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.
Dudhsagar Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-05-2014
Ranjit More, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 2. Both the appeals arise out of the common order dated 10/01/2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA Nos. 71 and 72/PNJ/1998 and, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Both the appeals were admitted on the following substantial question of law: Whether income received by an investment company in the course of its business, towards letting of a fully furnished office premises, is not to be assessed as business income, failing which income from other sources as claimed by the Appellant, but as income from house property as assessed by the Respondent ? 4. The assessee let out its premises on the 15th floor of Jolly Maker Chambers No. 2, Block No. III at Nariman Point, Mumbai along with four open garages, for compensation of Rs. 1,31,800/- per month for office premises and for garages and Rs. 8,000/- as hire charges for furniture, fixtures and fitt...
Rohan Amrut Gaonkar and Others Vs. State of Goa, through the Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-04-2014
Ranjit More, J. 1. The petitioners in both the Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are challenging common order/memorandum dated 12.4.2013 cancelling the offer of appointment given to each of them. Both the petitions involve common issue and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the above petitions are as follows:- Respondent no. 2 issued an advertisement on 12.1.2011 inviting application from eligible candidates for filling up vacancies to the posts of Commercial Tax Inspectors. By this advertisement, respondent no. 2 proposed to fill 21 vacancies and these vacancies were subject to variation. In response to this advertisement 1710 candidates including the petitioners in both the petitions applied for the post of Commercial Tax Inspector. The written test was held on 26.6.2011 and thereafter 250 candidates were short listed based on the marks obtained by them in the written test. Short listed candidates...
Prabhakar D. Shirwaikar and Others Vs. Malini Xete Parker @ Malini Xet ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-04-2014
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. 2. Heard rival arguments at length on this criminal revision application challenging the orders dated 23/09/2008, 17/01/2012 and 10/01/2014 passed by Civil Judge Junior Division, Ponda Goa passed on respective applications made on different dates and which are exhibits D-11, D-47 and D-63, respectively. Last impugned order was passed on 10/01/2014 on the application preferred by the present petitioners/original defendants no.1,2 and 3 filed under the provisions of Section 151, Order 7 Rule 11(d) and Order 14 Rule 2(2)(a) of Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court framed three points as follows and answered them in negative. 1) Whether the plaint is liable to be dismissed/rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC? 2) Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed by invoking powers under Section 151 of CPC? 3) Whether the suit is liabl...
Arun Vs. Roxann Sharma
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-02-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel and at their request to hear finally. 3. Mr. Noel Dias Sapeco, learned counsel for the respondent waives service. 4. The above Writ Petition inter-alia seeks to quash and set aside an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Margao, dated 31.01.2014 in Matrimonial Petition No.59/2013 whereby an application for interim custody filed by the respondent came to be allowed and the respondent who is the mother was given interim custody of the male child with visitation rights to the petitioner herein. 5. Before I proceed to examine the rival contentions, the brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of deciding the above Writ Petition are that the petitioner and the respondent were married in U.S.A. and out of their wedlock a child was born o...
Carlos Tavora Vs. M/s. Boshan Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard rival submissions at length on this writ petition preferred by the petitioner-original defendant challenging the judgment and order dated 05.03.2009 of the District Judge-1, North Goa, Panaji in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 137/2008. The said appeal preferred by the present writ petitioner-defendant was rejected and the earlier order passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Mapusa in Regular Civil Suit No. 208/2005/D dated 18.11.2008 was confirmed. The said order dated 18.11.2008 was passed on the application of the present respondent-original plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code in the said suit asking for further clarification and for variation of injunction in the order earlier granted on 18.05.2006. 2. The facts of the case are rather peculiar in nature and apparently an example as to how the parties do not obey the order of the Court still when it is a question of touching safety of the persons residing in the neighbourhoo...
State of Goa and Another Vs. Ramchandra Bhaskar Suria
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This common judgment shall dispose of all the aforesaid appeals since they pertain to the lands acquired under the same notification. 3. First Appeal No.27/2002 and First Appeal No.139/2002 are directed against the judgment and award dated 30/08/2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panaji (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No.1/2000. First Appeal No.27/2002 has been filed by the respondents in the Land Acquisition Case No.1/2000 whereas First Appeal No.139/2002 has been filed by the applicant therein. First Appeal No.177/2006 arises out of the judgment and award dated 20/02/2006 passed by the learned District Judge, North Goa (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No.57/2006. First Appeal No.179/2006 has been filed against the judgment and award dated 20/02/2006 passed by the learned District Judge, North Goa (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›