Mumbai Court December 2015 Judgments
Balkrishna Industries Ltd. Vs. The Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks a declaration that the China Specific Safeguard Duty imposed under section 8C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (for short, CTA, 1975?) are exempted under Notification No.96/2009-Cus. dated 11th September, 2009 as well as for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction striking down the phrase under section 8B? appearing in the opening portion of the said Notification. As a consequence, relief is also sought to quash and set aside the Show Cause Notice dated 3rd October, 2013 issued by Respondent No.3 herein. 3. In a nutshell, it is the case of the Petitioner that vide Notification No.96/2009-Cus. dated 11th September 2009, goods imported into India against Advanced Authorization issued in terms of paragraph 4.1.3 of the Foreign Trade Policy, are e...
Tag this Judgment!Atul Tukaram Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
S.B. Shukre, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. Rule made returnable forthwith. 4. Heard finally by consent. 5. This petition challenges the legality and correctness of the order dated 13th August, 2015, passed by respondent no.2 “ Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.2, thereby invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Kunabi? caste. 6. The petitioner, claiming himself to be belonging to the caste Kunabi? falling in the category of Other Backward Class (hereinafter referred to as OBC? for short), contested the election for the post of Member of Gram Panchayat from ward no.6 of village Rashiwade, Taluka “ Radhanagari, District “ Kolhapur which ward was reserved for the OBC category and was declared winner, having secured highest votes. Respondent nos.4 and 5 doubted the caste claim of the petitioner and, therefore, they filed a complaint with respondent no.2, the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.2, Kolhapur alleging that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Riddhisiddhi Bullions Limited and Others Vs. Union of India, through C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. In view of the earlier orders, we proceed to admit this petition. Hence, Rule. The respondents waive service. Since all pleadings are complete, by consent of both sides, the Writ Petition is disposed of finally by this judgment. 2. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questions the legality and validity of the Circulars, namely, Circular No.15 dated 22nd July, 2013, Circular RBI/2013-14/187 // A.P. (DIR Series), Circular No.25 dated 14th August, 2013 and RBI/2013-14/600 // A.P. (DIR Series) and Circular No. 133 dated 21st May, 2014, issued by the second respondent and proceedings consequent thereto initiated vide show-cause notice dated 14th October, 2014 so also the order passed in furtherance thereof dated 14th January, 2015. It is prayed that these be quashed and set aside. 3. The facts lay in a narrow compass. The petitioners claim to be one of the largest bullion dealers and petitioner No.1 is an Associate Mem...
Tag this Judgment!Shivram Mahadev Shinde (Decd.) by Kusum Shivram Shinde and Others Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th September, 2004 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court thereby dismissing the Short Cause Suit No. 1357 of 1979. The original plaintiff no. 1 Shivram Mahadev Shinde claiming adverse possession against the Government, filed a suit for possession and injunction in respect of land admeasuring 25 acres and 12.34 gunthas bearing Survey no. 29 (Part), 30-C, 30-D, 41/1 (Part), 41/2, 41/3 and 41/4 (Part), 41-B/1, 42-B/2 and Plot Nos. 1 to 11-12 (Part) of private scheme No. A? at Village Pahadi, Goregaon Taluka, Borivali, Mumbai. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff no. 1/Shivram Shinde that he was in possession of the suit land since 1944. He has entered into an agreement with one Jagan Babu Thakur on 15th June, 1949 for cultivating the land for two years, i.e., from 15th June, 1949 to 14th June, 1951 (Exhibit 6). On 9th April, 1970 Tahsildar of Village Pahadi issued notice that in the year 1956 that the original p...
Tag this Judgment!Sayada Mumtaz Jahan Sayad Ahteshamuddin and Others Vs. Talat Shikshan ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. In Writ Petition No.5328/2008, the petitioner has taken exception to the impugned order of transfer dated 16.04.2008 at Exhibit-B. In Writ Petition No. 5330/2008, the petitioner has taken exception to the impugned order of transfer dated 16.04.2008 at Exhibit-B. In Writ Petition No.1958/2009, the petitioner therein has taken exception to the impugned order of transfer dated 28.03.2009 at Exhibit-A. All these three Writ Petitions have been heard together since in all these Petitions exception is taken to the transfer orders against respondent No.1 and also other respondents are common. In view of the order passed by this Court on 10th February, 2010 in Writ Petition No.1958/2009, even Writ Petition No.1958/2009 was directed to be listed under caption ˜final disposal™ along with Writ Petition No. 5328/2008 and 5330/2008. Therefore, Rule, taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of these Petitions, ar...
Tag this Judgment!Competent Automobiles Company Ltd. Through its Authorized Signatory Pr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
1. Whether a Civil Revision Application would lie under Section 201-B of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, (the Act, for short) against an order passed by the Director of Panchayats, under Section 66(7) of the said Act, in view of the finality, which is attached to the said order, is the question, which falls for determination in this case. 2. The aforesaid issue arises in the following facts: The petitioner had applied for a licence for construction of a Beach Resort at village Arossim, on the basis of technical clearance granted on 25/06/2014. That application was made to the first respondent Village Panchayat. The petitioner had also submitted a CRZ clearance dated 11/04/2013 granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF), Government of India. The first respondent, by a communication dated 16/10/2014, returned the proposal for the reason that the built up area of the proposed construction being in excess of 20000 square metres, requires prior environmental clearance under the Env...
Tag this Judgment!Milun Suryajani, Through its Editor Geetali Vinayak Mandakini and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
Revati Mohite Dere, J. 1. This Public Interest Litigation filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises certain important questions with regard to the toilet facilities for `women walking on the streets'. The petitioners had initially preferred this PIL only against the Pune Municipal Corporation and its Officers and certain reliefs/directions were sought against the Pune Municipal Corporation. The reliefs sought were a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or appropriate direction to the Pune Municipal Corporation to provide and maintain latrines, privies and urinals and other similar conveniences for the women walking on the streets, in Pune, at appropriate and convenient locations; and for a direction to the respondent Pune Municipal Corporation to acquire land/property under the Land Acquisition Act or under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, or alternatively to use the property vested in the Corporation for the purpose of achieving the objec...
Tag this Judgment!Smita Rajendra Kadu Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule. Learned counsel for the Respondents waive service. By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, by consent and on the request of learned counsel. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 12 August 2014. By that order, a copy of which is annexed at Annexure-A, page 19 of the writ petition, the services of the Petitioner have come to an end meaning thereby she is discharged from the judicial service. 3. The Petitioner states that the Respondents before us namely Respondent nos.1 and 2 are the authorities who appointed the Petitioner in judicial service by virtue of Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008. They have passed the impugned order on the recommendations of Respondent no.3. 4. In paragraph 2 of this writ petition, it is stated that by invoking Rule 13(4)(ii)(b) of the Maharashtra Judicial Servic...
Tag this Judgment!Arwa Taha Saifuddin and Others Vs. Taha Mufaddal Saifuddin and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
Common Judgment: 1. Rule. With the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is finally disposed of. 2. Considering the nature of the order, which is proposed to be made, as also the commonality of issues involved, it will be appropriate to dispose of these two petitions with a common order. 3. The Petitioners, Arwa and Fatema are sisters. Since last seventeen years, they have been married to Taha and Ibrahim, who are cousins inter se. Arwa and Taha have five children viz. (i)Sakeenah (16), (ii) Mohammad (15), (iii) Tahir (12), (iv) Mustafa (10) and (v) Murtaza (7). Similarly, Fatema and Ibrahim have four children viz., (i) Khadija (17), (ii) Murtaza (14), (iii) Nisreen (11) and (iv) Husain (7). The children, are great grandchildren of the 52nd Dai-ul-Mutlaq, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, a religious leader of the Dawoodi Bohra Community (a Muslim Sect), who passed away in Mumbai on 17 January 2014. Upon his demise, a dispute has arisen with regard to the cl...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Karim Badruduja Shaikh Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-2015
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. 1. The Appellant, who stands convicted by the Judgment and Order dated 11th December 2009 of 4th Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Dindoshi, Borivali Division, Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.116 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for six months, by this Appeal challenges his conviction and sentence. 2. Brief facts of the Appeal can be stated as follows:- PW-1 Rita is the wife of deceased Samindar Vishwakarma. PW-2 Saraswati is their daughter. The Appellant, with his wife and son Romin, aged 4 years, was residing opposite to their house. On 29th April 2008, at about 11:15 am, some quarrel took place between Saraswati, aged 11 years, and Romin, while they were playing together. In the said quarrel, Romin assaulted Saraswati with foot-wear and hence Saraswati took Romin to the house of the Appellant and told him about it. Appellant,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »