Mumbai Court October 2005 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.
Subhedar D. Yadav Vs. Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)MhLj767
V.M. Kanade, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to withdraw the impugned order dated 30-9-1998 and order dated 22-6-1999.2. Brief facts of the case are as under : The petitioner joined services of Municipal Corporation as Assistant Teacher on 23-7-1990. It was alleged by the respondents that on 30-6-1997 the petitioner removed the pages from the notice book and thereafter on 1-7-1997 it was suspected that the petitioner was responsible for stealing the muster book from the office of the said School. On 24-9-1997 the petitioner was called upon to make a statement which was recorded by the respondents. Thereafter, on 26-6-1998 a notice was issued to the petitioner and he was directed to remain present before the Inquiry Officer. Two charges were levelled against the petitioner. Firstly, that the petitioner had removed certain pages from the notice book which was to be circulated in various classes. Secondly, it w...
AwadbIn Ahamad Vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR771; [2006(110)FLR113]; 2006(2)MhLj215
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner, a Clerk working with respondent No. 2 in respondent No. 3 School has challenged the Order of School Tribunal dated 17-12-1993 by which appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by it. The case of the petitioner was that he has been terminated by oral order with effect from 3-8-1991.2. The petitioner has contended that he joined the services of respondent in 1985 and in 1990 amount of Rs. 20,000/- was demanded from him and he was not permitted to sign attendance register. The petitioner approached the Education authorities and at the instance of authorities, the petitioner was again permitted to sign attendance register. It is in this background on 3-8-1991, he was orally discontinued from services. The petitioner challenged this discontinuation by filing appeal vide appeal No. 168/1991-A under section 9 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)...
Ramesh Kashinath Zinjade Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ570
N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Appellant is held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable Under Sections 302, 307 of Indian Penal Code. He is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life, fine Rs. 500/- in default, simple imprisonment for one month on the first count, and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, fine Rs. 500/- in default simple imprisonment for one month on the second, although both substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently. The judgment was recorded on 21.2.2005. in Sessions case No. 49/2004.2. According to prosecution story the incident took place on 11.1.2004. at about 5-15 p.m. while victim savita (wife of present appellant) was returning home to Hirdewadi from township Shrigonda after casting her vote in the Municipal elections. She was riding on the pillion of motorcycle No. MH-16/5-7319 driven by PW 6 Raju Prakash Kothambire, a family friend of Hirde family (parents of deceased Savita). Accused was charged for murder of wife Savita and for an attempt to commi...
Protos Engineering Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-2005
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Bom)445; [2006]282ITR550(Bom)
1. Heard.2. This appeal was admitted on two substantial questions of law which read as under:1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that assuming while denying that the above sum of Rs. 3,36,148 represented a contingent liability, the same having been determined scientifically and accurately was a legitimate deduction in the computation of the appellant's business income?2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in its interpretation of Section 32AB of the Act and particularly Sub-sections (1) and (3) thereof?3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue does not dispute that so far as the first question is concerned, the same is covered by the judgment of the apex court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT : [2000]245ITR428(SC) . In this view of the matter, the first question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.4. So far as the second question is concerned, the said question is also covered by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›