Mumbai Court April 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.
Roger Franco and Another Vs. Leonara Fernandes
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-15-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 24.09.2013, passed by the Deputy Collector and S.D.O., Mapusa in Appeal No. DC/MND/MAP/APL/BAR-11/3/2011. By the impugned judgment, the application filed by the petitioners seeking leave to challenge the order of registration dated 14.05.1986, passed by the Joint Mamlatdar of Bardez, has been refused. 3. The brief facts are that the land bearing survey no. 175/19 of village Calangute, Bardez, Goa is subject matter of the dispute. According to the petitioners, the said land was belonging to their ancestors, Mrs. Rosalina Fernandes, who passed away in the year 1982. Rosalina had a son, Mr. Andrew Fernandes and two daughters, Mrs. Catherine Franco and Mrs. Pedrinha Pereira. Vicent Franco was the husband of Catherine Franco. Vicent Franco and Catherine Fran...
Hem International Vs. Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton Growers Ma ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-2016
Oral Judgment : 1. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging an order dated 5th April, 2013, copy of which is at Annexure 'A' hereto, in the following circumstances: 2. The petitioner has, on the own showing of the parties, executed certain contracts. The details of the said contracts are to be found in a document styled as an application, copy of which is at page 36 of the paper book. 3. The respondents to the writ petition are firstly, a Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the MCS Act") and secondly, the Divisional Joint Registrar exercising the powers of Registrar under the MCS Act. The first respondent is appointed as chief agent to the Government of Maharashtra for procurement of raw cotton grown by the cotton growers in the State of Maharashtra on monopoly basis and for sale of Full Pressed (F. P.) cotton bales and also for purchasing, selling, storing, processing, marketing an...
Dwijendra Nath Sen Vs. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Manganese O ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-15-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, petitioner/employee has assailed the punishment of dismissal imposed upon him on 16.3.2001 after disciplinary inquiry. 2. We have heard Adv. Pathak for the petitioner and Adv. Modak with Adv. Kale for the respondents. 3. Adv. Pathak has mainly raised following contentions : (i) The petitioner has been appointed by Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Manganese Ore (India) Limited and hence, that Authority alone is Appointing Authority and Disciplinary Authority in the case of petitioner. Charge sheet served upon petitioner on 31.7.1998 was by Agent and Deputy General Manager (Mines) i.e. by subordinate Authority. Hence, initiation of proceedings itself is bad. (ii) During departmental inquiry, petitioner was not permitted to engage a Lawyer and, therefore, a serious prejudice is caused to him. (iii) Though petitioner submitted list of six witnesses to be examined in defenc...
State Bank of India Vs. Rakesh and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-15-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri M. Anil Kumar, Advocate for the applicant and Shri K.R. Lule, Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.2. None appears for the non-applicant No.1 though served. The non-applicant No.1 is served by publishing notice in newspaper. The orders dated 18-07-2014, 01-08-2014, 08-09-2014, 27-11-2014, 11-12-2014 show appearance on behalf of the non-applicant No.1. The non-applicant No.1 has also filed reply. 2. The applicant/original complainant has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by which the appeal filed by the non-applicant No.1 is allowed, the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate convicting the non-applicant No.1 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1881") is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Magistrate for deciding the complaint fil...
The Manager, Bedse Pulp Conversion Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sau. Hirab ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-13-2016
P.R. Bora, J.(Oral) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The question raised by the appellant in the present appeal is, " whether it was open for the Labour Court, which was also designated as the commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, to entertain an application filed by the legal heirs of the deceased claiming compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, when the deceased was an `insured person' under the provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948?" 3. The appellant has challenged the judgment and Award passed by the Labour Court, Aurangabad in Application (WC) No. 38/2002 on 26th August, 2009. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had filed the aforesaid application before the Labour Court, Aurangabad, claiming compensation on account of death of their son by name Jagdish, during the course of his employment with the present appellant. In the aforesaid application, the present appellant had raised a specific objection that t...
Manikgarh Cement Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-13-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard Shri Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Palshikar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. By this petition, the petitioner a manufacturing company questions the impugned notice dated 18.10.2003 and order 24.11.2003, calling upon it to register a BH-35 Rear Dumper Truck and a Hindusthan 2021 Loader, as the same stand covered as Construction Equipment vehicle as defined under Rule 2(ca) of The Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that these vehicles do not have any 'on highway' capacity and are designed only for 'off highway' operations. 3. This Court had issued notice in the matter on 04.12.2003 and thereafter on 24.06.2004 while issuing Rule, granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C). Thus, operation and effect of above mentioned notice and order has been stayed. 4. Shri Naik, learned counsel, in this background, after taking us through the imp...
Rohit Rajendra Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-2016
P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and the learned APP for the Respondent - State. 2. By this Application, the Applicant seeks his enlargement on bail in connection with C.R.No.43 of 2016 registered with the Alibaug Police Station, District - Raigad, for the alleged offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The Complainant is the father of the deceased-Meenakshi Vishnu Gharat. He has stated that the deceased had passed B.Com in the year 2012 and was working as an Accountant in Alfonso Cafe Bakery, Alibaug and was drawing a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. He has stated that on 08.03.2016, the deceased purchased a new Honda motor cycle on her birthday. According to the Complainant, on 10.03.2016, the deceased left the house with her brother Manoj at about 11.00 a.m., for Nagaon Kharghali, to show the new Honda motor cycle to her cousin Deepa Mankar. He has stated that on the very same day, the Complainant's brother-Darshan Gharat, Mangesh Patil and un...
Traxpo Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kolmar Group AG
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-2016
P.C.: 1. This chamber summons is taken out by the defendant to revoke the leave granted to the plaintiff under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and in the alternative and without prejudice to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. On or about 27th/28th August, 2007 the defendant agreed to buy and the plaintiff agreed to sell 15,000 metric tons Methanol +/5% at buyer's option at USD 255.00 per metric ton and optional 2000 3000 metric tons of cargo +/5% in buyer's option at USD 265.00 per metric ton and in each case FOB Kandla for shipment within September, 2007. The contract is evidenced by two faxes sent on 28th August, 2007 from the defendant to the plaintiff. For the purpose of this chamber summons, clause 13 and clause 14 of the contract are relevant and the same read as under: (13) Governing Law : This contract shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of England (without reference to any conflict of law rules). The United ...
Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. M/s. Lala Lajpatrai Memorial T ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-2016
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. This appeal of the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') challenges the order dated 25th May 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the tribunal') whereby the appeal filed by the respondent-assessee against an order passed by the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) (for short 'the DIT (E)') withdrawing the registration of the assessee under section 12A of the Act stands allowed. 2. The assessment year in question is 2009-10. The revenue has proposed the following question of law for our consideration: 6.1 Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee brushing aside the provisions of Section 11 (4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? 3. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The assessee is a trust founded under a Trust Deed dated 10th April, 1959. The assessee claimed that the object for the establishment of the assessee-trust was advan...
P.K.Anna Patil Janta Sahakari Bank Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra Th ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-13-2016
Oral Judgment: (S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The order passed by the Tahsildar, thereby directing to freeze the account of the petitioner for an amount of Rs.67,42,680/- (Rupees sixty seven lacs forty two thousand six hundred eighty) is assailed. 4. Mr.Hon, learned Senior counsel submits that Liquidator is appointed on the petitioner-society in the year 2009. Because of the order passed by the Tahsildar, it has become difficult for the Liquidator to function. As per Section 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, no orders can be passed with regard to proceedings against the society in liquidation, without the leave of the Registrar. The learned Senior counsel submits that without taking leave, the impugned order has been passed. The distribution and payment of dues has to be done by the Liquidator as per Section 105 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »