Mumbai Goa Court August 2014 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.
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka (Central) Vs. V.M. Salgaonka ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-13-2014
Oral Judgment: (Ranjit More, J.) 1. The substantial questions of law as raised by the Revenue are: (1) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that unabsorbed investment allowances cannot be deducted while computing the profits of business or profession, particularly in view of special benefits claimed by the Assessee under Chapter VI-A? and (2) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Revenue is entitled to set off of unabsorbed investment allowances from the profits of the business for the purpose of computing benefits under Section 80HHC claimed by the Assessee, particularly in view of the mechanism set up in explanation (bba) to Section 80HHC for computing profits of the business? 2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of the present appeal are as follows: The respondent is engaged in the business of export of processed iron ore and, therefore, its profits derived from such activities are eligible for deduction...
Rama Krishna Arolkar and Others Vs. Kumud alias Kusum Yeshwant Bhobe a ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-12-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Amrut Kansar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. S. G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted on 19.04.2007 on the following substantial questions of law. 1. Whether the learned Trial Court was not bound to frame the issue of tenancy arising out of the pleadings of the parties? 2. Whether the Trial Court and the first appellate Court were not bound to take into consideration the provisions of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 as amended from time to time which is a welfare legislation and there could not be any contract waiving the right of tenancy by the tenant? 3. Whether the learned Trial Court and the first appellate Court were not bound to take into consideration the presumption arising out of Section 105 of the Land Revenue Code, 1968 and also the proviso to Section 7 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964? 3. Mr. A. Kansar, learned counsel appearing for the appe...
Philip Fernandes Vs. The State of Goa, Through the Police Inspector
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-11-2014
1. Heard Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the accused against the Judgment and Order dated 07/10/2009 / 13/10/2009 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge2, South Goa, Margao (Trial Court, for short) in Sessions Case No. 03/2008 whereby the accused has been convicted of an offence of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. 3. The accused was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short) on the allegation that on 20/12/2007 at around 12.00 hours at Sonfator, Tilamol, Quepem, he assaulted Smt. Joaquina w/o. Domnic Mendes aged 62 years with a knife and bamboo danda causing cut injuries on her body which resulted in her death. 4. To the charge, framed by the Trial Court, for the offence un...
Kalpika Sharad Naik Vs. Sharad G. Naik
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-11-2014
1. Heard rival submissions at length on this First Appeal preferred by the appellant/wife, original respondent challenging the judgment and order dated 12/12/2012. By the said order impugned in the present appeal the Matrimonial Petition No.23/2011/A filed by the present respondent/original petitioner for decree of divorce under Article 4(4) and 4(5) of the Law of Divorce applicable to Goa, Daman and Diu, was decreed. The marriage between the appellant and respondent registered under the entry no.255/2002 of the marriage registration book in the office of Civil Registrar of Mormugao was dissolved by decree of divorce. Civil Registrar, Mormugao was directed to make necessary endorsement against the said entry. The parties were directed to bear their own costs. Appellant and respondent are hereinafter referred to as wife and husband, respectively. 2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of divorce, wife had preferred the present appeal. At the threshold, the thrust of the argu...
Casimiro Correia Vs. Executive Engineer, P.W.D. I, Irrigation Departme ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This common judgment shall dispose of both the above appeals since they pertain to land acquired under the same notification published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act, for short). 3. Vide notification issued under Section 4(1) of the L. A. Act and published in the Official Gazette dated 24/11/1989, land was acquired for the purpose of strengthening and improvement of bund and defending the paddy field at Pato Kator at Chirculem Khazan at St. Cruz, Tiswadi Goa and this included land admeasuring 477 square metres classified as paddy field and an area of 123 square metres, classified as bund from survey no. 571/2 of St. Cruz and this land was subject matter of Land Acquisition Case No. 15 of 2007. The Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O., for short) by award dated 02/08/1991 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per square metre for the rice land (paddy field) and at the rate of ...
The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another Vs. Lawrence Caetano ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Afonso, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Redkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This First Appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 22/11/2006 passed by the learned Ad hoc District Judge (2), FTC-II (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 8/2005. 3. The parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said Land Acquisition Case. 4. Vide notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L. A. Act, for short) and published in the Official Gazette dated 25/07/2002, land was acquired for construction of Underground Drainage Scheme to Margao Town, North Zone - Additional land in Comba area of Margao. This included land admeasuring 82 square metres from Chalta No. 213 of P.T. Sheet No. 55 of Margao Town in which the applicant was interested. By award dated 28/05/2004, the learned Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O., for sho...
M/s Mahadhan Real Estates Ltd. and Another Vs. M/s. Anjali Real Estate ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The above petitions challenge an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji whereby an application filed by the respondents to issue summons to the witness PW2 came to be allowed. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the suit filed by the petitioners is for specific performance of a contract and in such suit after examining PW1 the evidence of PW2 was in progress. It appears that PW2 was substantially cross examined but however on the date fixed for further cross examination PW2 remained absent and the learned Judge refused to adjourn the matter for such cross examination. The mater was thereafter posted by the learned Judge to examine as to what action is to be taken with regard to the incomplete evidence. In the meanwhile, the respondents filed an application to issue a warrant of arrest against PW2 to remain present in the Court for his further cross examination. The learned Judge by an order dated 25.11.2003 issued a warrant of arrest. P...
Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer and Another Vs. Desideri ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. This common judgment shall dispose of all the above appeals and the cross objections filed in First Appeal No. 42/2009, since they pertain to the lands acquired for the same purpose, in the City of Margao. 3. First Appeal No. 42/2009 and Cross Objections No. 16/2009 arise out of the judgment and award dated 29/04/2008 passed by the learned Ad hoc District Judge-I, FTC-I (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 10/2007. 4. First Appeal No. 169/2009 arises out of the judgment and award dated 29/04/2008 passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 11/2007. 5. Lastly, First Appeal No. 127/2010 arises out of the judgment and award dated 28/11/2006 passed by the District Judge - (3), Margao (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 26/2002. 6. Initially, vide notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L. A. Act, for short) and publ...
Goa Industrial Development Corporation and Another Vs. M/s. Sadhana Bu ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. A. D. Bhobe and Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned counsel appearing for the defendant nos. 1 and 3 respectively, Mr. N. Sardessai, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and Mr. A. Prabhudesai, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the defendant No. 2 in above appeals. Both the above appeals were taken up together for hearing with the consent of the learned counsel as they both challenge the same impugned order. The parties shall be referred to in the manner they so appear in the cause title of the impugned order. 2. Admit. 3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service. 5. Mr. A. D. Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the defendant no.1 has pointed out that the learned Judge has passed the impugned order directing a mandatory injunction to open an access to a road which is a private sub division road in the industrial estate belonging to the defendant no.1. Th...
Rosmerta Technologies Ltd. Vs. State of Goa, through its Principal Sec ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-05-2014
Ranjit More, J. 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs: (i) Issue a Writ(s), Order(s) or Direction(s) against the respondents declaring that Clause 29 of the Bid Document via reference No: D.Tpt./EST/e- Tender/1894/Smart Card/2013/2964 dated 14-08-2013 issued by the Directorate of Transport, Government of Goa is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional and ultra-vires to the provision of Constitution of India; (ii) Issue a Writ(s), Order(s) or Direction(s) directing the respondents to issue letter of intent in favour of petitioner in pursuance to the Tender Notice referred in D.Tpt./EST/e-Tender/1894/Smart Card/2013/2964 dated 14-08-2013 issued by the Directorate of Transport, Government of Goa where petitioner has been declared as lowest (L-1) and successful bidder and to execute the concession agreement with the petitioner for preparation of Driving Licence and Registration Certificates in Smart Card Forms i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »