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.
Abhijit and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Principa ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-16-2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Both these petitions question the acquisition of land of respective petitioners for the purpose it is earmarked in final development plan of the Municipal Council, Latur (Now Municipal Corporation and is referred accordingly). Petitioner in Writ Petition No.5154/2008 is respondent no.6 in Writ Petition No.503/2009. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 503/2009, has contended that his land is being acquired to spare the lands of said respondent no.6 Abhijit who is the petitioner in Writ Petition No.5154/2008. 2. The matters pertain to acquisition of land for public purpose and accordingly have been heard as requested by the parties. These matters have been admitted for final hearing on 05.08.2011 and 08.08.2011 respectively and interim orders are operating against the planning authority i.e. Municipal Corporation, Latur. The fact that Municipal Council, Latur is planning authority under Section 2(19) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter r...
Durgadas V. Parab Vs. Director of Sport and Youth Affairs
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-16-2015
1. Heard Mr. Supekar, learned Counsel for the appellants in all the above first appeals and Ms. Bhandari, learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the respondent in First Appeals No. 176/2009 and 177/2009 and Mr. Rebello, learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the respondent in First Appeals No. 178/2009 and 179/2009. 2. This common judgment shall dispose of all the above appeals, since they pertain to the plots of land from the same property acquired under the same notification bearing no. 22/13/2006-RD dated 21.04.2006, published in the Official Gazette dated 18.05.2006. 3. The above appeals arise out of the judgment dated 02.05.2009, respectively passed in the Land Acquisition Cases No. 56/2008, 53/2008, 55/2008 and 54/2008 by the learned District Judge-1, North Goa, Panaji (Reference Court, for short). 4. Land was acquired for construction of International Cricket Stadium at village Thivim in Bardez Taluka, vide the said notification as mentioned aforesaid. ...
Manjulabai Govind Dhumal Vs. The Collector, Collector Office and Other ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-13-2015
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The grievance raised by the petitioner in this petition is that a 'no confidence' motion was passed against her and such Village Panchayat members, who had resigned as members, had voted in the said special meeting in favour of the motion. 3. The petitioner was the Sarpanch of Grampanchayat Kantekur, Taluka Omerga, District Osmanabad. There are eight members elected to the said Village Panchayat besides the Sarpanch (in all nine members). 4. On 22-08-2014, the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 (five members) resigned as members of the Grampanchayat by submitting their resignations to the petitioner. However, on 10-09-2014, the respondent Nos. 3 to 9, members of the Grampanchayat submitted a requisition to the Tahsildar declaring their intention to introduce a 'no confidence' motion against the petitioner. The five members who had tendered their resignation, had also signed the requisition. 5. On 11-09-2...
Aslam A. Khan and Others Vs. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, without going further to the merits of the matter, raised a preliminary issue with regard to the maintainability of the Appeal filed under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, the MCS Act). The Divisional Joint Registrar-Respondent No.1, by impugned order dated 20 September 2004, set aside order dated 22 May 2014 passed by the Deputy Registrar-Respondent No.2, arising out of Section 78A read with Section 76(2) of the MCS Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: On 26 May 2013, requisitions raised by the members for calling Special General Body Meeting (for short, SGBM). On 18 July 2013, since the meeting was not called upon, complaint of requisitionist Respondent No.2, called upon Respondent No.3-Society to give reasons for not calling SGBM. On 7 August 2013, the Deputy Registrar called upon Respondent No.3 to 9 to call SGBM. ...
Ashiyabegum and Another Vs. Sk. Khayyum and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-13-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioners preferred an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed. The said application was registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 254 of 1996. The said application was presented on 11.7.1996. In the said application, it was stated that the marriage between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.1 took place prior to five years of filing of the proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code at Beed. From the wedlock, petitioner no.2 was born and relation between husband and wife is still subsisting. It was further stated in the application that prior to 15 days of Ramzan of 1996, the petitioner no.1 was assaulted by the respondent and brought one Bayo alias Sultana in the house and drove away the petitioners from the matrimonial house. Resultantly, they are residing in the parental house of petitioner no.1. It was further stated that no attempt was made by the respondent ...
Somerset Place Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Office ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2015
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. The applicant has taken out this Notice of Motion seeking condonation of delay of about five years (1825 days) in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short the Act) against the order dated 31.10.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2003-04. 2. The Tribunal's order was received by the applicant on 26.11.2008. The plea of the applicant before the Tribunal was interalia in regard to the principle of mutuality in regard to transfer fees received by the applicant. The Tribunal following the decision of the Special Bench in the Case of WalkeshwarTriveni Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITO, (267 ITR (AT) 86) had dismissed the appeal preferred by the applicants. The applicant states that as their claim was rejected by three Authorities viz. the Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as also the Tribunal and there was no judgment of the jurisdictional High Court f...
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. M/s. Asco Engineering Through its P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2015
1. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Arbitration Act), the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 29th March 2011 in so far as the Claim Nos.1, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 13 are concerned. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. The petitioner was the original respondent in the arbitral proceedings. The respondent was the original claimant in the arbitral proceedings. On or about December 2003, the petitioner invited tenders for the work of providing and installation of false ceiling in its office areas at Cumbala Hill, Telephone Exchange building with the estimated cost of the said work at Rs.21,08,388/- and with the stipulated period for completion of work at three months. Pursuant to the said tenders invited by the petitioner, the respondent submitted its bid at Rs.28,12,500/- which was 33.39% above the estimated cost of the tender. n 1st January 2003, the petitioner...
Kashinath Balu Gaonkar Vs. Sunita Krishnajirao Dessai and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Ms. Monteiro, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1. 2. By order dated 12/02/2015, it was made clear to both the parties that the revision application shall be heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the parties waive service of notice after admission. Heard finally. 4. By this revision application, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 29/01/2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji in Criminal Appeal No. 34/2014 and the judgment and order dated 15/03/2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panaji in Criminal Case No. 800/OA/2007/A. 5. The respondent no. 1 was the complainant in the said Criminal Case, whereas the petitioner was the accused therein. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said Criminal case. 6. The complainant had filed the said case against the accused f...
Fleet Fastners Private Limited and Another Vs. Municipal Corporation o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The challenge in this petition is to the following two orders: (a) The order dated 13 July 2011 made by the Corporation fixing rateable value at Rs.11,94,935 NPA with effect from 1 April 2008 in respect of the petitioners' property; (b) The order dated 11 May 2012 made by the Small Causes Court at Bombay (Appellate Authority) imposing the condition upon the petitioners to pay the entire amount of property taxes, for the purposes of lifting the attachment of petitioners property. This order has been made in the appeal instituted by the petitioners impugning the order dated 13 July 2011 made by the Corporation. 2. There is no dispute that the petitioners have instituted an appeal under Section 217 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (said Act) against the order dated 13 July 2011 made by the Corporation determining the rateble value and demanding taxes based thereupon. Section 217 of the said Act, inter alia, provides that no appeal shall be entertained by the...
Padmaja Rao, Proprietor of M/s. HI-TECH Medical Systems Vs. Vijaylaxmi ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-13-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Bharne, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shet, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22/12/2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panaji in Private Criminal Case No. 350/OA/2010/B whereby the application dated 21/01/2013, filed by the complainant(petitioner) for production of certain documents and for leave to examine Mr. Sudesh Kudalkar as witness came to be rejected. 4. Mr. Bharne, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that during his examination-in-chief, PW1, the complainant found that the reply to the legal notice sent by him to the accused (respondent) which was received subsequent to the filing of the complaint was relevant and should be produced. He submitted that the receipt of the statutory notice by the accused and reply dated 03/09/2010 sent by him are facts which are not denied ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »