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.
Tulshidas Vs. The Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. This Petition takes an exception to the communication dated 26th August, 2013 [Annexure-F2]. The petitioner has further sought direction to the respondent No.1 to re-assign higher placement to the petitioner at serial No.15 vis-a-vis the respondent No.2 who shall be placed below at serial No.16 by carrying out necessary corrections to the final seniority list of the cadre of Associate Professors in Farm Power and Machinery as on 01.01.2013 published vide communication dated 26.08.2013. After steps are taken to correct the seniority list, all the consequential benefits to which the petitioner would become entitled be paid to him. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the impugned action of the respondent No.1 of assigning higher placement to the respondent No.2 vis-a-vis the petitioner in the final seniority list published on 26th August, 2...
Mandubai Vitthoba Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner “ original accused against the FIR No.21/2015 registered against her at Police Station Shiradhon, Tq. Kallamb Distt. Osmanabad under Section 39 of the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014. 2. The co-operative officer GradeI Kallamb “ respondent no.3, original complainant, has filed the offence alleging that the petitioner committed offence under the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Ordinance, 2014. As per the FIR, the petitioner purported to purchase the suit land No.196 by way of registered sale-deed but actually it was money lending transaction of the year 1982. Writ Petition however claims that petitioner had actually purchased the land from Pandurang for consideration in 1982. The FIR has been registered after 33 years. There is civil litigation pending between Pandurang and the petitioner. The petitioner is 85 years old lady and is being harassed by the filing of the FIR. She cla...
The Kopargaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. The Kolhapur Sugar Mil ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-22-2015
1. Both the appeals are admitted. By consent, notice after admission made returnable forthwith and both the sides are heard for final disposal. 2. The appeals are filed against the orders made by the District Court under the provision of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code in the suits filed by the present appellant in respect of its rights under the Copyright Act 1957 and under the Trade Marks Act 1999. Respondents, defendants of both the proceedings had filed applications for rejection of the plaint and these applications are allowed. 3. The plaintiff is a cooperative sugar factory and it is in the business of distillery, manufacture and supply of country liquor etc. It is the case of the plaintiff that since the year 1979 it is manufacturing country liquor in the brand name "Bhingari Santra". It is the case of the plaintiff that it owns this trade mark. It is the case of the plaintiff that in the year 1986 it got prepared a deign for the label for aforesaid brand from one co...
Suresh Shankar Dethe Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-2015
1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order delivered by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune, convicting the appellant of an offence punishable under section 376 of the IPC and 506 of the IPC. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has imposed a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for 7(seven) years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- with respect to the offence punishable under section 376 of the IPC and a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for 6(six) months with respect to the offence punishable under section 506 II of the IPC upon the appellant. Being aggrieved by his conviction and the sentences imposed upon him, the appellant has approached this Court by filing the present Appeal, praying that the impugned judgment of conviction be set aside and that he be acquitted. 2. I have heard Mrs.Prabha Badadare, learned counsel for the appellant. I have heard Mr.Deepak Thakre, APP for the State. I have been taken through the entire evidence adduced during the trial. I have carefully gone through the ...
Commissioner of Income Tax -2 Vs. IHP Finvest Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-2015
1. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Revenue assails the order dated 2 January 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Revenue has urged the following questions of law for our consideration:” "(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the gains from the purchase and sale of shares and mutual funds are to be treated as Long Term Capital gains, ignoring that the volume and frequency of transactions and the assessee's conduct in the past indicates that the assessee is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of shares ? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act 1961 r.w.r 8D of the Income Tax Rules 1962 by relying o...
Dilip Narayan Chaudhari and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Water ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-21-2015
R.M. Borde, J. 1. Heard Mr. Girish V. Wani, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners, Mrs.M.A.Deshpande, learned A.G.P. for Respondents No.1, 2 and 4; Mr.S.D.Dhongade, learned Counsel for Respondent No.4 and Shri P.M.Shah, learned Senior Counsel was requested to assist the Court in disposal of the petitions. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 3. Petitioners are the agriculturists whose lands are sought to be acquired for construction of a branch canal for Waghur Irrigation Project. Petitioners are objecting to the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 21.02.2012 as well as notice of possession issued on 16.06.2014. 4. It has been brought on record that award has been passed in the matter, determining amount of compensation, on 17.07.2013. It is the contention of petitioners that possession of the subject lands has not been taken over by the acquiring body. Petitioners contend that...
Bhausaheb Pandurang Waghaskar and Others Vs. Gangubai BA; Krishna Laha ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-21-2015
1. The appeal is filed to challenge the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No.276 of 2000 which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Shrigonda and also to challenge the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.57 of 2005 which was pending before the Principal District Judge, Ahmednagar. 2. The suit filed by present Respondent Nos.1 and 2 for relief of partition and separate possession was partly decreed in their favour by the trial Court. The relief of partition in respect of moveable property was not given. This decision was challenged by filing the aforesaid appeal by original defendant. In the appeal cross objections were filed by the original plaintiffs. The first Appellate Court has modified the decree given by the trial Court and instead of giving 1/10th share in the immovable properties, the first Appellate Court has made the share of the two plaintiffs as 1/5th. However, the cross objections are dismissed. Only original defendants have come in ...
Akkadian Housing and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Pantheon ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-2015
1. Company Appeal No.19 of 2009 impugns an order passed by the Company Law Board, Principal Bench (CLB?), in the Appellants™ petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act?). The facts of the Appellants™ case may be briefly stated thus: 2. Appellant No.1 “ Akkadian Housing and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Akkadian?) “ is a private company limited by shares incorporated under the Act and owned/controlled by Appellant No.2 “ Alnoor H. Jamal (Jamal?) “ who is a foreign national of Indian origin based in Kenya. Jamal is a businessman of Canadian nationality and claims to be holding varied business interests globally. Akkadian is the registered holder of 14,023 fully paid up equity shares of the first Respondent Company (Company?), which comprise of 28.33% of the issued equity capital of the Company, in respect of whose affairs allegations of oppression and mismanagement are made in the original petition and which form the subject matter...
Maheshkumar Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Genera ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-21-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard with the consent of the parties. 3. This Petition takes an exception to the letter dated 3rd January, 2015, written by the Respondent No.3 i.e. the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar, to the Dean, Medical Board, Sasoon Hospital, Pune. It appears that, the letter dated 24.11.2014 was addressed to the petitioner, giving reference of the letter written by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar, to the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Rahata. By letter dated 10th November, 2014, it was communicated by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar to all the Head of the Departments of Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar and Block Development Officers of Panchayat Samities, to send names of all those employees, who are appointed from the handicapped / hearing impaired and low vision categories, so as to refer them for medical re-examination. The petitioner was asked to ...
Sunil and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-21-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants-original accused, who are convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 498A r/w 34, 302 r/w 34 of I.P. Code. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case, are as under :- (i) Marriage of Kanopatra (now deceased) was performed with accused no.1 on 11th May, 2006. The father of deceased Kanopatra was residing at village Takali Kumbhakarna, Tq. Parbhani. He was serving in Irrigation Department at Parbhani. After marriage, she resided with accused persons at village Sirpur, Tq. Palam. At the time of marriage, a dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- was given. Initially, the accused persons treated her properly. Thereafter, accused persons subjected deceased Kanopatra to cruelty for their demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- for digging the well in their field. Accused no.3 Bapurao, the father of accused no.1 was in government employment. Accused no.5 Savita was residing with her husband at Parbhani. Deceased Kanopatra had informed her parents and relativ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »