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.
M/s. Alankit Healthcare TPA Ltd. Vs. M/s. Nucleus GIS and ITES Ltd. an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2015
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 17th April, 2012 made by the learned arbitrator allowing certain claims made by the respondents. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the negotiations between the parties, the respondent no.1 had forwarded a draft agreement to the petitioner on 4th September, 2009 after making certain changes, additions, deletions in the draft agreement. According to the said draft agreement sent by the respondents to the petitioner, seat of the arbitration was Delhi. The respondent no.1 made further changes in the draft agreement and sent another draft agreement dated 22nd October, 2009. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that ultimately the said draft agreement exchanged between the parties was signed by the respondent no.1 alone. The dispute arose between the parties. On 8th July, 2010, the respondent no.1 invoked the alleged arbitration agree...
Rajaram Dnyandev Kadam and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2015
P.C. 1. This Application is moved for bail, as the applicant/accused is facing charges under sections 363, 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No.62 of 2015 at Shahuwadi Police Station, District Kolhapur. The offence was registered at the instance of father of the prosecutrix on 1st June, 2015. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that minor daughter of the complainant, whose date of birth is 22nd June, 1999, ran away on 28th May, 2015 and as she did not return, the father lodged complaint of kidnapping against unknown persons. Pursuant to this complaint after investigation, the police registered an offence against one Pradip Rajaram Kadam, who is a principal accused and with whom, as per the case of the prosecution, the victim ran away on 1st June, 2015. During the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer found that applicant No.1, father of principal accused Pradip Kadam and applicant No.2, maternal aunt of Pradip Kadam have conspired and encouraged the relationship...
Commissioner of Income-tax - Central-I Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2015
1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impeaches the order dated 28th December, 2012 passed by the Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Mumbai(the Commission) under Section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The impugned order of the Commission settles the dispute between the Petitioner-Revenue and Respondent No. 2 - Assessee for the Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2009-10. 2. Before we consider the grievance of the Petitioner to the impugned order of the Commission, it would be useful to reiterate the scope of judicial review in respect of final orders passed by the Commission under Section 245D(4) of the Act. In fact, the scope and extent of the judicial review from orders of the Commission stands settled by the decision of the Apex Court in Jyotendrasinhji v. S. I. Tripathi [1993] 201 ITR 611/68 Taxman 59 - wherein the scope of judicial review from the orders undern Section 245D(4) of the Act has been set out as under: '** ** ** The sole ove...
Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil College of Engineering Vs. All India Council f ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2015
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The Petitioners is a college, run by public charitable trust and imparting technical education on the basis of approval granted by Respondent No.1. 3. By this Petition, the Petitioners have challenged the decision dated 30 April 2015 of Respondent No.1 to put the Petitioner-College into no admission category i.e. (zero?) intake capacity for the academic year 2014-15 and/or related action arising out of the same and further prayed for the related prayers including directions to Respondent No.1 to issue revised EOA with full intake capacity for 2014-15 and/or 2015-16. 4. Petition was filed on 5 May 2015. This Court (Coram: Anoop V. Mohta and K.R. Shriram, JJ.), on 8 May 2015 has granted ad-interim relief and permitted the Petitioners to participate in CAP admission for the current academic year 2015-16. 5. Heard finally along with other group of connected matters. We have recorded basic...
Shaikh Vazir Ahmad Mulla, Since deceased through his proposed legal he ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2015
1. In Tenancy Application No. 1158 of 1957, reregistered as Tenancy Proceeding No. 28 of 1968, instituted by the appellant-landlords, the Tahsildar, Niphad, passed an order of eviction and possession on 29th August, 1969 in exercise of his powers conferred by Section 29 read with Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act?), in respect of half share from the eastern side of Survey No. 87 of Chandori, against one Kalu Raoji Sangamnere, the original tenant and the father of the original respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the uncle of the original respondent Nos. 4 to 9 in this appeal. The aforesaid order was the subject matter of challenge by six tenants including the original respondent No.1 Bansi Kalu Sangamnere, a son of original tenant Kalu, who died during the pendency of proceedings on 1st January, 1958, by filing Tenancy Appeal No. 240 of 1969, under Section 74 of the said Act, before the Special Deputy Collector, the Appella...
Pandurang and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through it's Secreta ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-14-2015
V.K. Jadhav, J. 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. The brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, are as under:- 2. On 7.3.2012, the respondent District Collector, Beed issued an advertisement for filling up 46 clerical posts, 59 posts of Talathi and 12 posts of Peon. In the said advertisement, it was specifically stated that selection list would be prepared on the basis of written examination of 200 marks, to be conducted by the selection committee. From 1.4.2012 to 8.4.2012, the admit cards/hall tickets were issued to the respective candidates, including the petitioners by the Selection Committee. The question papers of written examination were framed by the Selection Committee under the chairmanship of the District Collector. On 8.4.2012, the written examination was conducted by the Selection Committee. In due course, to cross-check the correctness of result sheet, an answer key was also published by the Selection Committee and after consideri...
Ramdeo and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-14-2015
N.W. Sambre, J. 1. Since all these appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 27th July, 2011, rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, in Sessions Case No.36 of 2008, they are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. So far as Criminal Appeal No.437 of 2011 is concerned, the same is preferred by appellant/original accused no.1 Ramdeo, who is convicted vide section 235 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. 3. Criminal Appeal No.85 of 2012 is preferred by the State of Maharashtra, questioning the acquittal of accused no.1 Ramdeo for an offence punishable under sections 498-A read with sec. 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code; acquittal of accused nos.2 and 4 Saraswati and Indira, respectively, for an offence punishable under sections 302, 498-...
Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. Ravindra Balakrishna Deshpande
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-14-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The learned Advocates for the respective sides have stated that they have no objection if this Court hears this matter. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 3. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 12.02.2014 delivered by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.100/2008 filed by the Respondent herein. By the impugned judgment, the complaint was allowed and the punishment imposed upon the Respondent was held to be in breach of the Service Rules and without holding a domestic enquiry. Consequential reliefs were, therefore, granted by the Industrial Court. 4. While hearing this petition, both the learned Advocates for the respective sides have strenuously canvassed a host of factors. However, in the light of the order that I propose to pass, I am not required to deal with their entire submissions, lest this order may result into certain observations which are likely to obstruct the re...
Meghraj Vilas Wahale Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2015
P.C. 1. The application is moved for bail as the applicant/accused is facing prosecution under sections 302, 341, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 41 and 27 of the Arms Act. The FIR was registered at the instance of one Gorak Chavan at C.R. No.72 of 2013 with the Paud police station, Dist. Pune. It is the case of the complainant that his brother Pappu was facing prosecution for the murder of one Sanjay @ Pantya marana. After 8 to 9 months, he was released on bail. However, he used to tell his brother that the friends or associates were after him and they wanted to take revenge and so he was scared in going anywhere alone. On 16.4.2013, the entire family of the complainant and their families friends went to a temple in the morning and while returning at 5.45pm, the Bolero jeep in which Pappu was sitting alongwith his family members was surrounded by the applicant/accused and the co-accused. Pappu was pulled out and 9 to 10 persons circled around him. T...
Vasantdada Patil Pratishthan Vs. All India Council for Technical Educa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2015
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. The Petitioner a Public Trust, registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, established in the year 1981, is running Engineering College in the name of Padmabhushan Vasantdada Patil Pratishthan™s College of Engineering?. 2. In the year 1983-84, the Government of Maharashtra allotted plot of land to the Petitioner admeasuring 12930 sq. mtr. (3.20 Acres) at Sion, Chunabhatti, Mumbai 400 022 and Plot of Land admeasuring 16810 sq. mtr. (4.2 Acres) for playground. The total plot area of land is 7.4 acres. In the year 1986, the Petitioner submitted the plan for construction of building on the said plot of land and the BMC approved the same. In the year 1991, the Petitioner constructed the Building and started Engineering College, with due approval of Ministry of Human Resources, in the name of Padmabhushan Vasantdada Patil Pratishthan™s College of Engineering?. During the year 1994 to 2013, Respondent No. 1 granted approval to the Pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »