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.
Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan (Bavla Compound) Co-op. Housing Society) and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-2015
V.M. Kanade, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. By this Petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioners are seeking appropriate writ, order and direction for quashing three letters which have been issued by Respondents viz (i) first impugned letter bearing No.Misc. 2008/Case No.86/Reconst.-41/RandR-1 dated 6th May, 2014, (ii) second impugned letter bearing No. CMS/TPB-4313/507/Case No.65/2014/UD-11 dated 6th May, 2014 and (iii) third impugned letter bearing No. ERR/DCR 33(9)/371/MBRRB-10 dated 27th January, 2010 and also for quashing condition No.13 in Board's notice dated 27th June, 2014. 3. Brief facts which are germane for the purpose of deciding this Petition are as under:- 4. This Petition has been filed by the Petitioners under representative capacity on behalf of 187 occupants who were occupying the structures on the plot of land commonly kno...
Dinesh Shankar Aakode Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-2015
Oral Judgment: (V.K. Tahilramani J.) 1. The Appellant original Accused No.1 has preferred this Appeal against the judgment and order dated 11th October 2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.402 of 2013. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant under section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to RI for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, RI for three months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under:- PW 1 Chanda was married to original Accused No.2 Hussain Shaikh. Two years after Chanda's marriage with Hussain Shaikh, Hussain was arrested in a case of theft. He was convicted and sent to jail. During that period, Chanda fell in love with Krishna (deceased) and she started residing with him. From Krishna, she had one daughter who was named Pooja. After Hussain was released from jail, he threw Chanda out from the house and told her to go and stay with Krishna. Hence, Chanda started residing with K...
Plus Paper Food Pac Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-2015
Oral Order : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. By consent the petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 3. This petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.1 to withdraw and cancel the notice dated 18.11.2013 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the order dated 4.2.2014 rejecting the objections of the Petitioner. The aforesaid impugned notice and order appears at Exhibit H and M of the petition. In the meantime, the Petitioner also seeks an order restraining the Respondents from taking steps pursuant to the notice dated 18.11.2013 Exhibit H issued under section 148 of the Act. 4. We have heard counsel for the parties. Mr.Gopal, Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Assessing Officer had no occasion to pass the impugned order and in any event reject the objections. According to the Petitioner, it had disclosed all material facts fully and truly, in the course of assessment p...
Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan (Bavla Compound) Co-op. Housing Society) and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-2015
V.M. Kanade, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. By this Petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioners are seeking appropriate writ, order and direction for quashing three letters which have been issued by Respondents viz (i) first impugned letter bearing No.Misc. 2008/Case No.86/Reconst.-41/RandR-1 dated 6th May, 2014, (ii) second impugned letter bearing No. CMS/TPB-4313/507/Case No.65/2014/UD-11 dated 6th May, 2014 and (iii) third impugned letter bearing No. ERR/DCR 33(9)/371/MBRRB-10 dated 27th January, 2010 and also for quashing condition No.13 in Board's notice dated 27th June, 2014. 3. Brief facts which are germane for the purpose of deciding this Petition are as under:- 4. This Petition has been filed by the Petitioners under representative capacity on behalf of 187 occupants who were occupying the structures on the plot of land commonly kno...
Gopalkrishna Shantaram Borkar Vs. State of Goa, through its Chief Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-25-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri D. Zaveri, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri V. Rodrigues, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and Advocate Shri D. Pangam, learned Amicus Curiae. 2. The above petition, inter alia, seeks for regularisation of the services rendered by the petitioner, on the ground that he was in the select list of the duly conducted selection process. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to an advertisement published in a local newspaper on 7th/8th March, 2006, the petitioner applied for the post of Watchman in the establishment of the respondents. The Departmental Selection Committee met to fill up the said vacant post on 2/8/2006 and the petitioner, upon assessment by such a Committee, apparently was recommended for the said post of Watchman. The petitioner was first in the merit list. An offer of appointment came to be issued to the petitioner on 11th December, 2006 on contractual basis. Thereaft...
The State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Naresh Rajeshwarrao Patil and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-25-2015
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of all parties. 1. These two applications can be disposed of by this common order, since both are questioning the correctness of the order, passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, dated 24.2.2014 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 73 of 2014, by which anticipatory bail was granted by the learned trial court in favour of Naresh Patil for the offence punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal Application NO. 2566 of 2014 is filed by the State; whereas Criminal Application No. 4430 of 2014 is filed by Shivhar Manmath Swami, who has lodged the first information report, dated 5.2.2014 bearing Crime No. 33 of 2014 against Naresh Patil who was granted anticipatory bail. 2. I have heard Smt. Pratibha Bharad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State; Shri B.R.Kedar, learned counsel for the first informant for the applicant Shivhar in C...
Krishna Maruti Lohar Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-2015
Oral Judgment: (V.K. Tahilramani J.) 1. This Appeal is preferred by the Appellant original Accused against the judgment and order dated 29th August 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur in Sessions Case No.64 of 2010. By the said judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant under section 302 of IPC for causing the death of his wife Gangubai by assaulting her with sickle and under section 307 of IPC for causing injuries to Dattatraya and Sanjay. For offence under section 302 of IPC the Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, RI for two months and for offence under section 307 of IPC, the Appellant was sentenced to RI for seven years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, RI for two months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed that substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under:- Deceased Gangubai was the wife o...
Vikas Baburao Patil-Shirgaonkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through i ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-2015
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent, we have proceeded to hear the matter finally. By keeping all points open, the proposed amendment so filed by the Petitioner is permitted. The Petitioner to carry out the amendment forthwith. 2. The Petitioner presently holding the post of the District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor at Satara has challenged the notification/notice issued by Respondent No.3-the Collector, dated 19th March, 2015. The Petition is dated 20th March, 2015. By the amendment, the Petitioner has also challenged notification dated 3rd February, 2015/13th February, 2015 issued by the State of Maharashtra, Law and Judiciary Department (the State) whereby, the Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Remuneration) (First Amendment) Rules, 2014 (for short Amended Rules) has been amended. This has been issued in exercise of power conferred by the proviso to Article 309, Article 165 read with Article 162 of t...
Beyond Dreams Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Zee Entertainment ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This suit is filed by the Plaintiffs inter alia for preventing misuse of confidential information and also infringement of copyright. The present order disposes of the Plaintiffs' ad-interim application for protection pending the hearing and final disposal of the Notice of Motion. 2. Plaintiff No.1 is a production house engaged in production of entertainment content for television including TV serials. Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are, respectively, the Chairman and Managing Director, and Chief Creative Director of Plaintiff No.1. 3. The gist of the Plaintiffs' case is this : In or about March 2011, Plaintiff No.2 developed a concept for a TV show, which was at that time called Paachva Mausam Pyaar Ka. The concept was reduced to a concept note and was also registered with the Film Writer Association on 11 June 2013. The concept note registered by the Plaintiffs with the Association is reproduced verbatim in the plaint. The Plaintiffs thereafter worked from time to time and d...
Punj Lloyd Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-2015
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 26th November 2011 passed by the learned arbitrator rejecting the claims made by the petitioner and holding that the respondent was entitled for deduction from the running account bills of the petitioner in line with price reduction clause and accordingly rejected the claims of the petitioner in the sum of Rs.3,28,73,691/-. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 2. The petitioner was the original claimant in the arbitration petition whereas the respondent herein was the original respondent. Some time in the month of April 2005, the respondent no.1 invited bids for laying of pipeline and associated facilities for Pune Solapur Pipeline Project. Pursuant to the said bidding document, the petitioner submitted its offer dated 18th June 2005. On 28th October 2005, the res...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »