Mumbai Court March 2009 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.
Mrs. Pushpa Vijay Bonde Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through In-charge ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR1712; 2009CriLJ3204
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. The order of reference dated 21st January, 2009 which has occasioned the constitution of this Full bench, has been passed by the Division bench holding that the view taken by the another Division bench in Anant Vasantlal Sambre v. State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 49 of 2001 decided on 20th April, 2001 and in the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Manohar Martandrao Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 2006 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 778 needs reconsideration. In these judgments the learned Judges have observed that it is a requirement under Section 3 of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Atrocities Act') that the complainant should disclose the caste of the accused in the complaint itself and if there is no such disclosure the complaint cannot be registered and if it is registered, it is liable to be quashed.2. In the present writ petition it is contended by the petitioner-...
Smt. Saroj W/O Govind Mukkawar Vs. Smt. Chandrakalabai Polshetwar and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR1831; 2009(4)MhLj665
S.S. Shinde, J.1. This application is filed praying for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 12.1.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Nanded in Criminal Revision Application No. 139 of 2006 and restoration of the judgment and order dated 11.8.2005 passed by the J.M.F.C., 2nd Court Nanded in M.C.A. No. 177/2004.2. The brief facts of the case are as under:The present respondent No. 1 filed Misc. Criminal Application No. 177/2004 against the present applicant for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The present applicant is daughter-in-law of respondent No. 1 herein. It is the case of the original applicant - respondent No. 1 herein that she is widow of 65 years old. Her sole son died on 14.3.1995. Her daughter-in-law got employment in Zilla Parishad on compassionate ground after death of her sole son Venkatesh. The present applicant/petitioner is getting salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month. Respondent No. 1 herein is unable to maintain herself. The applicant, besides h...
Mohd. Akram Sk. Imam Vs. Caste Scrutiny Committee for Other Backward C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR163; 2009(111)BomLR1708; 2009(4)MhLj557
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule in both applications. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent.2. Parties are referred to with reference to their status as in Writ Petition.3. It is necessary to have a glance at the facts, which are as follows:4. Petitioner had contested an election to seat of a Councilor from the Ward reserved for Other Backward Classes, claiming to belong to Julaha., OBC caste. He was elected. Petitioner's caste claim was invalidated, which order was set aside and the case was remanded to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, for a fresh decision. During first round, petitioner's status as a Councilor was protected. By order dated 11-12-2007, petitioner's caste claim was again invalidated, and the seat of Councilor for which petitioner was elected was notified for a fresh election. In the Writ Petition No. 190 of 2008 challenging invalidation done by order dated 11-12-2007, this Court passed interim order on 20-6-2008 as follows:The elections are permitted to be held ...
Dattatraya Dagdoba Dhole Vs. Shaikh Javed Husen Hajrat Saheb and Shaik ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR88; 2009(111)BomLR1685; 2009(4)MhLj560
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and decree passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Pune dated January 7, 1986 in Civil Appeal No. 577/1985 which in turn confirms the Judgment and decree passed by the IIIrd Additional Small Causes Judge, Pune dated November 29, 1983 in Suit No. 2843/1980 dismissing the suit filed by the landlord for possession of the suit premises against the tenant on the ground of unlawful subletting.2. Briefly stated the premises in question admeasure about 40 X 40 feet situated at Kasba Peth bearing House No. 1180 at Pune. According to Petitioner-landlord the said premises were let out to defendant No. 1 on monthly rent basis on condition that the same will not be unauthorizedly sublet. It is the case of the landlord that defendant No. 1 is the real brother of the plaintiff-landlord, however,there was dispute in the joint family property between the two brothers in 1965 and...
Bilkis Bano W/O Abdul Razzak Through Her Power of Attorney, Mohd. Abdu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR909
K.K. Tated, J.1. Heard Mr. Khader, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Mr. Dound, learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the Respondents.2. Present Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/ original claimant against the Judgment and award dated 19th October, 1993 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded in L.A.R. No. 60 of 1992.3. Mr. Khader, learned Counsel for Appellant submitted the undisputed facts as under:The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short 'S.L.A.O.') issued Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 20th February, 1987 for acquiring Appellants/original claimants land from Survey No. 99/3 of village Sonkhed, Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded admeasuring 81 Rs. for construction of Vishnupuri Project at Kandhar, Dist-Nanded. Thereafter the S.L.A.O. issued Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 15th March, 1990. After following due process of law, the S.L.A.O. declared award dated 12th July, 1991 and awarded ...
Sau. Savita Bajrang Kadam Vs. Manisha Ramdas More and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR176; 2009(111)BomLR1794
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. By consent, heard finally.2. In Writ Petition No. 2195/2009, the petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment/order dated 31.01.2009 passed by the District Judge, Nasik, whereby, an Election Petition No. 9/2007 filed by respondent No. 1(original petitioner) has been allowed and the election of the petitioner (original opponent No. 1) from Ward No. 19 of Igatpuri Municipal Council (I.M. Council) in the year 2007, is declared as null and void and accordingly set aside. By the same order, respondent No. 1(original petitioner) has been declared to be elected in the place of petitioner from Ward No. 19 of I.M. Council. Therefore, this petition.3. In Writ Petition No. 2254/2009, two voters being resident of Ward No. 19 of I.M. Council challenged the direction No. (3) of the impugned order only and prayed further to hold fresh election of the Ward of I.M. Council.4. Both these writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment as the basic facts & issues are common...
Chotumal Bahiramal Sindho (Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MhLj131
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Judgment will dispose of both the Writ Petitions, which are directed against the self-same Judgment and Decree passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Nasik dated 12th October, 1993 in Civil Appeal No. 333 of 1989, allowing the Appeal preferred by the landlord and setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the suit and instead ordering delivery of vacant possession of Eastern portion of the suit property admeasuring 6 ft. x 10 ft. to the landlord within three months from the date of the order with further consequential directions.2. The former Writ Petition is filed by the tenant, whereas the later by the landlord. The tenant has questioned the correctness of the finding recorded on the issue of bonafide and reasonable requirement of the landlord and also on the issue of comparative hardship and of ordering partial eviction from the suit premises. On the other hand, the landlord has challenged the finding on the issue of comparative har...
Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2009
Reported in: [2009]317ITR241(Bom)
R.S. Mohite, J.1. The question of law as referred to us under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act is as follows:1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that when the Income Tax Officer is directed to rectify his order under Section 154(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the basis of the application for rectification filed by the assessee in time as per CBDTs Circular No. 73, dated 7-1-1972, he can as well rectify the other apparent mistakes on his own motion under Section 154(2)(a) which he finds at the time of passing the order on the assessees application even if the limitation period of four years under Section 154(7) of the Act has expired ?2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:(a) In respect of the assessees return for the assessment year 1960-61, the Income Tax Officer passed an order under Section 143(3) on 23-3-1965.(b) Aggrieved by this order of assessment the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and one of the grounds of appeal ra...
Nivrutti Shamrao Kachave Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR366
Tated K.K., J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Present appeal is preferred by the original claimant against the impugned judgment and award dated 19-2-1994 passed by IInd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani in L.A.R. No. 281/1991.3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, original claimant has preferred the above mentioned first appeal claiming enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired land @ Rs. 15,000/- per Acre.4. Undisputed facts in the present case are that the S.L.A.O. issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Officer on 15-12-1981 for acquiring appellant-claimant's land for Sub Market Yard admeasuring 1 H 28 R from Gat No. 511 at village Daithana. Thereafter, S.L.A.O. issued notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 19-7-1982. After following due process of law, S.L.A.O. declared award dated 25-3-1983 and awarded compensation in respect of acquired land @ Rs. 1200/- per Acre. Be...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2009
Reported in: [2009]318ITR417(Bom)
1. The questions of law as raised in this appeal are as follows:(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the hon'ble Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,11,00,273 made by the Assessing Officer as enhancement of the value of closing work-in-progress even though the assessee had on one hand not included the said amount in its gross receipts relating to incomplete contracts but on the other hand claimed the benefit of TDS on the said amount in its return of income ?(B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the hon'ble Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,50,000 made by the Assessing Officer as disallowance of bad debts claimed by the assessee under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act by holding that the said amount represented a business expenditure under Section 37 of the Act ?(C) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the hon'ble Tribunal was right in considering the i...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »