Mumbai Court February 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.
Amol Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-05-2015
Oral Judgment : 1. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 28.10.1998 passed by the 7th Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.208/1998 thereby convicting him for an offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years together with fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer further imprisonment for three months. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as under: (i) The prosecutrix, appellant-accused No.2 and accused No.1Suresh Mate were residents of village Sev, Tahsil Umred, District Nagpur and belonged to the same caste. The appellant is nephew of the original accused No.1. (ii) The prosecutrix, on the day of incident was below 16 years of age and studying in 9th Standard in a Public High School, Umred. Her village Sev, is about 5 kms. away from the school situated at Umred. The incident took place at about 10.00 or 10.3...
Bipin Mathurdas Thakkar Vs. Samir alias Sameer Dessai and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-05-2015
1. Heard Mr. Shirodkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the respondent no.1. Parties submitted that copies of relevant documents are on record. Hence records and proceedings from the lower Courts are not called for. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. This revision application has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20/09/2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao ('Appellate Court', for short) in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2014 and judgment and order dated 21/02/2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Canacona ('J.M.F.C', for short) in Criminal Case No. 4/OA/NI/2012. The petitioner was the accused in the said criminal case whereas the respondent no.1 was the complainant. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said criminal case. 4. The complainant had filed the complaint against the accused under Section 138 of the Negot...
Jagruti Bhatia Vs. Samir Bhatia and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Ms.Seema Sarnaik, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Puneet Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Mr. A.R.Patil, learned A.P.P. for respondent no.2 at length. 2. Rule. The learned counsel waive service on behalf of the respondents. At the request and by consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the Application is taken up for final hearing. 3. By this Application, the applicant-wife has prayed for recalling the order dated 20.1.2015 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Application No.17 of 2015. By that order, Criminal Revision Application No.17 of 2015 preferred by the applicant was dismissed. 4. In support of this application, Ms Sarnaik submitted that Criminal Revision Application No.17 of 2015 was preferred by the wife challenging the Judgment and order dated 17.7.2014 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.2, Mumbai in Petition No.E-17 of 2011. She submitted that in that petition, the applicant had claimed ma...
American President Lines Ltd. and Others Vs. The Board of Trustees of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2015
1. Seven issues have been framed in the suit. Issue Nos. 2 and 3 are required to be tried as preliminary issues under the provisions of Order 14 Rule 2 of the CPC. No party has filed any affidavit of evidence though the plaintiffs were directed to file the affidavit of evidence and documents, if required, with regard to the preliminary issues.2. Counsel have argued the question of law with regard to the preliminary issues based upon the averments in the plaint. The issues are decided as follows:3. Issue No. 2 Re: The bar of limitation.The plaintiff has sued the defendants (BPT). The suit is governed by the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 (MPT Act). The suit is required to be filed within the special period of limitation under Section 120 of the MPT Act.4. Section 120 runs thus:CHAPTER XIMISCELLANEOUS120. Limitation of proceedings in respect of things done under the Act. No suit or other proceedings shall be commenced against a Board or any member or employee thereof for anything done, or p...
Vijay Gangadhar Dande (dead) through Legal Representatives and Others ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-04-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Shri Shelat, the learned counsel waives service of notice for respondent. Heard the matter finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. Regular Civil Suit No. 17 of 2006 has been decreed on 11.01.2011 for eviction and possession by the court of Small Causes against the petitioner-tenant. Regular Civil Appeal No. 293 of 2011 has been dismissed by the learned District Judge-2, Nagpur on 19.06.2014. Hence, this writ petition against the concurrent findings of fact. 3. The question involved is of the bonafide requirement of the landlord in respect of suit premises which are two shop blocks, total admeasuring 450 sq.ft. super built up area, in which country liquor shop is being run by the petitioner. The requirement put forth by the landlord was for running a Beer Bar. The relevant averments which are made in paragraph No. 6 of the suit are reproduced below. "It is submitted that both the shop blocks are situated ...
Prashant Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-04-2015
Oral Judgment:1. Heard. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.2. This is a case which calls for attention of the Court in addressing an important issue: How to deal with a child in conflict with law, who has involved himself in something which is viewed by the society at large as a heinous crime, although the child does not understand the enormity and consequence of the act committed by him. The law, on it's part, does not look down upon such children as delinquents or criminals and only prefers to call them as children in conflict with law. It means, whatever behaviour they indulge in, is not viewed as a behaviour pregnant with mens rea or intention to commit a crime. That is the reason why the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, the said Act, 2000) has been brought on the statute book. It's object is to consolidate and amend the law relating to juveniles in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection, by providing ...
M/s. Adityasai Cotspin Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Louis Drayfus Commodities In ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2015
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 28th May, 2012 allowing the claims made by the respondents. 2. Mr.Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of this petition having been filed after three months from the date of getting the signed copy of the award and contending that the petition is barred by law of limitation. 3. Mr.Lapasia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made following submissions:- (a) The contract between the petitioner and the respondents was admittedly not signed by the respondents themselves but was signed by the agent of the respondents. The petitioner was not a member of the Cotton Association of India and was not governed by the bye laws of Cotton Association of India. (b) The arbitration proceedings held at Mumbai is contrary to the sales contract which provides that the court i...
M/s. OM Agencies and Others Vs. The Assistant Sales Tax (VAT ADM) and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-04-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)1. Heard Shri Bhattad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Dangre, learned Government Pleader for the respondents.2. Three different establishments are before this Court, complaining about non assessment of its Value Added Tax for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008.3. The petitioners claim benefit of provisions governing set off contained in Section 48(6) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 2002 Act). In nutshell the submission is, in returns filed for said period, the petitioners have asked for refund which is approximately same as that of quantum of tax assessed for the next year i.e. for the period from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009. The grievance is, as assessment for the period from 01.04.2007 till 31.03.2008 is not being finalized, the exact amount to be returned to the petitioners has still not been crystallized and, therefore, cannot be technically used to claim set off against later demand.4....
Sainik Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. Vs. Bismark Facho and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-04-2015
1. Heard Mr. Rodrigues, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20/08/2007 passed by Goa Information Commission (Respondent no. 4) in Appeal No. 11/2007-08/Co-Op. 3. The petitioner is a registered housing society constituted under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 as applicable to Goa. The petitioner alleged that it has been formed to house the former and serving members of the Armed Forces of India and their families and is a private society receiving no aid or financial support from the Government but is a society constituted to look after the welfare of its own residents. The petitioner alleges that the respondent no.1 owns some land adjoining to the land of the petitioner and has been constantly harassing the petitioner society as he wishes to use the infrastructure of the petitioner to gain access to his lan...
Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2015
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. The Petitioners (Original Respondent Nos. 1 to 4) have challenged order dated 4 September 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Mumbai (CAT). CAT has directed the Petitioners to extend the benefits of the scheme envisaged in the Office Memorandum of 1993 (OM) to the Respondent (Original Applicant) and further directed to treat him working as a casual labourer as on September 1, 1993 and grant temporary status as per clause 4 of the OM read with all the consequential benefits within three months from the date of the receipt of copy of the order.3. The case of the Applicant is as under:In 1976, the Applicant was engaged as Casual Labourer in the Arnala Customs Office under Respondent no.4. The Applicant has been continuously working since then for the last 35 years. On 30 July 1984, an order was passed by Respondent No.3 continuing the temporary appointment of the Applicant...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »