Mumbai Court August 2003 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 State of Maharashtra Vs. Hanumanta @ Hanmappa Malappa Koli and
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)ALT(Cri)23; 2003CriLJ4041
Palshikar, J.1. This appeal is directed against order of acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 334 of 1986 acquitting the accused of offences under Sections 376, 109 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. With the assistance of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appointed by us for defending the accused persons we have scrutinized the record and reappreciated the evidence on record. The prosecution story stated briefly as disclosed on our reappreciation is that on 19.5.1986 around 7.00 p.m. when the prosecutrix P.W.1-Gauravva was going home after working as labourer was stopped by accused persons and she was told that she is invited at her sister's place. Gangubai who was accompanying the prosecutrix said that the prosecutrix can go with them and therefore she left with them. Around 8.00 p.m. when they were near Shankar Maharaj Math they were going by Satara Road, there was a ditch behind the math, accused No. 2-Smt. Yallavva w/o accused...
Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank Vs. State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)MhLj1070
R.S. Mohite, J.1. Heard Shri Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the applicant, Shri Gawai, Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Shri Chaudhari, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Shri Samarth, Advocate for respondent No. 5.2. By this application, filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank, which is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, being the applicant before this Court seeks to quash and set aside an order dated 25-11-2002 issued by respondent No. 2 under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seizing an amount of Rs. 25 crores which, according to the order, is an amount being the proceeds of the crime and which is due and payable to the Wardha District Central Co-operative Bank, who are joined as respondent No. 5 in this application.3. The brief chronological facts of the case which gives rise to filing of this application are as under:(a) A company by the ...
Chandrapur Zilla Sahakari Krushi and GramIn Bahuudeshiya Development B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Bom502; 2004(1)ALLMR266; 2004(3)BomCR889; 2004(1)MhLj232
R. J. Kochar, J. 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. Heard Mr. Madkholkar, learned counsel, for the appellant and Mr. Gawai, learned Govt. Pleader, for respondents No. 1 to 3.3. By these Letters Patent Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, the impugned order dated 16-1-2003 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants and confirming the order passed by respondent No. 3 directing liquidation of the banks in question by passing interim order under Section 102(1)(c)(iv) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act') is under challenge. In all these appeals, common and identical questions of facts and law are involved and, as such, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgments.4. The facts of the case are as under : The appellants are the District Level Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Multipurpose Development Bank Ltd. The main aim and obj...
Orion Travels (P) Ltd Vs. Astt. Cit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: (2004)87TTJ(Mumbai)246
ORDERB.L. Chhibber, A.M.These cross appeals arise out of the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) C-V, Mumbai.2. The grievance of the assessee is that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in upholding the levy of penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, while that of the revenue is that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in reducing the levy of penalty from 200 per cent to 100 per cent.3. The facts of the case in brief are that in the return of income filed for the assessment year under appeal, the assessee had claimed depreciation of Rs. 3,50,000 on imported cars. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noted that the assessee purchased two imported cars. The assessee had shown total hire charges of Rs. 62,651 which included an amount of Rs. 49,000 being hire charges receivable from M/s Harshad S. Mehta for use of car No. BLX7186 for the period from 5-12-1989 to 31-3-1989. The balance amount was...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›