Mumbai Court April 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.
Magaswargbiya Lokhit Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Others Vs. Kumar Bal ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-13-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 27.09.2013 passed by the School Tribunal, allowing Appeal No.66/2012 filed by the respondent No.1 challenging his termination from service by an order dated 06.06.2012. The respondent No.1 was terminated on the ground that he was appointed against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate and in spite of repeated reminders, he failed to produce the caste validity certificate. The only ground on which the School Tribunal has set aside the termination is that in terms of the Government Resolution dated 07.12.1994 and the decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court, there is no record to show that the respondent No.1 committed fraud or fabricated the caste certificate of Scheduled Tribe category, which will disentitle him from the reliefs claimed. The School Tribunal has set aside the said termination and directed his reinstatement in service. The School Tribunal has further held that if the respondent...
Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil Zilla Sah, Pat Sanstha Ltd. and Others Vs. Bab ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-2015
1. Since the issues and the parties involved in both these matters are common, therefore, this common Judgment. 2. On 13/10/2001, Respondent Nos.1 and 2, the borrowers, had made an Application with the Petitioner Credit Society for sanctioning a loan amount of Rs.12,00,000/-. The Petitioner/Society had sanctioned the same on 13/10/2001. The borrowers had agreed to repay the same alongwith interest @ 17% p.a. within a period of 5years. For the loan amount, Respondent Nos.3 and 4 stood as guarantors. The guarantors had also given security of their agricultural lands situated at Sangvade, Tal. Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur viz.Gat No.H.A.1380.10.21430 671440 831470 47.51480-23 and executed a registered Mortgage Deed dated 9/11/2001 in favour of the Petitioner/Society. The borrowers thereafter, committed defaults in repayment of installments. The Petitioner/Society issued demand notices to the borrowers from time to time. They failed to make payments accordingly. 3. Consequently, the Petition...
Aman Harishkumar Vij Vs. Shantabai Anandrao Patil and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-2015
1. Rule. With the consent of and at the request of the learned Counsels for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. This petition challenges Order dated 28 October 2014 made by the 16th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune, holding that it has pecuniary jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide Regular Civil Suit No.1490 of 2014 instituted by Respondent Nos. 1 to 21 (Original Plaintiffs). 3. The case set out by the Plaintiffs in the suit is that between the years 1972 and 1997, by means of several registered deeds and rectification deeds, the Plaintiffs purchased large property comprising inter alia 18 plots, open spaces, internal roads and common areas from the original vendors Bapu Gaikwad and Shankarrao Cornell. The original vendors however, by registered Sale Deeds dated 10 February 2009 and 19 April 2011, have purported to sell to the Petitioner (original Defendant No. 12), a portion of such large property admeasuring totally about 49 Ares corresponding mainly to th...
M/s Advance Netways Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, N ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Heard 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeals are as under: (a) It is the case of the Revenue that the Appellant-firm (hereinafter referred to as 'Exporters') had made export of certain goods declaring the same as automobile parts such as door bidding, fuel pump fitting, front suspension bush, oil seal etc. and availed export benefit by way of Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Scheme. It is further the case of the Revenue that the Exporters-appellants against the DEPB credit obtained DEPB Script from the Director General of Foreign Trade which were sold in open market. As per the said Scheme, the bearer of DEPB Script is entitled to import the goods without payment of duty. The Customs Authorities started investigation in respect of exports made by Delhi based firms namely M/s S.S. Enterprises, M/s Neel Impex and M/s Agarwal Traders and found that the exported goods were overvalued to get undue DEPB benefit. (b) Since the Revenue foun...
Rajendra Pangam Vs. Paresh B. Naik and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-13-2015
1. This appeal is at the instance of the original complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant/complainant filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Ponda being Criminal Case No. 1259/NIA/2008/B under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act, for short). According to the appellant, the respondent no.1/accused was acquainted to him since last many years. Sometime in June, 2008, the respondent no. 1 had approached the appellant at his residence stating that respondent no. 1 is in financial difficulties and requested for accommodation in the sum of Rs.75,000/-. The respondent no. 1 also promised to repay the same. The appellant accordingly, paid an amount of Rs.75,000/- to the respondent no. 1 in cash. The respondent no. 1 issued two cheques dated 07.07.2008 in the sum of Rs.35,000/- and Rs.40,000/- towards repayment of the amount. The cheques were drawn on the account of the respondent no.1...
Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil Zilla Sah, Pat Sanstha Ltd. and Others Vs. Bab ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-2015
1. Since the issues and the parties involved in both these matters are common, therefore, this common Judgment. 2. On 13/10/2001, Respondent Nos.1 and 2, the borrowers, had made an Application with the Petitioner Credit Society for sanctioning a loan amount of Rs.12,00,000/-. The Petitioner/Society had sanctioned the same on 13/10/2001. The borrowers had agreed to repay the same alongwith interest @ 17% p.a. within a period of 5years. For the loan amount, Respondent Nos.3 and 4 stood as guarantors. The guarantors had also given security of their agricultural lands situated at Sangvade, Tal. Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur viz.Gat No.H.A.1380.10.21430 671440 831470 47.51480-23 and executed a registered Mortgage Deed dated 9/11/2001 in favour of the Petitioner/Society. The borrowers thereafter, committed defaults in repayment of installments. The Petitioner/Society issued demand notices to the borrowers from time to time. They failed to make payments accordingly. 3. Consequently, the Petition...
Mahesh Vishnupant Kothe Vs. Sanjay Channvirappa Hemgaddi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule, with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 02.03.2015 passed by the Respondent No.3 i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, by which order the application for disqualification filed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein being No.NP/1/SR/01/2014 came to be allowed and resultantly, a declaration came to be issued that the Petitioner stands disqualified as a Councilor of the Solapur Municipal Corporation under Section 3(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Act, 1986. The facts giving rise to the filing of the above Petition can be stated thus: 3. The Petitioner was at the relevant time a member of the Indian National Congress and was elected as a Councilor from Ward No.18 in the elections held to the Solapur Municipal Corporation in the year 2012. The Petitioner was thereafter appointed as a house lea...
Arun Toshniwal and Another Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(3)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-2015
A.K. Menon, J. 1. The above two appeals propose the following questions which are termed as substantial questions of law:- I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in holding that the amount received by the Appellant from Thermo was taxable as business income under the provisions of section 28(va) of the Act, despite the fact that the Appellant was not carrying on any business in the relevant previous year? II. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that carrying on of business is not a pre-condition was chargeability under the head 'profits and gains of business' ? III. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT erred in failing to appreciate that the amount received by the Appellant does not fall within S.28(va) and amounts, at best, to a transfer of a right to manufacture or a right to carry a business, taxable under the head capital gains? 2. The issues involved in both appeals are ...
Harikishan Vedprakash Agarwal and Another Vs. Burjor Joshi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2015
1. Counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs, upon instructions, applies for time four weeks time on the ground that the advocate for the plaintiff is bed ridden. The suit is of 1982. It would not be proper to adjourn this Notice of Motion for such length of time when the plaintiffs' own evidence is pending. It would be counterproductive to the rights of the plaintiffs themselves. The plaintiffs are informed that the Court may take up this matter on Monday, 13th April, 2015 so that counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs who appears today may address the court. However, the plaintiffs do not desire to have the matter argued on 13th April, 2015. Hence the Notice of Motion is required to be heard. 2. The plaintiffs have taken out the above Notices of Motion, in the suit which has been filed in 1982, for passing exparte decree and refusing opportunity to the defendant to cross examine the plaintiff's witness. The defendants having been served the writ of summons, have appeared but not filed any wri...
Dr. Geeta Vs. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2015
N.W. Sambre, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent, Rule is heard finally. 2. By way of instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has mainly prayed for the following reliefs:- (B) By issuing a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature, the impugned communication dated 18.10.2014, issued by the respondent No.3 Registrar, cancelling the membership of the petitioner as member of the Academic Council and Management Council of respondent No.1 Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, may be quashed and set aside. (C) It be held and declared that the petitioner, being teacher, having 16 years teaching experience, is member of the Academic Council and Management Council of the respondent No.1 Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad. 3. By the impugned communication dated 18th October, 2014, issued by respondent no.3 University incorporated under section 3 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »