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.
Abhimanyu and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-15-2015
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner, resident of village Kangara, Tq. and Dist-Osmanabad for writ of mandamus or any other order of like nature to Respondent No.6 Police Inspector, Police Station, Bembli to register F.I.R. on the information given by the Petitioner on 21st June, 2014. Prayer is that the investigation should be conducted by C.B.I. in the F.I.R. to be registered relating to incident dated 26th May, 2014. Further prayer is that the Respondents should pay compensation to the Petitioner and other villagers of Kangara for illegal arrest, unlawful confinement and detention by Respondent No.5 Superintendent of Police, Osmanabad and Respondent No.6 Police Inspector, Police Station, Bembli. 2. According to the Petitioner, Women's Self Help Group had made grievances against illegal sale of liquor in the village Kangara. Police Patil of the village also, on 24th May 2014, informed the Police Station that some villagers are involved in illegal s...
S.D. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2015
P.C. By this Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondent to grant approval for development of property on the basis of the deed of Power of Attorney dated 21.2.2007. The Petitioner seeks a direction restraining the Respondent Corporation from implementing the Circular dated 11.9.2012, requiring a registered deed of Power of Attorney. The Petitioner also challenges the order of the Corporation dated 3.11.2014 declining to accept the unregistered deed of Power of Attorney, dated 21.2.2007. The Petitioner is a company engaged in the development/redevelopment of immovable properties in and around Mumbai. It is the case of the Petitioner that, several Societies had formed a union of Societies and the apex Society had appointed the Petitioner for development of several buildings, that were required to be developed or re-developed. The development agreement was executed in the year 2007 and a deed of Power of Attorney was also executed on 21.2.2007. The deed of Power of Attor...
Rajesh Gevarchand Luniya Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2015
P.C. 1. The applicant is facing trial for offence punishable under Section 413 of the Indian Penal Code, in the Court of Sessions at Pune vide Session Case Nos.27 of 2014 and 26 of 2014, respectively. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant should not have been chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Section 413 of the IPC, for allegedly habitually receiving stolen property unless he is convicted for the offence under Section 411 of IPC. Habitual Offender under The Bombay Habitual Offenders Act, 1959 is defined as under : "2(e) "habitual offender" means any person who, since his attaining the age of eighteen years; (I) during any consecutive period (whether before or after the commencement of this Act, or partly before and partly after such commencement) of five years, has been sentenced on conviction on not less than three occasions, to a substantive term of imprisonment for one or more of the scheduled offences committed on separate occasions, being off...
Dr. Surajkumar Satyabrath Pal Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-15-2015
Oral Judgment: (A.B. Chaudhari, J.)1. By this criminal application, applicant seeks quashment of first information report and chargesheet in Criminal Case No. 212/2010 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 6th Court, Gondia as well as order rejecting application for not committing the case to Sessions Court under Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure.2. We have heard Dr. De, learned Counsel for the applicant. Dr. De vehemently argued that perusal of first information report and chargesheet even remotely does not make out any offence under Sections 365, 366, 354 and 511 of Indian Penal Code. In the alternative, he submitted that at any rate no offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code is at all made out in the light of ingredients required by Section 354 of Indian Penal Code since there is no allegation of force/criminal force being used by the applicant against complainant. Learned Counsel Dr. De contended that for attracting Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, as per de...
Western Coalfields Ltd. and Others Vs. Labour Enforcement Officer (Cen ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-15-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Nobody for respondents, though duly served for final hearing. 2. By this petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of complaint in Criminal Complaint Case No.658 of 2006 punishable under Section 23 of The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, (for short the said Act) pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wani, District Yavatmal. The aforesaid complaint is based on the allegations that though Govt. Resolution dated 21.6.2013 prohibits engagement of contract labour for execution of the work of "Overburden removal and earth cutting" at coal mines, the petitioners were found to have engaged contract labour for the said work at Ukni Open Caste Mine. Therefore, it has been alleged that the petitioners were liable to penalty as prescribed under Section 23 of the said Act. 3. The notification dated 21.6.1988 prohibits employment of contract labour in the works, inter alia, the work of "Overburde...
Sudha Hari Pophale and Others Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2015
P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Godbole, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Sanglikar, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1. By filing above review petition, the Petitioners are seeking review of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court [Coram : Smt. Vasanti Naik, J.] on 6th August 2013 in Writ Petition No.5552 of 2013. The above civil application is filed for condonation of delay, which occurred in filing the review petition. By the order dated 6th August 2013, this Court confirmed the order passed by the Estate Officer on 6th September 2009 as well as the order passed by the City Civil Court on 24th February 2012, and ultimately dismissed the writ petition. 2. Prior to the filing of this review petition, the Petitioners had filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25694 of 2013 challenging the above-stated judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of this Court. The said Special Leave Petition was, however, dismissed as withdrawn on 10th November 2014. T...
Khursheed Anwar Mohammad Ali and Others Vs. Merit Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2015
P.C. : 1. The Notice of Motion is taken out by the Plaintiffs in a passing off suit, claiming appointment of Court Receiver for taking possession and control of the impugned goods and seeking a temporary injunction restraining the Defendant from passing of its goods as those of the Plaintiffs. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the Motion is taken up for final hearing at the stage of the ad-interim application. 2. In or about 2000, Plaintiff No.1 had started the business of export and trading of pharmaceutical and medicinal products. Plaintiff No.1 is the Promotor and Managing Director of Plaintiff No.2. The Plaintiffs inter alia manufacture and market sildenafil citrate tablets used for treating the male erectile dysfunction. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that in February 2010, the Plaintiffs conceived the idea of the mark PUREGREY-100 for marketing these tablets and engaged the services of a designer for designing the distinctive carton for their goods. The Plainti...
Chandrahas Maruti Arolkar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2015
P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for State. Perused the papers. 2. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant herein is arrested on 3/9/2014 in Crime No.104 of 2012 registered at Vishrambaug Police Station for offence punishable under Section 403, 406, 409, 417, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant herein was director of Lord Balaji Cooperative Bank, Madhavnagar, District-Sangli since year 1998. 4. On 30/5/2012 Savlaram Poojari who happens to be the auditor had conducted the audit of the said bank for the period between 1/4/1998 to 31/3/2003. The auditor had observed that the relatives of Chairman, Vice Chairman and other directors of the bank had received benefits from the bank. Their loan proposals were sanctioned and loans were disbursed without taking any collateral security. They were unsecured loan. There were audit obje...
Viditi Investments (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Ce ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2015
1. This Petition assails the notice dated 27th December, 2006 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). By the impugned notice, the Assessing Officer, seeks to re-open the assessment for the Assessment Year 2003-04. 2. This Petition was admitted on 26th June, 2007 and the impugned notice dated 27th December, 2006 was stayed. 3. The Petitioner filed its Return of Income on 28th October, 2003, declaring an income of Rs.31.95 lakhs. The Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 143(3) read with Section 154 of the Act on 26th February, 2006, computing the Petitioner's book profit under Section 115JB of the Act at Rs.1.51 Crores. This was after having allowed deduction on dividend received under Section 80M of the Act as it satisfied the conditions therein that it shall not claim deduction on dividend received more than the amount distributed by the Petitioner to its share holders before the due date of filing of return of income for the Assessment Year 2003-04 i...
Gorakhnath Baban Rao Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2015
P.C. 1. Heard. This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant herein is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.342/2014 registered at Panchavati Police Station, Dist. Nashik, for the offences punishable under Sections of IPC. and under Sections 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix herein who happens to be a public servant (Gram Sevak) in Niphad Taluka lodged a report at the police station alleging therein that she is a public servant. That when she was preparing for her Public Service Examination, she had met the present applicant. Their acquaintance had culminated into love. It is alleged that the applicant had assured her that he would get married to her and hence placing reliance upon the assurance given by the applicant, she had consensual sex with the applicant. It is further alleged that on 1.12.2010, the applicant and the complainant had been to Saptashrangi, Nashik in a temple and had got married by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »