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.
Vasant Vs. The State of Maharashtra through Anti Corruption Department ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-04-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order passed on29/11/2002 by Judge of the Special Court under Prevention of Corruption Act in Special Case No.9 of 1993 thereby convicting the present appellant, who was accused No.1, of the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Name of respondent No.2 deleted as per order dtd.7/2/2003. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as the P.C. Act, for short). 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are as under.: 2.1 Complainant Prashant Rajendra Wankhede was proprietor of a bakery which he ran under the name and style as, Golden Bakery. The appellant-accused No.1 had assisted the complainant in obtaining loan of Rs.34,000/- from a Bank for the purpose of his bakery. The complainant thought that his bakery got a permanent registration from the District Industries Centre, Nagpur (D.I.C., Nagpur, for short). The appellant was then working as Industries Inspector with D....
Gangubai Madhukar Jagdhane and Another Vs. Sardar Pratapsingh Educatio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2015
1. These two petitions can be disposed of together as they involve substantially common issues of law and fact. 2. Some time in the year 1980, both the petitioners came to be appointed as Class-IV employees in the school established and managed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is the case of the petitioners that since they filed complaints/petitions for payment of salary as per 5th Pay Commission Scale, with effect from 13 June 2002 the petitioners were not permitted to resume duties upon the school reopening after summer vacation. In deference to the legal notice served by the petitioners through their advocate, the petitioners were permitted to resume duties for a couple of months. However, by notice dated 1 August 2002, the petitioners were informed that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have decided to close down the school an that the services of the petitioners were being terminated on account of abolition of posts due to closure of the school. The notices which were received by the petitioner...
Abasaheb Janardhan Chavan and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Exception is taken by the applicants to their conviction for the offence punishable u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Newasa, district Ahmednagar by his Judgment and Order dated 11/06/2001 in R.T.C. No. 149/1998, which was confirmed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, district Ahmednagar by his Judgment and Order dated 06/06/2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 13/2001. 2. Heard Mr. S.S.Wagh h/f Mr. S.T.Shelke, the learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. V.D.Godbharle, the learned A.P.P. for the respondent State. With their able assistance, I have gone through the record and proceedings. 3. Charge was framed against the present applicants and Sopan Gawali by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Newasa on 10/02/1999 that they, in furtherance of their common intention, dishonestly removed 2 brass of sand amounting to Rs. 800/- [Rupees Eight Hundred only] from the possession of the Government without...
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Vs. Vijai E ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Act), the petitioners seek to impugn the arbitral award dated 26th October, 2012 made by the learned arbitrator allowing the claims made by the respondents. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 2. The petitioners were the original respondents before the learned arbitrator. The respondents herein were the original claimants before the learned arbitrator. 3. Some time in the year 2011, the petitioners floated 16 tenders for the supply, construction and commissioning of the sub-transmission lines, power transformers etc. for different parts of Maharashtra. The last date for submission of e-bids was 21st September, 2011. The respondents submitted the e-bids in respect of the 3 tenders which were in respect of Amravati Zone, Aurangabad Nanded Zone and Baramati Zone on 21st September, 2011 i.e. within time stipulated for su...
Shankar Govind Mali and Others Vs. Kolhapur District Central Co-operat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The Petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Court below whereby restrained the Petitioners (opponent Nos, 3, 4 and 7) in the following terms: 1) The application dated 21.04.2010 at Exh. 32 is partly allowed. 2) The opponent Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 are hereby temporarily restrained from transferring, selling, alienating, creating any encumbrance and from disposing of their respective shares in the properties mentioned in schedule A and B of the application till the final decision of the dispute. 3) Costs shall be the cost in main cause. 3. The Appellate Authority by reasoned order also dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioners that resulted into maintaining the order so referred above. 4. Admittedly, the dispute filed by Respondent No.1-Bank is still pending for recovery of the amount of Rs.1,77,13,112/-. However, as averred and considered by the court below, and further, as sufficient material placed on record and ...
Adivasi Samaj Kruti Samiti and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2015
A.S. Oka, J. 1. Rule. The learned Special Counsel waives service for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned Special Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3. This Petition raises various important issues regarding the functioning of the Competent Authorities as well as Caste Scrutiny Committees set up by the State Government under the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomedic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of ) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (for short the said Act). 4. A 'Competent Authority' is defined under Clause (b) of Section 2 of the said Act. Under Section 4 of the said Act, on an Application made to it, the Competent Authority is empowered to grant caste certificates. The 'Scrutiny Committee' is defined in Clause (k) of Section 2 of the said Act. Various Scrutiny Committe...
Jyoti and Another Vs. Tukaram
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Challenge in the present Revision Application is to the Judgment and Order dated 20/08/2002 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition No. E-395/2001, whereby the learned Judge of the Family Court dismissed the Petition filed on behalf of the present applicants for maintenance u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Heard Mr. A.D.Aghav, the learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Avinash Patil holding for Mr. S.P.Chapalgaonkar, the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The present applicants are the wife and son of the respondent. Their relations are not denied. 4. On 18/06/2001, the present applicants approached to the Family Court with an application u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their application was registered as Petition No. E-395/2001. The marriage between the applicant No. 1 and the non-applicant was solemnized on 21/05/1998. From their wedlock, the applicant No. 2 was borne and at the time of filing of th...
Om Health Centres Pvt Ltd. and Another Vs. Ratanshi Premji Charitable ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-2015
1. Rule, with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is invoked against the order dated 20-7-2013 passed by the Learned 7th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane by which order, the application Exhibit 53 filed by the Petitioners herein i.e. the original Plaintiffs to lead secondary evidence in respect of the agreement dated 5-4-2004, came to be rejected. 3. The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above Petition can be stated thus: The Petitioners herein are the original Plaintiffs, whereas the Respondents are the original Defendants in the Suit in question. The Respondent No.1 is a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are the trustees amongst whom the Respondent No.2 was the Managing Trustee at the relevant time. 4. The Suit in question i.e. Special Civil Suit No.276 of 2007 has...
Prabhakar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-04-2015
1. The applicant, who is the first informant, being dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 23/04/2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli in Session Trial No. 33/2001 for the offences punishable u/s 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, is before this Court.2. Heard Mr. V.M.Maney, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. V.P.Kadam, the learned A.P.P. for respondent No. 1 State. Though the respondent No. 2 was served, his counsel remained absent at the time of hearing.3. The prosecution case can be narrated as under:The first informant Prabhakar [P.W.1] is son of deceased Madhavrao Thite. A agricultural field situated at village Golegaon, Taluka Aundha, district Hingoli is owned by accused Ashok/respondent No. 2. The prosecution case further states that the land of accused was taken for cultivation by deceased Madhav on crop sharing basis [batai] and at the relevant time, Wheat crop was standing in the field. The First Information Report [...
Commissioner of Income-tax-2 Vs. Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-2015
1. This appeal by Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (the Act) assails the order dated 30.4.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The assessment year involved is A.Y. 2007- 08. 2. The appellant-Revenue proposes the following questions for our consideration: "(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in treating lending transactions on par with borrowing transactions in conservation to the provision of Section 92B, thereby overlooking crucial factors of opportunity cost and risks borne by the lending entity which is a resident of India, as distinguished from the transaction where the lender is not a resident in India? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in directing the Assessing Officer to benchmark the interest at prevailing EURIBOR rate instead of rupee loan rate to compute the Arms Length interest on the loan amounting ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »