Mumbai Goa Court April 2015 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.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s. Seagull Threads (India) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-17-2015
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Ms. Susan Linhares, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. The above Appeal came to be admitted by an Order dated 27.01.2009 on the following substantial question of law: (1) Whether it is permissible in law to consider the issue afresh in a proceeding which has already been settled by the same authority by its earlier order and had attained finality for want of any appeal against the original/earlier order, as no party to the litigation has challenged in any appellate forum And, if the answer to this question is negative, the order dated 24.7.2007 passed by CESTAT is liable to be set aside ? (2) Whether the CESTAT was correct in coming in the conclusion that there was a direction in its earlier order dated 19.07.2004 for de novo consideration of the issue involved in the Show Cause Notice or mere direction to compute and communicate to the respondent, Cen...
M/s. The Quepem Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Vs. The Assista ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-17-2015
1. These three appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenge the common order dated 26 November, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal')relating to assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2011-12. By the impugned order the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal holding that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, as it is a Primary Co-operative Bank, thus hit by the exclusion provided in Section 80P(4) of the Act. 2. All the three appeals were admitted on 25 March, 2014 on the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Appellant is a Co-operative Bank and hence, it is not entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) by virtue of Section 80P(4) of the Act? 3. The Appellant had taken out an application for interim relief...
Vassantram Mehta and Co.(P) Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-17-2015
M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. In this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (the Act) the challenge is to the order dated 8/08/2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) in respect of Assessment year (AY) 2001-02. 2. This appeal was admitted on 10/03/2008 on the following substantial questions of law: (A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal is right in disallowing the claim of interest payment because of the interest-free advances made to sister concern, solely impelled by commercial expediency and used by the payee company for its business only, on the ground that the advances were excessive considering the requirements of assessee's trade with that concern? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal is right in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disallowing the actual loss incurred due to fluctuation in currency rates in respect of advance received from a foreig...
M/s. Mavany Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-17-2015
M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) impugns the order dated 15/01/2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). This appeal relates to assessment year 1996-97. 2. This appeal was admitted on 26/03/2007 on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the Tribunal was right in affirming the determination of the capital gains at Rs.72,28,175-00 (or Rs.72,46,825-00) in place of the loss shown in the return of income filed under Section 148? (2) Whether having regard to the family arrangement entered into in order to put an end to civil litigation commenced against the appellant by late Tajdin and later continued by his legal heirs, no capital gains at all is liable to be assessed? (3) Whether alternatively the payment of Rs.66 lakhs should be deducted from out of the consideration for the transfer `received by the appellant' or should go to enhance the cost of acquisition of the land and only to view order, no...
Francisca Luiza Rocha and Others Vs. Palanivel Gaunder and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-16-2015
1. These two appeals are arising out of the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mapusa, dated 21.05.2012 passed in Claim Petition Nos. 88/2008 and 89/2008 respectively. 2. The parties are referred to their original status. 3. The brief facts leading to the above two appeals may be summarized as follows: 4. The claimants i.e widow and two sons of the deceased Julius D'Rocha filed Claim Petition No. 88/2008 for the compensation on account of death of Julius D'Rocha in a motor vehicular accident took place between the vehicle Nos. TN-27/Q- 2179 (herein after referred to as the truck ) and GA-02-T-4671 (herein after referred to as the bus ). The claimants have claimed the total compensation of Rs.64,90,996/- on account of all permissible heads i.e. pecuniary and non pecuniary damages. The widow namely Mrs. Francisca Rocha has filed another Claim Petition bearing no. 89/2008 for the compensation on account of injuries sustained to her and disablement caused due ...
Vishant Satyavijay Naik Vs. Shreyans Kumar Jain and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-16-2015
1. Heard. Admit. Shri Teles, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1 waives notice. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. By this revision application, the petitioner/original accused is challenging the judgment and order dated 14.03.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao in Criminal Appeal No. 35/2011, by which the judgment and order dated 30.03.2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Margao in Criminal Case No. 244/NIA/2009/III, thereby convicting the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentencing him to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months, has been confirmed. 3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the revision application may be stated thus: That Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited (Shriram Finance, for short), is a financial company in the business of granting vehicle finance. A proprietary concern namel...
T.N. Goreti Furtado e Fernandes @ Goretti Fernandes Vs. Mahantesh Veer ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-16-2015
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.04.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- III, South Goa, Margao, by which the claim petition of the claimant was partly allowed and the respondent nos. 1 and 2 were directed to pay an additional compensation of Rs.29,733/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the final payment. 2. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows: 3. The parties are referred to their original status. 4. The claimant moved an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the compensation on account of injuries and permanent disability caused to her in the motor vehicular accident. On 31.01.2008 the claimant was riding a Honda Activa scooter bearing registration No. GA-06-B-0518 from Sushenashram Vidyalaya, Jetty and was proceeding towards Deepvihar High School, Sada. When she reached at the spot of the accident at about 11.45...
Bramhanand M. Dessai Vs. State of Goa, through, The Chief Secretary, G ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-15-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. A. F. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. The above petition inter alia prays for a direction to quash and set aside the decision conveyed by order dated 6.9.2013 to notionally fix the pay of the petitioner in the pay scale of 10,000-325-13,200(pre-revised) w.e.f. 11.2.2005 and to release actual monetary benefits w.e.f.7.3.2013. The petitioner has also prayed inter alia to direct the respondents to grant to the petitioner promotion on actual basis w.e.f. 11.2.2005 with full monetary benefits. 3. Mr. A. F. Diniz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that this is the second time the petitioner has approached this Court, as according to him, on the earlier DPC meeting, the petitioner was unlawfully excluded to be promoted. The learned counsel further points out that in view of the direction issued by this Court i...
Nitin Satish Naik Vs. Nilu Sundar Naik and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-15-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By this revision application, the original complainant is taking exception to the judgment and order dated 05/07/2012 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge at Margao in Criminal Appeal No. 100/2011. By the impugned judgment, the Criminal Appeal filed by the first respondent has been allowed, thereby setting aside the order dated 17/08/2011 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Canacona in Proceedings under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code, for short). 2. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the Criminal Revision, may be stated thus: That on the basis of a complaint filed by the petitioner, proceedings were initiated on the file of the learned Executive Magistrate, Canacona, under Section 133 of the Code. According to the petitioner/ complainant, he is residing in house no.186/A situated in property known as 'Gharbhat', bearing Survey No. 135/5 of village Nagorcem, Palolem, belonging to Bhatkar Ramesh Bhat. The said ho...
Rajendra Pangam Vs. Paresh B. Naik and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-13-2015
1. This appeal is at the instance of the original complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant/complainant filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Ponda being Criminal Case No. 1259/NIA/2008/B under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act, for short). According to the appellant, the respondent no.1/accused was acquainted to him since last many years. Sometime in June, 2008, the respondent no. 1 had approached the appellant at his residence stating that respondent no. 1 is in financial difficulties and requested for accommodation in the sum of Rs.75,000/-. The respondent no. 1 also promised to repay the same. The appellant accordingly, paid an amount of Rs.75,000/- to the respondent no. 1 in cash. The respondent no. 1 issued two cheques dated 07.07.2008 in the sum of Rs.35,000/- and Rs.40,000/- towards repayment of the amount. The cheques were drawn on the account of the respondent no.1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »