Mumbai Court May 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.
Nandan Sadanand Bendarkar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2015
RanjitMore, J. 1. This application is filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under the provisions of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the proceedings of R.C.C. No. 0400842 of 2014 [converted into Sessions Case No. 159 of 2014] pending on the file of Sessions Judge, Pune, which has arisen from C.R.No. 242 of 2013 registered with Kotharud Police Station against the Applicant at the instance of Respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under sections 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The allegations made by the Complainant Respondent No.2 herein, which gave rise to the registration of C.R.No. 242 of 2013 are as under: [A] The Complainant, a divorcee, was intending to get married and therefore registered herself with matrimonial portal www.shadi.com. While browsing the profiles on portal Shadi.com, she found the profile of one Ashwin Bairagi to be suitable. She, therefore, contacted him through e-mail in April 2012. He responded to the ...
Union of India, Through Dy. Chief Engineer (Con)/ Works Vs. M/s. Vinay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2015
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 majority award dated 14th September, 2010 rendered by the arbitral tribunal thereby allowing five claims made by the respondents and rejecting the counter claims made by the petitioner. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. The respondent herein was the original claimant whereas the petitioner herein was the original respondent in the arbitral proceedings. The petitioner had also made counter claims in the arbitral proceedings. 3. Sometime in the year 1996, the petitioner had invited tenders regarding the work of Narkhed-Amravati New BG line Earthwork in embankment, cutting and bridge approaches in Section XXIII from Ch.98000 to Ch.108000 between Chandurbazar and Walgaon Station. The respondent submitted the tender in response to the said notice. The tender of the respondent was ...
Vikas Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-05-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. The matter was looked into by this Court on 12.1.2015 and following order came to be passed: Shri Naresh Kolhe, learned Counsel for petitioner, Shri N. Khubalkar, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1, Shri N.L. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 4 and Shri A.M. Qazi, learned Counsel for respondent no. 6. Only question is If for a vacancy for open category, two candidates have secured equal marks and one of them is belonging to a backward category, how their entitlement to the post can be worked out? Petitioner as also respondent no. 2 Employer are relying upon Government Resolution dated 27.06.2008 for said purpose. We direct the respondent no.1 to file appropriate affidavit explaining the position within a period of four weeks from today. Copy of this order be furnished to learned Counsel for parties to act upon. List the matter for further consideration on 09.02.2015. 2. Accordingly, affidavit has been filed on behalf of respo...
Vimal Haribhau Naik Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its addition ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: May-05-2015
S.B. Shukre, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader and learned Counsel for the respondents. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has sought redressal of her grievance that she has been treated differentially by denying payment of compensation to her for the loss of her orange trees caused by crop raiding wild animals, namely ran-rohe or blue-bulls. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2010, she had planted 125 samplings of orange trees in her agricultural field bearing survey No.424 situated at mouza Mandvai, taluka Kalmeshwar, district Nagpur. The petitioner had nurtured these trees with great care and those trees had shown a healthy growth by April, 2012. According to the petitioner the orange trees would have blossomed about three years thereafter. The petitioner had invested amount of about Rs.40,000/- for planting and nurturing the trees. During the night interv...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Rupam Pictures Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2015
A.K. Menon, J. 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act) for the opinion of this Court:- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the disallowance made u/s.40(c) of the I.T. Act, by the I.T.O. Out of the remuneration of Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- paid to two directors of the company viz. Shri Hrishikesh Mukherjee and Shri N.C. Sippy? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the business of production of films constitutes an industrial undertaking for the purpose of section 80J of the I.T. Act, 1961? 3. The facts pertain to the assessment year 1981-82. The assessee was in the business of production of films. During the relevant year, two directors of the company Mr.Hrishikesh Mukherjee and Mr.N.C.Sippy were paid Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- respectiv...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›