Mumbai Court March 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.
Ramesh and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-12-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners question the order dated 24-4-1998 passed by the respondent no. 1, State of Maharashtra directing respondent no. 4, Collector, Amravati to handover possession of land to respondent no. 2, educational society. Subsequent order dated 27-4-1998 passed by the respondent no. 4 in obedience thereto handing over possession in advance to said respondent is also questioned. The petition has been amended later on seeking the direction to the State Government to take back said land and to direct the respondent no. 1 not to handover any government land in Municipal area of Chikhaldhara to any private institution in order to protect natural beauty of that place. 2. Before proceeding further, it is to be noted that this Court initially issued notice in the matter on 26-6-1998 and on that day, granted ad-interim relief whereby effect and operation of orders mentioned supra cam...
M/s Yash Society Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2015
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 27.9.2010, whereby respondent no.1 has rejected the petitioner's application for grant of approval under section 10 (23-C) (via) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') for A.Y.2009-10 on the ground that the primary requirement of section 10 (23C) that the petitioner is established for philanthropic purposes is not fulfilled by the petitioner as found evident from the creation of capital assets from the surplus funds. 2. Briefly the facts are: On 6.4.1971 the petitioner was registered as a Public Trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. Initially the petitioner was registered in the name of 'Birla Vidhya Vihar Hospital'. In September, 1985 the petitioner was registered under the Societies' Registration Act, 1860. On 11.9.1985 name of the petitioner was changed to 'Birla Vidhya Vihar Society' and thereafter on 13.12.1988 it was changed to the present name 'Yash Socie...
Janaki Ultra Sound Center Vs. The Appropriate Authority and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-12-2015
1. On 02/02/2015, after hearing the petitioner and the learned AGP, I had passed the following order:- "1. The petitioner whose Sonography Machine has been sealed on the ground of failure to maintain proper records and obtain the consent of the patient seeking to under go Sonography, is the only cause for the sealing of the Sonography machine. 2. The petitioner further submits that if at all documents are not properly maintained, they would evidence irregularity on the part of the petitioner. However, in the light of the judgment of this Court (Coram :- S.V.Gangapurwala, J.) dated 11-09-2012 delivered in Writ Petition No. 6557 of 2012 in the matter of Dr. Mrs. Sukhada W/o Dilip Mulay Vs State of Maharashtra and others, it clearly lays down the law in paragraph Nos. 16, 17 and 18 that the Sonography machines can be sealed by the appropriate authority only if it is satisfied that the said machine would furnish evidence of commission of offence punishable under the Act. 3. Shri Warma, the...
Bhika Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-12-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 01/09/1998 passed in Sessions Case No.4 of 1994 by Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 304(II) and 201 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are as under: Deceased Mahadeo Agalate, who was about 55 years of age at the time of his death, was the father of the present appellant. He had three sons Ramdas, Bhikathe present appellant and Tejrao, besides a daughter, Kasturabai. His elder son Ramdas, being married, was staying separately from him while Mahadeo used to reside at village Pahurpurna along with his wife Mamtabai and two sons, Tejrao and the present appellant. The brothers of deceased Mahadeo namely Narayan, Sahdeo and Ambadas used to reside at village Pahurpurna, but separately. His daughter Kasturabai, being married, was residing along with her husband at village Nimkarda. On 08/11/1993, deceas...
The State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Arman Gulzar Tadvi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the State, challenging the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 08.12.1995 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case Nos. 237/1992 and 153/1994, thereby acquitting the Respondents Accused for the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 302 r.w. 149 of Indian Penal Code, as well as under Section 135 r/w. 37 of Bombay Police Act and also acquitting the accused No.5 Rashid and accused No.6 Samsher for the offence punishable under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code. The original complainant has also filed the Revision Application taking exception to the Judgment and Order in Sessions Case Nos.237/1992 and 153/1994, dated 08.12.1995. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: 2. It is the case of the prosecution that, the deceased Ramjan @ Rangya was dealing in the business of purchasing and selling cattle. There was some dispute between Rangya, and accused persons on account of certain bullocks. Rangya had tried...
Lodha Properties Development Private Limited Vs. Kedia Holdings Privat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. At the outset, the learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks deletion of the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to the above Petition as in the context of the challenge raised in the above Petition, they are only formal parties. The said Respondents are accordingly deleted at the risk of the Petitioner. 2. Rule, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 3. The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 26th February, 2014 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, by which order the Chamber Summons filed by the Petitioner being Chamber Summons No.2705/2013 came to be rejected. 4. Shorn of unnecessary details, a few facts can be read thus: The Respondent No.1 is the original Plaintiff in the suit in question being Regular Civil Suit No.4298/2013. The said suit is filed challenging the notice issued under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 for short the said Act...
Zacarias Mendes Vs. Milton Olumpia Marques and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-11-2015
R.M. Borde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3. Petitioner, who claims to be belonging to Other Backward Class, is challenging the order of validation of caste certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee on 18.03.2014 in favour of respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 1 claims to be belonging to Christian Kharvi community which is categorized as Other Backward Class. Respondent no. 1 tendered an application to respondent no. 2 for issuance of caste certificate on 26.04.2012. Alongwith the application, respondent no. 1 tendered report of Talathi dated 26.04.2012, residence certificate dated 26.04.2012 and affidavit dated 26.04.2012 sworn by office bearers of Traditional Fisherman Association, Nerul, BardezGoa. On consideration of the application tendered by petitioner, caste certificate came to be issued in his favour on 27.04.2012. According to petitioner, respondents have issu...
Swati Sunil Nimbolkar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-11-2015
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicants have been prosecuted at the behest of non applicant no.2 who is husband of applicant no.1. He then submitted that all applicant nos. 1 to 9 are closely related from the side of applicant no.1-Swati, wife of non applicant no.1 and have been arrayed as accused persons at the behest of non applicant no.2. 3. According to the prosecution, the alleged abortion took place on 18.02.2012 while the FIR was lodged by non applicant no.2-husband for the first time on 01.12.2013 and, thereafter initiated proceedings under Section 156 (3) of Cr. P. C. on 09.05.2014. It is not in dispute that applicant no.1 and non applicant no.2 are at daggers drawn. Learned A.P.P. has produced before us statement of Dr. Archana Nitin Agrawal from Akola which clearly shows that applicant no.1 was carrying a dead foetus and, therefore, was advised to remove...
Sgn. Ldn. A. P. Fernandes Vs. Annette Blunt Finch and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-11-2015
The above Appeal was taken up by the Division Bench in view of the directions of the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 02.10.2014 in terms of Rule 8 of Chapter I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. 2. We have heard Mr. A. F. Diniz, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents and we have heard Shri M. B. D' Costa, learned Senior Counsel, who sought leave to address the Court. 3. Shri A. F. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, has pointed out that the Appellant had initiated Inventory Proceedings in the year 2000 to partition the asset of his father namely Alex Francis Xavier Fernandes. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the list of assets was filed by the Cabeca de Casal on 02.01.2001 and objections to such list were filed on 18.01.2002 by the interest parties. Thereafter, the mother of the Appellant expired on 17.06.2004 and the Inventory Proceedings continued also to partition the ...
Javs Engineering (India) Ltd. Vs. Bank of Baroda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2015
Oral Order: (A.R. Joshi, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties and the matter is taken up for final adjudication. 2. Heard rival submissions on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent at length on earlier dates. 3. This is a Petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and in the matter of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, for the sake of brevity known as SARFAESI Act. 4. The present petitioner is the original borrower. Respondent bank is the creditor bank who had granted a cash credit against hypothecation of stock, book debts to the present petitioner some time in November, 1994 and the credit facilities were enhanced from time to time and credit limit of Rs.681.91 lacs was granted to the present petitioner/borrower against the mortgage of four immovable properties. Without going into much details as to how the petitioner account became non-performing ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »