Mumbai Court May 2016 Judgments
Bharat Gulabsingh Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra through its Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2016
Anoop V. Mohta, J. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 1. The Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 7th October 2010, thereby invalidated caste certificate dated 17th December 1997 and thereby denied the caste claim belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe, though relatives of the Petitioner of paternal side based upon the provisions, in pursuance to the order passed by this Court, were granted the caste validity certificate as prayed. 2. The Petition is filed on 30th April 2014. The Respondents resisted the same by Reply dated 16th March 2016. The matter listed for final disposal. In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that this bench in number of judgments have granted the order based upon the paternal side relatives certificate in same and similar judgments. Two of the judgments are also part of the record. 3. After going through the averments and the documents so placed o...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaurao Chavan Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Others Vs. The Union o ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-06-2016
S.V. Gangapurwala, J. 1. These petitions assail the Fair and Remunerative Price (hereafter referred as the "F.R.P." for the sake of brevity) fixed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the year 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. The challenge to the said F.R.P. is based on similar grounds, as such to avoid rigmarole, all these petitions are decided by common judgment. 2. Mr. P. M. Shah, the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. V. D. Hon, the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. V. D. Salunke, Mr. P. R. Patil, Mr. M. S. Deshmukh and Mr. M. V. Nagargoje, the learned counsel have canvassed their submissions on behalf of respective petitioners. The contour of their submissions can be summed up as under: A. T he Central Government is empowered to fix the minimum price of sugar cane from time to time under Rule 3 of the Sugar Cane Control Order, 1966 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred as the "Control Order 1966"). The respondents have not adhered to clause (d) and (e) of Rule 3 of the Control Order 1966. Sub clause...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Thimiri and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2016
P.C.: 1. The applications are moved for pre arrest bail as the applicants/accused are facing charges for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B) and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 3 of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments Act) in C.R. No. 316 of 2013 registered with Oshiwara police station, Mumbai. The offence is registered at the instance of one Gurupreetsingh Anand on 16th August, 2013. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that in the year 2000 one Vijay Ishwaran and Joseph, the founders of QI Group formed a company under the name and style Gold Quest International Private Limited . The applicants/accused also joined the said group in 2006. Gold Quest International Private Limited used to sale gold plated coins. In the year 2000 the rate of gold was Rs. 5,000/- per 10 gms., however, they used to sale the gold plated coins for Rs. 30,0...
Tag this Judgment!Vicky Dilip Mutha and Others Vs. The Panjarapol Sanstha
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-06-2016
V.L. Achliya, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has claimed reliefs as follows:- B. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ and or direction and quash and set aside the order dt. 26.08.2011 passed below Exh.1, order dt. 27.06.2012 passed below Exh.12 and the order dt.04.03.2013 passed below Exh.24 and be further pleased to allow the said applications. C. Issue a writ or certiorari or any other appropriate writ and or direction and call for the record and proceedings of application no.35/2011, under Section 36 of Bombay Public Trust Act, pending on the file of the Ld. Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune, and on perusal of the same or otherwise quash and set aside the order dt. 24.06.2014 passed below Exh.-45, and be further pleased to open and finalise the tenders as per the notice dt. 30.0...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Permasteelisa (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra Departme ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2016
A.A. Sayed, J. 1. This Sales Tax Reference arises out of an order dated 7 March 2014 in a Reference Application under the Bombay Sales Tax Act passed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal. 2. The following question of law is referred to this Court under section 9(1) of the Maharashtra Sales Tax on the Transfer of Property in Goods involved in the Execution of Works Contracts (Re-enacted) Act, 1989, (hereinafter referred to as the Works Contract Act) read with section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959: Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the contract for construction of glass curtain walls executed by the Applicant which was awarded to it by the employers, namely, ICICI Ltd. and M/s. Wockhardt Ltd. would not constitute contracts for construction of building nor would they constitute the contracts incidental or ancillary to the contracts mentioned in paragraph A of the Notification dated 8 March 2000 issued for the pu...
Tag this Judgment!Agnelo John Bosco Savio Fernandes Vs. Maria Beatriz de Souza
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: May-06-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner, who is a non-custodial parent of the minor, is seeking enlargement of the time, for which the visitation rights are granted to the petitioner. 3. By the impugned order dated 19/04/2016, passed by the learned Ad hoc Senior Civil Judge at Panaji in C.M.A.No.80/2009/A, the application Exh.97/D, filed by the petitioner, was rejected, however, with certain conditions, which are as under: The visitation right shall be exercised as per Order passed in 24/6/2014 in Writ Petition 383/2012. The applicant shall be entitled to visit the child on every Wednesdays, Fridays and Sunday for two hours between 5.30 to 7.30 p.m. till the time he is in Goa. The visitation rights shall be exercised in Hotel Vivanta at Panaji in the presence of the mother. The cost of visitation shall be borne by the respondent. The...
Tag this Judgment!Parmeshwar and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-06-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. In these Petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashment of order dated 30.11.2015 passed by respondent no.1 Deputy Secretary, Rural Development Department, ordering suspension of petitioners. 4. It is the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.12410/2015 that the petitioner is working in the Zilla Parishad, Nanded, as a Block Education Officer. The petitioner was directed by the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded to enquire into the complaint against the office bearers of Shri Sant Shiromani Manmath Swami Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Tehranagar, Nanded. Therefore, the petitioner was directed by the Education Officer [Primary] to cause enquiry into such complaint. 5. It is the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.11790/2015 that he is working in the Zilla Parishad Nanded w.e.f. 1999, presently he is promoted to the post of Extension Officer [Educat...
Tag this Judgment!Majhar Nashir Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2016
Anuja Prabhudessai, J. 1. The appellants- Original accused nos.4, 3, 1 and 2 (herein after referred to Accused no.4, Accused No.3, Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 respectively) were tried for the offences under Section 364A, 365, 397 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, (in short MCOC Act) in MCOC Case No.15 of 2005. By judgment and order dated 17.2.2009 the Spl. Judge convicted the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for three years in respect of the offence under Section 364A. The accused are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for each of the offences under Section 365 and 397 of IPC. The accused Nos.1 to 3 are also convicted for the offence under Section 3(1)(ii) whereas the accused no.4 is convicted for offence under Section 3(4) of MCOC Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwas Laxman Bhagat Vs. Devendra Gana Bhagat and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2016
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the Original Petitioner, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 31st July 2012, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.5606 of 2012. By the impugned Judgment and Order, learned Single Judge has confirmed the Judgment and Order dated 21st June 2012 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai in Appeal bearing No.Appeal/Desk/VP/28/2012, thereby confirming the Judgment and Order dated 16th January 2012 passed by the District Collector, Raigad in Dispute Application No.41 of 2010. By these orders, the election of the Appellant as a Member and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Usurli-Khurd is held as invalid on the count that he has incurred disqualification under Section 14(1)(j-1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act (Act No.III of 1959), (for short the Act), since he is having more than two children. 2. The facts, which are relevant and material, ...
Tag this Judgment!Tanaji Dattu Bajbalkar and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2016
Anuja Prabhudessai, J. 1. The Appellants were prosecuted in Sessions Case No.74 of 2008 for offences under sections 498 A and 302 r/w. 34 of the IPC. By judgment and order dated 31.7.2009 the learned Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each i/d further imprisonment for a period of one month each for the offence under section 498A IPC. The Appellants have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine amount of Rs.500/- each i/d further imprisonment for one month each for the offence punishable under section 302 r/w. 34 of the IPC. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the Appellants have filed this appeal. 2. The brief facts necessary to decide these appeals are as under:- The Appellant No.1 Tanaji is the husband of deceased Sanjubai. Whereas the Appellant No.2, Sarubai is mother in law of the deceased and Appellant Nos.1 and 2 in Crimin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »