Mumbai Court August 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.
Karimuddin @ Karimlala Kazi Vs. Deepak and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-26-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The petitioner was elected as the Member of the Municipal Corporation from Prabhag No.21B on 16.04.2012. On 20.04.2012, an Election Petition No.1 of 2012 under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (for short the said Act?) was preferred challenging his election on the ground that, on the date of his election, the petitioner was disqualified under Section 10 of the said Act, because the order of conviction passed by the Sessions Court against him on 25.06.2007 sentencing him to suffer an imprisonment for a period of one year, was operating. This election petition has been allowed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur on 16.01.2015 declaring that the petitioner was disqualified for being a Councilor from Prabhag No.21B of the Municipal Corporation of City Chandrapur and his election is set aside. Hence, thi...
Mahatma Phule Krushi Vidyapeeth Vs. Ahmednagar Zilla Shetmajoor Union
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides in extenso on 29/06/2015 and 11/08/2015. Both the learned Advocates today have placed reliance upon reported judgments. 3. Considering the submissions of the learned Advocates and the record before the Court, the following aspects are undisputed: a. Punja Thorat was a daily wager who died on 26.12.1992. b. Pandharinath Mane was a daily wager who died on 07.09.1996. c. Nanasaheb Punja Thorat is born on 01.06.1968. d. Vitthal Pandharinath Mane is born on 01.06.1974. e. Both these persons were 24 years and 22 years old respectively when their fathers passed away. f. Nanasaheb and Vitthal filed the applications seeking appointment on compassionate basis on 15.07.2004 and 16.07.2004, which is about 12 years and 08 years after the demise of their fathers. g. The Government Resolution dated 26.10.1994 whi...
Maharashtra Medical Education and Research Centre and Others Vs. State ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-2015
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. The Petitioners are minority institutions and have been imparting technical education “ professional courses, after obtaining requisite permissions and approvals since many years. Based upon the orders passed by this Court including the Supreme Court, they have been conducting separate CET/CAP which is required for selecting the meritorious students and transparency in selection process. 2. The Petitioners, therefore, have applied for similar permission for academic year 2015-2016 on respective dates. Those permissions were not granted by the then existing Pravesh Niyantran Samiti (Medical Education) (PNS)-Respondent No.3 by respective orders. Hence these Petitions filed prior to 12 May 2015. 3. The State of Maharashtra (The State) on 12 May 2015 promulgated an Ordinance called Maharashtra Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Fees) Ordinance, 2015? (The Ordinance) for regulation of admissions an...
The State of Maharashtra at the instance of Suresh Vithal Joshi, Food ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-2015
Oral Judgment : 1. This is an Appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 3rd April, 2001 delivered in Regular Criminal Case No. 164 of 2000 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune, thereby acquitting the respondents of the offence punishable under Section 16 read with Sections 7(i), 2(1a)(a), 2(1a)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the PFA Act?, for short). 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are as under: (i) Respondent no.1 is the vendor. Respondent no.2 was the proprietor of a firm Himraj Ice Candy situated at Gat No.1490, Opposite ST stand Shikrapur, Taluka Shirur, District - Pune from where the respondents were carrying on the business of selling the Ice-cream. With a view to obtain sample of the Ice-cream for ascertaining whether the Ice-cream being sold conformed to the standards of Ice-cream set out in the PFA Act, the complainant - Food Inspector along with one more Food Inspector and panch witness visited the said shop of t...
Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Pune Vs. Bramha Bazar Hotels Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-2015
1. This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 28th September, 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. Although multiple questions have been raised on behalf of the Revenue, Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue urges only the following question for our consideration:” "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal did not err in holding the Commissioner's order u/s. 263 as bad-in-law without appreciating that the Assessing Officer had allowed the assessee's claim of deduction on account of premium paid on buy-back of shares by merely assuming the facts, without applying his mind and without making enquiries which prudence warranted and, therefore, the Commissioner was justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263?" 3. During the Assessment Year 2006-07, Respondent-Assessee had debited a sum of Rs.3.45 Crores to...
Suhasini S. Govekar and Others Vs. The Goa State Election Commissioner ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-26-2015
Oral Order: 1. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 12.02.2015, passed by the Goa State Election Commission, thereby dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners, seeking disqualification of the respondent no.1 under Section 10 read with Section 11 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act, for short). 2. The brief facts are that the respondent no. 2 is elected as a Member from Ward No. 10 of Village Panchayat, Anjuna-Caisua on 16.05.2012. The petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the voters, as also the elected Members of Village Panchayat of Anjuna-Caisua. The petitioner no. 4 is said to be a public spirited individual and is a Government servant and he has taken up causes of vital importance to the public. The petitioners acquired the knowledge that the respondent no. 2 has got his birth registered at the Central Registry of Birth, Marriages and Deaths at Lisbon, under the Birth Registration No. 28-E-5/2006 on 05.05.2006. As such, according t...
Munnabai Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Women an ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-26-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The undisputed factors considering the submissions of the learned Advocates and the record available are as under: a. Respondent No.3 initiated the selection process for appointment of Anganwadi Sevika?. b. The interviews were held on 17/06/2011. c. The petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi Sevika? on 24/06/2011 being first in the order of merit. d. The petitioner joined as an Anganwadi Sevika? on 28/06/2011. e. Respondent No.5, who had also competed with the petitioner, challenged the selection and appointment of the petitioner in the light of the circular dated 25/05/2011 and raised a dispute as regards allotment of marks to the petitioner. f. The petitioner was allotted 9.50 marks in the interviews with 2 members of the Interviewing panel having allocated 10 marks each in her favour. g. Respondent No.5 scored 3.25 marks in the light of 2 members of the Interviewing Panel hav...
Cidalia Rosa Paulina De Lourdes Almeida Bodade and Others Vs. Jose Ant ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-26-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. Shri Mulgaonkar, the learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent nos.1(a),(b),(c),(d),(e), (f),(g),(h) and respondent no.2. Heard finally, by consent. 2. By this appeal, the appellants are challenging the order dated 19/04/2014 passed by the learned Adhoc Civil Judge, Senior Division at Margao in Port Civil Miscellaneous Application No.14/2013/II in Inventory Proceeding No.96/1986/A. By the said order, the application under Article 1425 of the Portuguese Civil Code (Portuguese Code, for short) filed by the appellants, who are interested persons, for correction of an error, is dismissed. 3. The brief facts are that Inventory Proceedings being Inventory Case No.96/1986 were initiated on the file of the Special(Comarca) Judge at South Goa at Margao in respect of the properties of estate leavers Shri Aluizio Caetano Jacinto Lourenco Roque Barretto Xavier and his wife Clara Aurelia Quiteria de Piedade Azaredo. These inventory proceedings were c...
Sai Wardha Power Ltd. Vs. M/s. Goyal Dhatu Udyog Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-26-2015
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioners/original defendants have filed this petition challenging the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application (Exh.16) filed by the petitioners praying that the parties be referred to arbitration. 4. The respondent has filed civil suit against the petitioners praying for the decree for Rs.36,24,598/- along with interest. According to the respondent/ plaintiff, the petitioners / defendants are liable to pay the amount of Rs.28,53,743/- towards the balance payment for the supply of goods made in February, 2014. The respondent/ plaintiff contends that as per the terms and conditions incorporated in the bills, the plaintiff is entitled to charge interest @ 24% per annum if the payment is not received within 30 days and therefore, the amount which is sought to be recovered from the petitioners, includes interest of Rs.2,60,825/-. In addition, the respondent/plaintiff h...
Romeo Pascol Kinny and Others Vs. Savitri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This Civil Revision Application impugns the judgment and decree dated 10 April 2015 made by the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai (Appeal Court), inter alia, declaring the respondent as the tenant in respect of the suit premises. 2. Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, submitted that under the scheme of Section 7 (15) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 ( Rent Act), which defines the expression 'tenant' only such member of the tenant's family or such legal heir of the tenant, who, where the suit premises were let out for commercial purposes, is using the suit premises for any such purpose at the time of demise of the original tenant, can qualify to be a tenant of the suit premises. Mr.Tripathi submitted that if the legislature has deemed it appropriate to impose a condition upon any member of the tenant's family, that such member uses the suit premises for commercial purposes, at the time of death of the original tenant, in order to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »