRs. and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-15-2015
Oral Judgment:1. The appellant is the original plaintiff and the respondent No.1 is the original defendant. They were the real brothers. The respondent no.2 is the original defendant NO.2 and the son of the respondent no.1. The respondent No.1 died and his legal representatives are brought on record as respondent Nos.1(i) to (vii). The parties shall hereinafter be referred according to their original status.2. The plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No.90/1993 simplicitor for grant of permanent injunction claiming that he is the owner of an agricultural land admeasuring 7 H. 85 R. out of Gat No.51 situated at Vani and the respondent is trying to disturb his possession. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed common written statement and the counter claim for declaration that they are the owners of 18.21 acres of land out of Gat No.51, which is in possession of the plaintiff and hence, decree for possession has been claimed along with mesne profits. The Trial Court by its judgment and order date...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Shripati Pandurang Patil and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2015
I.K. Jain, J. 1. The Appellant/State has preferred this Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 14/10/1992 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, in Sessions Case No.81 of 1988. By the said Judgment and Order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all the Respondents/original accused nos.1 to 9 of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324 and 302 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Facts giving rise to the prosecution case in brief may be stated as under. That incident occurred on 17/01/1988 at about 8.00 a.m. at Village Nandgaon in the area known as Kharadewadi. On the previous day of incident, Shankar, a villager, had been to Police Patil Shripati Dhondi Patil and informed him that Hindurao misbehaved with him. Police Patil asked Shankar to settle the matter. On the day of incident, villagers were called in front of the house of Sarpanch accused no.1. Police Patil questioned Hindurao why did he abuse Shankar. On that there was hot exchange o...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Appasaheb Balajee Parkhe and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-15-2015
A.M. Badar, J.: 1. By this appeal under Section 378 (1)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant State is challenging the judgment and order dated 29.4.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case No.254/1994 thereby acquitting respondents / accused of the offences punishable u/ss.302, 498-A and 304-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Facts leading to the prosecution of respondents accused can be summarized thus: [a] Informant PW-1 Bhagwat Waman Gaikwad is resident of village Ashvi in Taluka Sangamner of District Ahmednagar. His daughter Shakuntala married respondent / accused no.1 Appasaheb Balajee Parkhe on 20.5.1994 at village Ashvi. Respondent / accused no.2 Radhakrushnais brother, respondent / accused no.3 Hausabai is mother whereas respondent / accused no.4 Balajee is father of Appasaheb Parkhe. Marriage of Shakuntala with respondent / accused no.1was an arranged marriage settled with the help of Indubai Gaikwad and h...
Paras Clearing and Forwarding Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. State ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. First four Writ Petitions arise out of orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application Nos.495 of 2005, 496 of 2005, 497 of 2005 and 498 of 2005, respectively. Next three Writ Petitions have arisen out of orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application Nos.18 of 2006, 19 of 2006 and 20 of 2006, respectively. 2. In all 7 Criminal Cases were filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against present Petitioners. Out of these 7 cases, four cases were filed by Respondent/ Complainant Meena C. Somaiya, and three were filed by Respondent/Complainant Kanubhai Thakkar, in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon, Mumbai. Petitioner No.1 M/s Paras Clearing and Forwarding Agency is a Private Limited Company and Petitioner No.2 was one of the Directors of the company. 3. Both the Petitioners have been convicted by the learned Magistrate for the offence punishable under Sections 1...
Godrej Agrovet Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, 10(2)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2015
1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the notice dated 30th March, 2007 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) passed by the Assessing Officer. The impugned notice dated 30th March, 2007 seeks to re-open the assessment for Assessment Year 2002-03. 2. This Petition was admitted on 23rd January, 2008. At that time, the impugned notice was stayed pending the disposal of the Petition. 3. On 30th October, 2002, the Petitioner filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2002-03. In its return of income, the Petitioner had inter alia claimed deduction on interest paid as revenue expenditure of an amount of Rs.35.62 lakhs under Section 36 (i)(iii) of the Act. This being interest paid on borrowed capital for the purpose of expanding its existing business which had been capitalized in its books of Account. The Petitioner had also claimed depreciation on its intangible assets i.e. Good will and Non-compete fees as a part of its block...
Sadhana Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. Dwarka Lekhraj Jaggyashi
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-15-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. In Complaint ULP No.595 of 1999, the Labour Court recorded the finding that the enquiry conducted against the respondent-complainant in respect of the charges of misconduct including that of misappropriation of amount, was fair, proper and legal. It has also been held that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are not perverse. However, the order of dismissal passed on 30.08.1999 was set aside holding that the punishment of dismissal was totally disproportionate to the charges of misconduct proved against the complainant. The complainant was directed to be reinstated in service with continuity and the claim for backwages was rejected. 2. Revision ULPA No. 230 of 2002 and Revision ULPA No. 227 of 2002 preferred by the employee and the employer were dismissed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur, by its judgment and order dated 11.08.2004. The Industrial Court concurred with the findings recorded by the Labour Court on merits and it has further been held that the symp...
Akshay Suresh Hadavale Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2015
P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The applicants herein are arrested on 24.1.2014 in Crime No.27 of 2014 registered at Bhosari Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. The investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed. 3. It is the case of prosecution that on 24.1.2014, Constable Vijay Telewar and Constable Mali had received a wireless message that one unidentified person is lying unconscious behind Rantara Colony, Sadguru Nagar, Bhosari. The police personnel had been to the spot and had found that the said person had sustained several injuries. A blood-stained sword was lying at the said dead body. The police personnel had rightly arrived at a conclusion that it was a case of homicidal death and, therefore, Vijay Telewar lodged a report at the police station against unknown persons for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. 4. In the course of investigation, it was revealed that in the previous evening on 23.1.2014,...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »