Mumbai Court November 2016 Judgments
Lt. Col. Jitendra Ramchandra Manerikar and Others Vs. Union of India t ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-2016
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. By these Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioners before us have challenged a shift in the policy and which would deprive them of their residential accommodation presently in their possession. The essential argument is that such of the candidates and Army Officers like the Petitioners serving the Armed Forces and posted at a particular station were desirous of obtaining study leave. They wanted to go for higher studies while in service so as to better their career prospects and earn if possible some promotions in future. 2. With that in mind the writ Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9134 of 2015 serving as a Lieutenant Colonel applied for study leave. 3. The Petitioner's case is that the present accommodation and as described in the Writ Petition has been in his possession since 28th September, 2013. The Petitioner's mother is suffering from multiple ailments. She also suffered a hip joint fracture and is bedridd...
Tag this Judgment!Hitendra Ramesh Deshmukh and Others Vs. The Returning Officer and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-17-2016
1. The petition is filed to challenge the order made by the Returning Officer for the election of Municipal Council, Chopda, District Jalgaon. Both sides are heard. 2. The petitioner had prayed for giving common symbol to the candidates of their registered political party and they had requested for giving Road Roller as symbol to all candidates of the registered political party. They have registered their political party under the name as Shahar Vikas Aghadi, Chopda and it was registered in the year 2007. The Returning Officer has rejected the application by holding that Annexures I and II which were required to be supplied before 04.00 p.m. of 29th October, 2016 i.e. the time given for filing the nomination form were not supplied and so common symbol cannot be given to the petitioners. 3. Learned Counsel of both sides took this Court through various provisions of Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Election Rules, 1966 and Maharashtra Election Sym...
Tag this Judgment!Narendra Vs. Bank of Baroda, through its Deputy Generala Manager, (Mah ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-16-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Deshpande, J.) 1. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 14.01.2004 passed by the disciplinary authority imposing penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner together with the order passed by the appellate authority dated 17.03.2005 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected. 2. The facts giving rise to the present petition in nutshell are as under: FACTS: The petitioner initially was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier on 24.01.1975 with the Bank of Baroda. He was promoted as Officer in the year 1987. He was further promoted in the pay scale of MM-II in the year 1995. In the year 1998, the petitioner was transferred to Old Cotton Market, Akola branch of Bank of Baroda. The misconduct, which the petitioner committed, relates to this branch when he was discharging his duties in the managerial capacity with said branch. The petitioner was suspended from service on 11.07.2001. On 15.04.2002, the respondent no...
Tag this Judgment!Devidas and Others Vs. Gangubai, (deceased), through his legal heirs : ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-16-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 25-2-2014 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in Revision No.175/TENB/2000, rejecting the application for condonation of delay of 2 years and 8 months caused in filing an application for bringing the names of legal representatives of the original non-applicant Smt. Gangubai Shridhar Kulkarni on record. The order also rejects the application for condonation of delay of 98 days caused in filing an application for bringing the name of the legal representative Umakant, one of the legal representatives of Smt. Gangubai. 3. The petitioners have preferred Revision No.175/TENB/2000 under Section 111 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958 against the order dated 16-10-1999 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Akot, in Appeal No.TNC107/Kapsi/10/1998-99 pertaining to field Survey No.21/2...
Tag this Judgment!Parmanand Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income-Ta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
S.C. Gupte, J. 1. This reference and connected writ petition raise an important question of law concerning the scope of an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( Tribunal ) and the Tribunal s powers to pass orders thereon. The reference and the petition relate to Assessment Years 1987-88 and 1989 89. 2. The assessee, who is the applicant and petitioner before us, was engaged in the business of construction and sale of buildings. During the period from 1980 81 to 1987 88, the assessee entered into various agreements for sale of flats in its project for an aggregate consideration of Rs.3,77,34,000/-. During a search of the premises of the assessee on 11 May 1987, the revenue noticed that on money was charged by the assessee from its purchasers over and above the consideration disclosed in the agreements for sale. This was on the basis of statements of various employees of the assessee recorded during the course of the search. Though these statements were subsequently retracted...
Tag this Judgment!The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hussain Babulal Shaikh and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
1. The Petitioner New India Assurance Company Limited has filed this petition challenging the order dated 21 November 2014 passed by the learned member of the Maharashtra Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai (for short the Tribunal ) whereby an application of Respondent No.1 for issuance of warrant of attachment against the Petitioner in execution of an award, for not depositing part of the award amount, on the ground that the same has been deducted as tax deducted at source (TDS), stands allowed. 2. Respondent No.1 is the original claimant who sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 17 October 2005. The Respondent No.1 had filed Claim Application No.1178 of 2006, claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- from Respondent No.2 and the Petitioner-Insurer. The learned member of the Tribunal by his judgment and order dated 30 July 2012 awarded compensation of Rs.3,43,000/- inclusive of no fault liability amount together with the simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum fr...
Tag this Judgment!Dipak son of Chandrasing Kolhekar, Convict No. C-4630 Vs. The State of ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
S.B. Shukre, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order delivered on 26.11.2014 in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2012 by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Achalpur, thereby convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under: This is a case wherein a 2-Year old marriage between the appellant and the deceased Ratna met with an abrupt and unfortunate end due to indiscretion shown by the appellant, which proved to be fatal for his wife. The couple was residing at village Diya, Tahsil Dharni, District Amravati together with their 9-month old son. The appellant, it is alleged, had the habit of consuming liquor and returning home intoxicated. It is further alleged that in the state of intoxication, the appellant used to suspect the fidelity of his wife, deceased Ratna, and sometimes, even beat her. Evening of 29.4.2011, however, was different for the couple, in the...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and Others ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-2016
1. This Arbitration Petition challenges an award passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Konkan Division, Thane under Section 18(3) of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ( Small Enterprises Act ). By consent, the petition is admitted and taken up for final hearing forthwith. 2. The short facts of the case may be stated as follows: 2.1 The Petitioners are successors of erstwhile Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) and are distributors of electricity in their area of operation in Maharashtra. The Respondent is a small scale enterprise duly registered with the District Industries Centre, Thane and is governed by the Small Enterprises Act. 2.2 The Petitioners had floated a tender for distribution of transformers. Pursuant to it, the Respondent submitted its offer. The offer was accepted by the Petitioners and a letter of award was issued to the Respondent. Pursuant to the letter of award, the Petitioners placed ten purchase orders on th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›