Mumbai Court September 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 Hariom Sarees Depot Vs. The Commissioner Ulhasnagar Municipal Corp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
1. Rule. 2. Returnable forthwith. By consent the petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 3. The present petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 15th July 2013 passed by respondent no. 1 confirming an order dated 6th June 2013 passed by respondent no. 2 pursuant to which respondent no. 2 issued a demand notice seeking payment of Rs. 41,90,774/- towards Local Body Tax payable to the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation. The petitioner had challenged the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, as well as the demand notice dated 6th June 2013 by filing appeal No. 1/2013 under Section 106 (6) (ii) of the MMC Act, 1949. At hearing of the appeal the petitioner made a grievance of the fact that under Section 33 (7) when a notice is issued in form H? it would necessarily be issued after an assessment order is made. 4. The impugned order holds that the appeal is filed on technical grounds. According to the respondent no. 1 a n...
Kharatilal Haveliram Kalra (since deceased) by his legal heirs and rep ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
S.B. Shukre, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 25th September 1998 passed in First Appeal No.563/1982 thereby allowing the appeal and partly decreeing the suit of the appellants by declaring that they are entitled to refund of Rs.25,001/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization of the amount from the respondent. 2. The appellants are the original plaintiffs and the respondent is the original defendant No.1. A suit was filed by the appellants claiming decree of specific performance of oral agreement of lease and also decree of possession of suit premises. The suit premises is a shop in the building constructed on the land bearing CTS No.1049 situated at Pune. It was the case of the appellants that an oral agreement was entered into between them and the respondent whereby appellants were to pay to the respondent an advance of Rs.51,300/- by way of construction loan and it was agreed that in...
Rajesh Babu (Gaju) Choutale Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, Acting C.J.) 1. The appellant original accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 8th April 2009 passed by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No.349 of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default R.I. for one month. 2. The prosecution case can briefly be stated as under: Deceased in the present case is Bhagwati. Bhagwati was residing at Gandhinagar, Thane with her children including PW-2 Vinod, her brother-in-law PW-3 Giriraj and his family. The appellant was the son of sister of Bhagwati. The appellant was residing at some distance from the house of Bhagwati. The relations between Bhagwati and the appellant were strained on account of previous dispute between them. The incident occurred in the night between 22.5.2006 and 23.5.2006. Bhagwati wa...
Raju Babu Patel Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, Acting C.J.) 1. The appellant original accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 21st February 2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No.108 of 1997. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. 2. The prosecution case can briefly be stated as under: Deceased in the present case is Babu Patel. Babu Patel had four sons i.e. PW-1 Salim, PW-4 Mohammad, Bashu and the appellant. The appellant was residing alongwith his father Babu Patel (deceased) in the field. PW-1 Salim was residing in the village alongwith his brother PW-4 Mohammad and Bashu and his mother. On 5.5.1997 in the evening deceased Babu Patel came to the house in the village and took food to give to the appellant in the field. On 6.5.1997, at about 7.00 a.m. PW-1 Salim went to the field. He saw...
Shaikh Ali Ahmed and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through the ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition takes an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 30.08.2013 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad in Original Application No.376/2008. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, he was appointed as Electrician on daily wages since August, 1985. However, the respondent Department designated the petitioner as Pump Operator, and paid daily wages admissible to the post of Pump Operator. On raising the grievance for non-payment of daily wages of the post of Electrician, the Superintending Engineer, by letter dated 20.11.1991, approved the proposal for grant of daily wages of the post of Electrician to the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondent No.5 sanctioned the same with effect from 1st June, 1991. The respondent authorities, subsequently, stopped daily wages of the post of Electrician. Therefore, the petitioner approached to the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal at Mumbai by filing Original Application No.1251/1992, se...
Deepak son of Shankarrao Borkar Vs. State of Maharshtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The Appellant is convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, on 10th May, 2013, in Special Case No. 7 of 2012, by which he has convicted him of offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (f) of Indian Penal Code, and is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. He is also convicted of the offence punishable under Section 452, Indian Penal Code, and on that count, he is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in lieu thereof, Simple Imprisonment for three months. The learned Judge ordered that the sentences shall run concurrently. The facts, which are necessary for the decision of this appeal, are enumerated herein below:- 2. Sau. Sunanda [PW 4] is the mother of the prosecutrix. On the day of the incident, namely 15th October, 2011, her husband left the house for a labour work of harvesting Soyabean o...
Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. The above mentioned three Criminal Applications i.e. Criminal Application Nos.6173/2013, 6175/2013 and 6176/2013 are filed, praying therein for quashing FIR No.27/2013, FIR No.06/2013 and FIR No. 13/2013, registered on 7th April, 2013, with the Dhule City Police Station, Dhule and Devpur Police Station, Dhule, by the Respondent No.2 under Section 52 and 53 of the Maharashtra Region and Town Planning Act, 1966, respectively. In brief the facts disclosed in the Memo of Application, leading for filing the said Criminal Applications, are as under: 3. It is the case of the Applicant that, the Government of India, pursuant to the new Telecom Policy, decided to allow Private Operators to provide basic and cellular telecommunication and paging services in India, which would put the country in the global telecommunication map. On 13th August, 2000, the Government of India opened the in...
State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Finance Department and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. SUBMISSIONS: 2. The State of Maharashtra has preferred the instant writ petition against the judgment and order dated 20.11.2013 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) in Original Application No.755/2012 by which the MAT stayed the departmental enquiry vide chargesheet dated 28.06.2012 till Criminal Case No.13/2012 is decided. 3. In support of the writ petition, Mr. Ukey, learned A.G.P. assailing the impugned order, vehemently submitted that there is a clear cut error of law committed by the MAT by relying on the decision in Capt. M.Paul Anthony. vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd; AIR 1999 SC 1416, which decision was, at later point of time, explained by the Apex Court in several subsequent decisions. He submitted that there is no straight jacket formula or rule anywhere that if a criminal case is filed and it is pending, the departmental enquiry should necessarily be stayed by the ...
Bapu and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No.596/2011 is filed by the original accused and Criminal Appeal No.437/2014 is filed by the original complainant, praying for enhancement of the sentence. Since both these Criminal Appeals are arising out of the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-3, Beed in Sessions Case No.40/2011, both these Criminal Appeals are being heard together. Facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are as under: 2. One Uttam Rambhau Ovhal [hereinafter referred as ˜the complainant™] lodged the complaint with City Police Station, Beed, stating therein that, he is the resident of Barshi Naka, Beed. In his house, there are his parents, one brother namely Gautam and three sisters and all of them reside together. He is employed in daily ˜Dainik Marathwada Sathi™, since last 7 years prior to the date of incident, he is working as a Recovery Agent. The complainant is doing the work of collecting money for the aforesa...
Annarao Vs. Dnyanoba
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Not on Board. Mentioned. Taken on Board. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 3. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.09.2015 passed by the learned Trial Court below application Exhibit-5 which was filed under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure in RCS No.442/2015. 4. The Petitioner/ Plaintiff is a legal practitioner. The Respondent/ Defendant had engaged the services of the Petitioner in LAR No.1625/2001, in Special Darkhast No.131/2009 as well as in Special Darkhast No.37/2015. 5. The issue is as regards the unpaid professional fees as well as expenses incurred by the Petitioner in conducting the above said three cases on behalf of the Respondent. 6. The Petitioner has preferred Regular Civil Suit No.442/2015 before the Trial Court seeking recovery of the unpaid fees and expenses. An application Exhibit-5 for seeking attachment of the decreetal amount in LAR proceedings to the extent of unpa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »