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.
Design Dialogues(India) Pvt Ltd. Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2015
Oral Judgment: (S. C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 30th December, 2014 which has been issued by Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. The further relief that is sought is to direct Respondent No.1 to evaluate the tender the details of which are setout in prayer clause(b) dated 13th February, 2015 on merits and not reject the same only on the ground of any earlier adverse order against the Petitioner. 3. The Writ Petition was placed before a Division Bench of this Court on 16th June, 2015 and after hearing both sides, this Court directed that no interim relief can be granted but Petition would have to be placed for admission and disposal. 4. Accordingly, it was listed before us and with the consent of both sides, we have heard the Petition finally. Hence, Rule. The Respondents waive service. 5. The first Respondent to this Petition is Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited which is a Government Company and registered ...
Narendra Mohan Singh @ Sanjay Singh, Sole Proprietor of M/s. Sanjay Si ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2015
G.S. Patel, J. 1. This is an application for an injunction against the release on Friday, 21st August 2015 of a film Manjhi “ The Mountain Man? directed by the 1st Defendant, Ketan Mehta. The Plaintiffs™ claim infringement of a copyright in the 2nd Plaintiff™s script and a breach of confidence. They say they shared an early basic? screenplay of the film with the 3rd Defendant, Mahendra Jakhar, who is today credited with having written the script on which the film is based. At this stage I am required to consider whether there is a prima facie case made out on these grounds as between the film and the Plaintiffs™ script, not between the two rival scripts of the Plaintiffs and the 3rd Defendant. 2. The Suit was filed on 1st August 2015. An application for ad-interim relief was moved on 6th August 2015. Mr. Justice Kathawalla, to whom the matter was then assigned, directed the filing of Affidavits in Reply and Rejoinder and posted the matter for hearing and final d...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Nizamuddin Kutubuddin Ansari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The respondent, along with four others, was prosecuted on the allegation of having committed an offence punishable under section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the RPUP Act?) on the basis of a complaint lodged by one B.S.Kardan “ Sub-Inspector in the Railway Protection Force. The other accused pleaded guilty to the charge that was framed after recording evidence and were convicted and sentenced on the basis of their plea of guilty. The present respondent, who was the accused No.2 in the said case, pleaded not guilty, and, as such, was tried by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Railways), Manmad. The Magistrate, after holding a trial, found him guilty and sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. 2. The respondent appealed to the Court of Sessions from the Judgment and order of his convic...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Chowgule and Company Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-20-2015
Oral Judgment: (Mohit S. Shah, C.J.) 1. Both the above Tax Appeal No.6 of 2008 and Tax Appeal No.7 of 2008 under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenge the orders dated 12/07/2007 and 19/07/2007, respectively of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench. The relevant Assessment Year is 2002-03 in Tax Appeal No.6/2008 and 2003-2004 in Tax Appeal no.7/2008. 2. In view of the order which will be passed today, it is not necessary to set out all the facts in detail. By order dated 27/02/2008, both the appeals were admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (A) Whether the assessee is entitled to claim benefit of 10 years exemption by amendment to sub-section (3) of section 10B by Finance Act, 2001, with effect from 1/4/1994 or benefit of 8 years exemption under amendment by the Finance Act, 1988, with effect from 1/4/1989, particularly, when assessee commenced manufacturing/production from the year 1993? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of th...
Dilip Ram Phal Dessai Vs. Yesso Vaman Pagi and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-20-2015
1. The present appeal is preferred by the original party no.10 against the judgment and award dated 11.12.2009 passed by the District Judge (3), South Goa, Margao, in Land Acquisition Case No.58/2006. 2. Parties are referred to as per their original status. 3. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- The description of the suit: Plot bearing survey No.90/1 to the extent of an area 1030square metres situated at Village Poinguinim of Canacona Taluka (hereinafter referred to as Suit property? for short). 4. By notification dated 10.1.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, (the Act? for short) the suit land was intended to be acquired for the construction of road from Velwado to Dharwatem. By the aforesaid notification, the Government was intending to acquire an area of 1030 square metres and after conclusion of the Land Acquisition Proceeding and after passing of the award, the party nos. 8,10 and 12 have claimed compensation determined for the acquired area. 5...
Suresh Narayan Rege Vs. The Saraswat Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-2015
S.B. Shukre, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 12.3.2012 passed in Revision Application No.434/2006 by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies Mumbai Division, Mumbai thereby refusing to set aside the sale of the property mortgaged by the petitioner to respondent no.1-Bank as a security for repayment of the loan amount borrowed by the petitioner's concern M/s. Mohan Printery, Mumbai. 2. The petitioner had obtained a loan of approximately Rs.22,00,000/- from respondent no.1 and as a security for repayment of the loan amount, the petitioner had mortgaged in favour of respondent no.1 his immovable property, situated at Unit No.105, 106 and 107 in Udyog Mandir No.1, Bhagoji Keer Marg, Mahim, Mumbai. The petitioner defaulted in making repayment of the loan amount and, therefore, dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent no.1 regarding recovery of loan amount. The dispute went before a Cooperative Court, Mumbai an...
The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Public Health Departme ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-2015
Oral Judgment:(Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. A statement is made that all these Petitions can be disposed of by a common order as the issues so raised are common so do the fact. We, are, therefore, inclined to dispose of the Petitions by this common Judgment. 3. The Respondents were initially appointed as Medical Officer, Group-A in the Director of Health Services purely on adhoc basis. By a Notification dated 2 February 2009 issued by the Public Health Department, Government of Maharashtra for one time absorption of all the Respondents. The Respondents have executed the respective undertakings thereby undertook to accept the terms and conditions of Notification dated 2 February 2009. In pursuance of the undertakings, Respondents have been absorbed in service permanently on the post of Medical Officer. All the Respondents filed their respective individual Original Application in Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), Mumb...
Rahul and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-19-2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The appellants question the judgment dated 10.07.2012 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge-5, Nagpur, in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 2011, convicting them of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine amount, they have to undergo further R.I. for three months. For the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., they are sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of fine they have to undergo further R.I. for two months. 2. The Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are convicted under Section 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine, they have to further undergo R.I. for two months. These accused are also convicted under Section 341 read with Section 34 of I...
United India Insurance Company Limited, Through its Divisional Manager ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-19-2015
1. This First Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dt.13.3.2003 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 647 of 1997 whereby the Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was partly allowed with proportionate costs. The learned Member, M.A.C.T. held the truck owner and truck insurer and the jeep owner and jeep insurer jointly and severally responsible to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 7.7.1997 till realization of payment. The said Judgment and Order is under challenge in this appeal by the appellant/Insurance Company. 2. It is the case of the appellant that there was a motor vehicle accident on 22-3-1997 at 5.00 p.m. at village Dongargaon, near Orange processing factory, within the limits of Katol Police Station when jeep bearing registration No.MH-31-H-1825 owned by Vikas Fuke and insured by the United India Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as &...
Satish Mahadeorao Uke Vs. Devendra Gangadhar Fadnavis and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-19-2015
1. This election petition is filed challenging the election of the respondent No.1 on the grounds under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, the said Act?) for improper acceptance of his nomination paper by the Returning Officer. The substance of the averments made in the election petition is that the respondent No.1 has failed to disclose in his affidavit in Form No.26 submitted along-with his nomination paper delivered under Section 33(1) of the said Act, the information, as required under Section 33-A(1)(i) and (2) of the said Act, in respect of certain offences in which he is accused in a case pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The nomination of the respondent No.1 was required to be rejected under Section 36(2)(b) of the said Act and the result of the election of the respondent No.1 has materially affected by such improper acceptance of his nomination, as contemplated under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the sai...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »