Mumbai Court October 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.
Vijay Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Higher and T ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, heard finally. 2. This Petition is filed with the following prayers: C) By issuing appropriate writ, order or directions, the impugned communication dated 02.03.2012 issued by respondent no.3 University be quashed and set aside. Consequently, the appointment of petitioner be approved from his initial date of appointment and he be paid arrears of salary as well as regular salary admissible for the post of Director of Physical Education and for that purpose, necessary directions may be issued.? 3. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner possesses the qualification of M.A., M.P.Ed. in first class. The petitioner has also qualified the fitness test conducted by U.G.C. The petitioner has participated in national level volleyball competition, wherein he was conferred with Silver medal. Similarly, he had participated in Ashwamegh Inter University Volleyball tourn...
Rajaram Mahadu Dahatonde Since deceased through his legal representati ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.477/1985 which was pending in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar. First Appeal was filed by the original plaintiff against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No.360/1980 which was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Newasa, District Ahmednagar. The appeal is allowed by the First Appellate Court and the judgment and decree of dismissal of partition suit is set aside and the relief of partition is given in favour of the plaintiff. Both the sides are heard. 2. The appeal is admitted by this Court (other Hon'ble Judge) on following substantial question of law:- "Whether the exemption from bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.2 - Mukinda cannot be claimed by the respondent No.1 - Babu without obtaining leave under Rule 4(iv) of Order 22 of C.P.C. in view of "Zahirul Islam vs Mohd. Usman and others...
Dr. Dhananjai Kumar Pandey Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation/Anti Co ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
K.L. Wadane, J. 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash and set aside the First Information Report bearing Crime No.RC/6(A)/2014/CBI/ACB/GOA dated 5.8.2014 registered by the CBI/ACB Goa under Section 420 r/w 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows: The petitioner and his wife Dr. Anju Pandey are the Scientists at the National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research (NCAOR) Goa, an Autonomous Research Institute under the Ministry of Earth Sciences (MOES), Government of India. On 05.8.2014, Mr. V. Ashok Kumar, Additional Superintendent of Police incharge Head of Branch CBI/ACB/Goa, lodged a complaint against the present petitioner and the other accused persons for the offence as referred above. 3. We have perused the contents of the First Information Report. In short the allegations are as follows: (1) In the year 2002, the accused nos.1 to 4 en...
Bank of Baroda, Through its Panaji Branch Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-29-2015
1. By this appeal, the appellant/original plaintiff is challenging the judgment and order dated 10/6/2014 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-I (FTC), Panaji in Regular Civil Appeal No.85/2012. By the impugned judgment, the appeal filed by the respondents/original defendants has been allowed thereby dismissing Special Civil Suit No.172/2003/B filed by the appellant. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be stated thus: That the appellant is a banking corporation established under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970. The appellants are having branch offices at various places including one at Panaji-Goa. The respondent no.1 is the head office of HDFC bank, while the second and the third respondents are branches of the HDFC bank at Mumbai and at Panaji-Goa. 3. A Demand Draft bearing no. PG 098111 for Rs.900/- was purchased on 1.2.2003 in the name of one Shri Ashwin Babhubhai Trivedi. The said Demand Draft was purchased...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Sanjiv Bhimrao Kamble and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By this appeal the State has challenged the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 24th April 2001 passed in R.C.C.No.23/1995 by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pimpri whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the offence of cruelty punishable under section 498A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) 2. The respondent No.1 is the husband of the complainant-Sadhana Sanjiv Kambale. Respondent Nos.2 and 4 are the sisters of respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.3 and 5 are respectfully the husbands of respondent Nos.2 and 4. By a complaint lodged on 11th July 1994, the complainant-Sadhana alleged that respondent No.1 being her husband and respondent Nos.2 to 5 being her in-laws subjected her to ill treatment and cruelty on account of her failure to bring some amount of money. Investigation was made and when it was found that there was sufficient evidence available to proceed against the respondents, the Police filed a chargesheet against...
Kishan Lal Bishnoi and Others Vs. The Authorised Officer and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-2015
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. By these Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners challenge the orders passed by the In-charge Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, under the provisions of section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the SARFAESI Act?). 2. In all these Petitions, the issue raised before us is that all these orders passed under section 14 by the In-charge Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, are a nullity on the ground that he had no authority and/or power to pass the impugned orders. In other words, it is the contention of the Petitioners in all these Petitions, that an Application under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act can be made only to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, and therefore, the orders passed by the In-charge Chief Metropolitan Magistrate are bad in law and ought to be set aside by us, in our extraordinary, equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under...
Dhimant Hiralal Thakar Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax B.C.II
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-2015
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. By this reference under section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act),the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) has referred the following question of law for answer the opinion of this Court: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs.43,600/- on medical treatment of eyes for improving the vision has an element of personal expenditure, and accordingly the expenditure incurred by the appellant on foreign tour for pre-operation investigation relating to his eyes cannot be allowed as business expenditure u/s 37 (1)? . In nutshell the facts are: 2. The applicant-assessee is a Solicitor by profession. During the assessment year 1986-87, the applicant incurred an expenditure of Rs.43,600/- on foreign tour in connection with a pre-operation investigation of his eyes while determining his total income. This claim was disallowed by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order da...
Vasant Vithal Gawand Vs. Shantaram Tukaram Gawand, (since deceased by ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. At the outset, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks deletion of the Respondent Nos.1A to 1D as in the context of the challenge raised in the above Petition they are formal parties. The said Respondents are accordingly allowed to be deleted at the risk of the Petitioner. 2. The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 28.07.2015 passed by the Learned District Judge-2, Raigad-Alibag, by which order the Civil Misc. Application No.150 of 2014 came to be allowed and resultantly, the delay of 1 year and 2 months in filing the Appeal came to be condoned albeit on the payment of costs of Rs.15,000/- to the Respondent No.1. 3. The facts necessary to be cited for the adjudication of the above Petition can in brief be stated thus. The suit in question being Special Civil Suit No.156 of 2010 was filed by the Plaintiff i.e. the Petitioner herein for declaration, injunction and possession. The subject matter of the suit were agricultural lands bear...
Jignesh Shah and Others Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
V.M. Kanade, J. 1. Appellant Nos. 1 to 4 are partners of Appellant No.5 Crescent Builders. They have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22/01/2015 passed in Court Receiver's Report No.381 of 2014 in Suit No.1512 of 2009. By the said order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to accept the Court Receiver's Report and permitted the Court Receiver to proceed with the sale of 18 unsold flats and pay the sale proceeds thereof in discharge of (a) dues of Defendant No.6 “ Corporation, (b) decretal amount of Rs 107 crores payable to the Plaintiff and (c) cost of construction. Secondly, the Municipal Corporation was directed to consider the application dated 03/11/2014 made by M/s Parelkar and Dallas for regularization of areas in the building under construction to bring the same within the sanctioned plan and proceed to regularize the areas, if otherwise permissible in law without insisting upon an upfront prior payment of its share of capit...
Jain Social Group and Another Vs. Jain Social Groups International Fed ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-27-2015
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short Arbitration Act?) the petitioners have impugned the arbitral award dated 17th July 2015 passed by the arbitral tribunal dismissing the claim filed by the petitioners. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 2. The petitioners were the original claimants whereas, the respondents were the original respondents in the arbitral proceedings. The petitioner no.1 is an association of persons consisting of Jain individuals situated at Nashik and is operative in Nashik. The respondent no.1 is a Federation of all the Jain groups located all over the world. The petitioner no.1 is also a Member of the respondent no.1. The respondent no.2 was the President of the respondent no.1 for the period 2014-15. The respondent no.3 was the Vice President of the respondent no.1 for the tenure of 2014-15. The petitioner no.2 is a Member of the petitioner no.1. The respon...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »