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.
Lata Pramod Dave Vs. M/s. Mode Export Private Limited and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-2016
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, by consent. 2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and learned A.P.P. for the Respondent No.2-State. 3. By this Petition, preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of Constitution of India, Petitioner challenges the order dated 16th September 2013 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court at Dadar, Mumbai, in Criminal Complaint No.1675/SS/2013 of issuing process against her for the offence punishable under Section 138 r/w. 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. Facts of the Petition are to the effect that, Respondent No.1 herein had, on the request of Original Accused No.2, advanced financial facilities by way of Inter Corporate Deposit for the Accused No.1 i.e. M/s. Swajay Finance Private Limited to the extent of Rs.1,50,00,000/-. Against the said Inter Corporate Deposit availed by Accused No.1, Accused No.2 pledged 2,25,000 Shares of M/s. Usher Agro Limited with Respondent No.1. Accordingly, a Loan Agreement was execut...
Khandelwal Laboratories (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-2016
1. Heard. At the request of the Counsel, the petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the attachment of the petitioners' bank accounts under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in Punjab National Bank, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Axis Bank, Dadar, Mumbai, HDFC, Fort, Mumbai, Dena Bank Amli, and State Bank of India, Byculla, Mumbai. The petitioners have also made a grievance that after attachment an amount of Rs.7,59,185/- from HDFC Bank, Fort, Mumbai and Rs. 34,265/- from State Bank of India, Byculla, Mumbai have been withdrawn without giving any notice to the petitioner before withdrawal in defiance of the law laid down by this Court in UTI Mutual Fund v. ITO [2012] 345 ITR 71/206 Taxman 341/19 taxmann.com 250. 3. The Assessing Officer on 27th March, 2015 passed an order under Section 143(3) r/w Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for Assessment Year 200...
Prakash Ghasit Dhikkyav and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and An ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-17-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. In all these matters, the petitioners are Class IV workmen, who are identically situated and fall in the same Class. The respondents in all these matters is the Municipal Council, Bhusawal. The issue involved is identical and hence all these petitions have been taken up together for common hearing. 5. I have heard Shri Patil, Shri Jadhav and Shri Nagori, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of all the petitioners. I have heard Shri Deshmukh, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent Municipal Council and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 6. The petitioners have contended that they had been appointed as Field Workers in the Malaria Section of the respondent Municipal Council, in the year 2009 and 2010. Their common date of termination is 17.11.2011. All of them have completed 240 days in the continuous and uninterrupted service of the respond...
M/s. Sai Investments Vs. Bharti Shipyard Limited
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-17-2016
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri J. E. Coelho, Pereira, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellant and Shri E. O. Mendes, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Decree dated 28.07.2014 passed in Special Civil Suit no. 4/2013 by learned Senior Civil Judge, Vasco da Gama, whereby the suit filed by the Appellants was partly decreed and the Respondents were directed to pay to the Plaintiffs a sum of Rs.10,89,000/- as arrears of payment of rent for the period from May 2012 to July 2012 with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 31.07.2012 to the date of the payment. The Respondents were also directed to pay to the Appellants a further sum of Rs,.93,678/- as arrears of rent from 01.08.20125 to 08.08.2012 together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 31.08.2012 till the date till the date of payment. The Respondents were also directed to pay the arrears of the electricity charges till the date of the s...
Shivabassappa I. Kankanwadi and Another Vs. Mapusa Urban Co-operative ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-17-2016
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Mr. G. Agni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. P. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4. 2. The above Writ Petition seeks for a direction inter-alia to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 10.07.2014 and 30.10.2014 and the impugned notices dated 31.10.2011 and 20.11.2013 issued under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after referred to as the SARFAESI Act ) being illegal and bad in law. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioners are that the petitioner no.1 appointed one Mr. Ajay Verma, proprietor of M/s. Aesquire Estates to develop a plot of land belonging to the petitioner no.1. The said Mr. Ajay Verma availed a loan from the respondent no.1 by offering a security of the petitioners' land with building. The...
Mohd. Sharif Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th August 2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, convicting the appellant of an offence punishable under Section 376 and Section 506 (Part I) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with respect to the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC, and to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with respect to the offence punishable under Section 506 (Part I) of the IPC. Being aggrieved by his conviction and the sentences imposed upon him, the appellant has approached this court by filing the present appeal. 2. I have heard Shri K.M.Mhatre, the learned counsel for the appellant. I have heard Shri A.R.Patil, the learned APP for the State. I have gone through the entire evidence adduced during the trial. I have gone throug...
Dindayal Chandratan Mundhara Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-2016
P.C. 1. The application is moved for pre arrest bail as the applicant/accused is facing charges for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 474 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No.I-174 of 2014 registered with Manikpur police station, Vasai, Dist. Thane. The offence is registered at the instance of one Kailasnath Mallik on 3rd July, 2014. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant is the Branch Manager of Union Bank of India, Manikpur branch, Vasai(w). It is the case of complainant that the co-accused Gopikishan Mundra, the proprietor of M/s. D.P. Mundra and Company approached him and made request for loan. He mortgaged the Flat No.402, 4th Floor, A wing, Dattatray Tower, Devan Kuldipsingh Nagar, Evershine City, Vasai(E), Dist. Thane and obtained loan of Rs.49 lacs from the bank. Thereafter, again he mortgaged Flat No.203, Chintamani Co-Op. Hsg. Society, Nayagaon Village, Gokhale-Karve Road, Dombivli(W) and obtained loan of Rs.4...
Jakir Siraj Irani Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-2016
P.C. 1. This Application is moved by the applicant/accused for bail. The applicant/accused is prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 392, 411, 414, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 3(5) of MCOC Act, 1999 in C.R. No.I-84 of 2012 with Wagle Estate Police Station, Thane. The offence is registered at the instance of complainant Nandini Nilesh Pawar on 29th April, 2012. When the complainant was walking on the road along with her sister, two accused Sikander Mumtaz Kasamali Jafari and Mohammed Feroz Hussain Sayyed snatched her mangalsutra worth Rs.75,000/- and so the offence was registered. The police arrested Sikander Mumtaz Kasamali Jafri. During the course of investigation, the police found that Sikander is a leader of the organized crime syndicate. The applicant/accused and other co-accused are the members of said syndicate. These members snatch the chains or mangalsutras which are on the person of women while going on the motorcycle. Th...
Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society and Others Vs. Sandip Ram Meghe and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
1. Being aggrieved by order dated 01.08.2015 passed by 8th Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division, Amravati below Exh.22 in Regular Civil Suit No.178/2015, by which the learned trial Judge held that it has jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit and consequently rejected the objection as to the jurisdiction raised by the revision-applicants, the present Civil Revision Application has been filed. 2. In support of this revision application, Mr. Bhuibhar, learned Counsel for the revision applicants vehemently argued that the body of the suit plaint, averments as well as prayers and the reliefs claimed in the suit filed by the non applicants in the matter of removal of the members from the society of the trust are the matters falling under Section 50(1)(iv)(p) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act (for the sake of brevity 'Act') and consequently in the absence of consent obtained under Section 51 of the said Act and in view of the bar under Section 80 thereof, the suit was clearly not maintaina...
M/s. Prince Marine Transport Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Minescape Min ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-2016
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. This appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Amendment Act, 2015) (with effect from 23 October 2015) by the Appellant/Original (Purchaser) Petitioner, as the learned Single Judge rejected Section 9 application filed by the Petitioner thereby refused to grant any protective order/injunction for short against the Respondent (Seller) from assigning, selling, transferring, alienating and/or creating third party rights, title or interest in respect of the two barges or parting with possession thereof in favour of any other person so described in Exhibit M to the petition. 2. The issue of jurisdiction, as stated to be raised specifically, however, not decided and dealt with on 25 February 2016 when Section 9 application was rejected finally. The Respondent applied for Speaking to Minutes. By order dated 2 March 2016, it is recorded as under: 5. Hence, the following line to be added in paragraph 6 in second last li...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »