Mumbai Court March 2016 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.
Bhagwan Jaywant Kulal and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2016
P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicants and the learned APP for the Respondent - State. 2. By this Application, the Applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R.No.61 of 2016 registered with the Baramati Police Station, District - Pune (Rural), for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act. 3. The incident in question has taken place on 14.02.2016 at about 5.00 p.m.. It is alleged that all the Applicants abused the Complainant by his caste and stated that he and others, could not use the common road used by all. It is alleged that the Applicants verbally abused and threatened the Complainant. On 25.02.2016, this Court had granted interim protection to the Applicants, as there was nothing in the FIR to show, that the said reference to the caste of the Complainant was heard by any member of the public or that the incident h...
The Dhulia Motors Owners Co-operative Consumers Stores Limited Dhule V ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2016
1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of Special Civil Suit No.135/2009 which was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division Dhule and also against the judgment and decree of Civil Appeal No.22/2012 which was pending in the Court of the Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Dhule. The suit filed by the present appellant for relief of declaration that the decision of Special Civil Suit No.155/2005 decided by the Civil Judge Senior Division Dhule is not binding on him and for further relief of perpetual injunction to protect his possession over the suit property is dismissed by the trial Court and this decision is confirmed by the first appellate Court. Both the sides are heard. 2. To ascertain the main points involved in the litigation, the history of the litigation to some extent needs to be given. It is as follows, incident wise: (i) The suit property is 28.33 R portion (30600 square feet) of Survey No.484/1 situated at Dhule. This property was owned by one Mehmood Ma...
Ricardo Joaquim Inancio Martinho De Souza Vs. Laxami R. Korgaonkar and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-18-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. The learned counsel waives service for respondents no.1 to 14 and the learned Additional Government Advocate waives service for respondents no.15 and 16. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The respondent nos.1 to 14 have filed civil suit no. (old 71/2012) which is pending on the file of the learned District Judge-II at Panaji. That suit is for declaration and permanent injunction. A perusal of the prayer clause 21 of the plaint would show that the respondent nos.1 to 14 are seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from transferring, selling, alienating the suit property and further restraining the defendant and his agent, family, relatives or any person or persons from interfering in any manner in the suit property. The respondent nos.1 to 14 are also seeking a direction to the city survey department to restore the name of Gangabai Vassudeo Korgaonkar in the property card of the suit property. 3. It appears that the petitioner/...
Techpac Holdings Ltd. Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD-II) ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2016
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the Assessment Order dated 25th March, 2013 passed by Respondent No.1 [Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD-II), Mumbai] in relation to A.Y. 2005-06. This Assessment Order was passed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act ). By this Assessment Order, Respondent No.1 has inter alia held that a sum of Rs.575.39 crores is the capital gains in the hands of the Petitioner arising out of a transfer of a capital asset in India. Accordingly, a demand of Rs.697.94 crores has been raised on the Petitioner as and by way of captial gains tax which is inclusive of interest etc under different provisions of the Act. 2. In this Petition, rule was issued on 23rd June, 2014 and interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d) was granted. Thereafter, a request was made on behalf of the Revenue that the Writ Petition be taken up out of turn as the total tax impact ...
Varsha K. Sawant and Others Vs. The Chief Secretary, Government of Goa ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-18-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Ms. P. Kamat, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents no.1 and 2. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 19/08/2005 on the following substantial question of law: 1. Whether the Appellate Court ought to have seen that in the absence of record of Land Registration document, document of matriz, though is a document prepared in connection with collection of revenue, could not be brushed aside because it was the only document in existence even prior to coming into force of the Land Revenue Code, 1968 under which the Survey of Record of Rights was conducted? 2. Whether the Courts below were right in discarding the record of cadastral survey, in which the name of the predecessor in title of the vendors of the appellants was admittedly recorded and proved so, on the ground that the document of survey does not constitute document of title, but at...
Dilkush Guno Velip, Major and Others Vs. State (through Cuncolim Polic ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-18-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Although the dispute between the parties has a chequered history, the present writ petition can be disposed of on a short count. 2. The dispute pertains to the management and control over a Devasthan. 3. On the basis of a report by Cuncolim Police Station proceedings under section 145 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C., for short) were initiated on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Quepem in which the petitioners are members of party no.1, while respondent nos. 2(a) to 2(g) are the members of party no.2 before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate. It appears that the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate passed a preliminary order under section 145 (1) of Cr.P.C. recording the subjective satisfaction about the dispute between the parties being likely to cause a breach of peace. Accordingly, the parties were noticed. It further appears that on 11/2/2011, both the contesting parties filed their respective statements. It was also pointed out that some o...
M/s. Deluxe Cotton Corporation and Others Vs. Bank of Baroda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2016
Oral Judgment: (M.S. Sonak, J.) 1. The question which arises in this petition is whether the provisions relating to pre-deposit contained in section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (said Act) are attracted at the stage of consideration of an application for condonation of delay in the institution of an appeal under section 20 of the said Act? 2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 14 July 2014 made by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Mumbai refusing to condone the delay of 1009 days on the part of the petitioners in instituting appeal against the order dated 19 November 2013 made by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in O.A. No. 2494 of 1999. 3. Mr. Jagtiani, learned counsel for the petitioners, by reference to provisions contained in sections 20 and 21 of the said Act has contended that the bar under section 21 of the said Act is to the entertainment of the appeal by DRAT. He submitted that onl...
Sunil B. Bhosale Vs. Kamal Organic Chemicals A Division of Kirti Manor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2016
Revati Mohite Dere, J. 1. The appellant has impugned the order dated 20th November, 2015, passed by the learned Single Judge, by which his Notice of Motion, seeking reconsideration of the condition, imposed by the learned Single Court vide order dated 13th November, 2009 inasmuch as, it directs the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/-, came to be dismissed. 2. It will be necessary to set out in some detail, the factual matrix of the case, as it has a chequered history; At the outset, we may note that the appellant is the original defendant and the respondent, the original plaintiff. However, for the sake of convenience the parties will be referred hereinafter, as the 'defendant' and the 'plaintiff'. (a) The plaintiff filed a suit in this Court, being Suit No.4351 of 1996 as against the defendant. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was appointed as a Consultant for the project and was entrusted with the work of consultancy - process design, detailed engineering, fabrica...
Sunil Sitaram Mahajan Vs. Suryakant Pandurang Badave and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. At the outset, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks deletion of the Respondent No.4 as in the context of the challenge raised in the above Petition the said Respondent is a formal party. The Respondent No.4 is accordingly allowed to be deleted at the risk of the Petitioner. 2. Rule, with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 3. The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 20.01.2015 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur, by which order, the Revision Application filed by the Respondent No.1 came to be allowed and resultantly, notice of hearing dated 23.01.2014 came to be set aside. 4. The factual matrix involved in the above Petition in brief can be stated thus : The Respondent No.4 who has now been deleted i.e. Sou. Pooja Annaso Jadhav was the borrower of the Respondent No.3 i.e. Shahu Corner Nagari Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit. ...
Kartikay Exploration and Mining Services, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The National C ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-17-2016
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri Nitin Sardessai, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, Shri Kantak, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondent o. 1 and Mr. Mody, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 2. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, waives service. 3. The above Petition, inter alia, prays for a writ of mandamus or any ther writ commanding the Respondent no. 1 to quash and set aside LOA dated 30.09.2015 issued in favour of Respondent no. 2 and also to consider the bid of the Petitioner and to open the price bid in respect of the tender NCAOR/BGRLKOYNA3km/01/2015. 4. Briefly, the case as stated by the Petitioner is that the Respondent no. 1 published a notice inviting tender for drilling one vertical, 3000 m deep borehole for scientific investigations in the Koyna Region, Maharashtra, bearing no. NCAOR/BGRL-KOYNA3km/01/2015. The Petitioner being interested ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »