Mumbai Court February 2015 Judgments
M/s. Mahendra Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Padmabai and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-2015
1. The above suit was settled under consent terms dated 2nd December 2003. An order was passed in terms of the consent terms on 12th January 2004. The suit came to be disposed off in terms of the consent terms on 12th January, 2004. The consent terms are sought to be executed by plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 and defendant Nos. 17 and 18 (plaintiff) against defendant No.16 (defendant). The consent terms would require to be executed within 12 years of the order being passed in terms thereof. Hence the consent terms would have to be executed on or before 11th January 2016. The execution has been levied in 2011. 2. The plaintiff as well as the defendant took out various chamber summonses. The plaintiffs chamber summonses were for appointment of court receiver and redevelopment of the property. They have been dismissed. The defendants chamber summons were for setting aside the warrant of attachment upon the suit property. The personal residential immovable property of defendant No.16 has been atta...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Magma Fincorp Ltd. and Another Vs. Makarand V. Naik and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-2015
1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the applicant, who is the father of the award debtors/respondents, to raise the attachment levied upon flat No.57 in Mantri Corner, Sayani Road, Mumbai-400 026. The attachment has been levied upon the property of the award debtors where they reside. The applicant would claim that though the award debtors reside there, he is the sole owner of the attached property. It does not belong to the award debtors and hence the attachment must be raised. 2. In para 2 of the affidavit-in-support of the Notice of Motion the applicant has stated that he resides in the attached premises for the last many years as the member of the society. The society has issued share certificate No.29 in respect of the distinctive shares bearing Nos.141 to 145 which stand in his name. He also claims to be paying the maintenance for the attached flat and has relied upon other documents to show his possession. In para 5 of the affidavit-in-support he has claimed to be an exclus...
Tag this Judgment!Vivek Vishnupant Kulkarni Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through Chief ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-2015
Oral Judgment (Per A.S. Gadkari, J.) 1. Notice for final disposal was issued under the order dated 21st August, 2013. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned AGP for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. The Respondent No.2 is a formal party as the Petitioner by this present Petition has prayed for the implementation of the order dated 18th August, 2011 passed by the Respondent No.2. Hence, notice to the said Respondent is dispensed with. 3. The case in hand is a classic example, as to how the Government officers for protecting their fellow officers tend to frustrate the basic intention of the legislature behind the enactment of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 4. The brief facts which are necessary for the decision of the present case can be stated thus : (i) The Petitioner is associated with a public trust by the name Swatantraya Veer Sawarkar Pratishthan, Vishrambaug, Sangli dedicated to the social, educational, and charitable activities. The said trust is runnin...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Jitendra R. Gandhi Vs. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2015
Sunil P. Deshmukh, J. 1. The questions which have been referred to pursuant to provisions of Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax, 1959 are as under: (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of the provisions contained in Sections 57 and 55 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the Administrative Asstt. Commissioner was legally justified in assuming the revisional jurisdiction under section 57, despite the appeals against the very assessment orders being pending under section 55 before the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner who was his co-ordinate authority? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of the provisions contained in the 1979 Scheme of Incentives and the Notification Entry 136 under section 41 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the appellant was not entitled to the ex...
Tag this Judgment!Anand Kale Vs. The State of Goa
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-26-2015
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment/order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., North Goa, Panaji in Sessions Case No. 44/2011 dated 31.07.2013 by which the accused no.1 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. Hence, the present appeal by the accused no.1. 2. The brief facts of the case may be summarised as follows: On 20.02.2009 at around 3.00 p.m. five buffaloes of the appellant/accused entered into the farm of the complainant Nandini and started grazing. Hence, her husband Dattatray and son Dineshwar caught the buffaloes and tied them to their rubber tree. The incident was reported to the village panchayat and the members of the village panchayat assured to look into the matter. 3. At about 4.30 p.m the appellant/accused and his wife i.e. accus...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director (M.D.) Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribal Dev ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-26-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners employer take exception to the order passed by the competent authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short the said Act) directing payment of a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- to the respondent No.1 with interest @ 10% per annum. This order has been confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority on 17-1-2014. 3. The facts in so far as the same are relevant for adjudicating the challenge as raised are that the respondent No.1 was employed as a Grader with the petitioners since 4-11-1978. He came to be dismissed from service on 23-5-2000. On 18-4-2011, he filed an application before the Controlling Authority praying that the employer be directed to pay him gratuity under provisions of the said Act. The employer opposed the aforesaid application on the ground that the same was time barred. The entitlement of the respondent No.1 to receive gratuity was also disputed. The C...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwas Chandar Nejdar-Mane Vs. Chhatrapati Rajaram Sahakari Sakhar Ka ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The Petitioner-Objector has challenged order dated 13.3.2015 passed by Respondent No.2-District Co-operative Election Officer thereby, as stated, rejected the objections without assigning specific reasons, in spite of specific contentions so raised, in the objections. 2. Respondent No.2 (Authority) resisted the Petition by affidavit dated 25.2.2015 and has contended to dismiss the Petition basically on the preliminary grounds itself. Those, contentions, in my view, in the present matter, are not acceptable to dismiss the Writ Petition for want of non-joining of said 287 members and further that other remedy available to the Petitioner to file Election Petition. The submission that there are disputed questions involved and, therefore, detailed trial is necessary, is also not acceptable. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied upon the following Judgments: (a) ShriSant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingirid Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Anr....
Tag this Judgment!Vinayak Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Departmen ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-26-2015
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. By the present petition, the petitioner claims declaration that his age of retirement or superannuation be declared as 60 years, with all consequential benefits. FACTS: 2. The date of birth of the petitioner is 28.06.1940. He was appointed as Assistant Teacher by appointment order dated 05.08.1963/16.08.1963 by Chief Executive Officer, Buldana. He worked in Government High School, Khamgaon till 28.02.1999. He used to teach standards 5th to 10th as Special Teacher (Craft Teacher). Vidarbha region was the part and parcel of Madhya Pradesh and after reorganization, it became the part of the Maharashtra State. Reorganization having taken place w.e.f. 01.05.1960, the Madhya Pradesh Secondary Education Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the MP Act) was applicable in the Vidarbha region and continued to apply till 01.01.1966. The teachers serving in the secondary schools as well as middle schools in the Vidarbha region, therefore, were governed by the earlier service ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. M/s. New Standard Engineering Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2015
Sunil P. Deshmukh, J. 1. The two questions which have been referred pursuant to the provisions of Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 are as under: 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the true and correct interpretation of Explanation-I to sub-section (2) of Section 36 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the onus lies on the revenue to establish, for invoking the said Explanation-I, that there was gross or willful neglect on the part of the assessee? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on the true and correct interpretation of clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 36 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, read with Explanation-I thereunder, the Tribunal was correct in deleting the penalty levied under the said clause read with the said Explanation-I in view of the Bombay High Court decision in the case of Indoswe Engineers (P) Ltd. (101 STC 177)? 2. Undisputed factual position in ...
Tag this Judgment!Malu Dhondapa Bule (deceased through his legal heirs) and Others Vs. B ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2015
1. The group of these three Writ Petitions can be decided by this common judgment, in view of the fact that these three Writ Petitions arise out of the judgment and order, passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in Revision No. 122/B/2000/AN, dated 18.6.2001. The petitioners in all these three petitions are aggrieved by the said judgment and order, in view of the fact that the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowed the Revision and thereby set aside the order, passed by the Assistant Collector, Rahuri, dated 16.4.1985 in Appeal No. 13 of 1983 and directed that the petitioners be evicted from the suit land and possession of the suit land be restored to the Revision Applicants. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. In all these three Writ Petitions, respondent nos. 1 and 2 are (1) Bburao Sakharam Adik and (2) Padmakar Sakharam Adik. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed the proceedings in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Rahuri, District Ahmednagar under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »