Mumbai Court October 2011 Judgments
M.N.Ranade Vs. Bank of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
1. Rule. Mr.Shroff waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 though served, has not appeared. The affidavit of service qua respondent No.2 may be filed latest by tomorrow. Even otherwise, the respondent No.2 is an Estate Officer of respondent No.1 Bank and the main contesting party is the respondent No. 1, which is a Nationalized Bank. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing in the matter, rule is made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, dated 12-10-2011 by which the restoration application submitted by the petitioner-applicant bearing No.59 of 2011, which was filed for restoring the main proceedings i.e. Miscellaneous Appeal No.5 of 2010, is dismissed. The petitioner herein had challenged the order passed by the Estate Officer appointed under Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, dated 27...
Tag this Judgment!Both Are Ro.Tilak Nagar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by 2 Criminal Application consent of the parties. 2. The present criminal application is moved by the original accused no.1 and 3 in Special Case No.3/2010 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, who is also holding the charge of Special Judge to conduct the trials under the Atrocities Act. Challenging the order passed below Exh.35 on 09/08/2011. Considering the nature of relief claimed, this Court does not feel it necessary to issue notice to the respondent no.2. 3. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this application can be summarized as follows : Victim Rajabhau Bansode and these applicants were in the service of Zila Parishad School as Assistant Teachers. The present petitioners are husband and wife. It appears that as the husband of respondent no.2 by name Rajabhau Bansode, who was serving as Assistant Teacher in Zilla Parishad School, had committed suicide in the premises of the school itself, ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Omprakash Durgaprasad SharmA. Vs. Ms. Pranali Chandrashekhar and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
1. RULE. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith. Ms. Rekha Shukla waives service of Rule on behalf of Respondents. Petition taken up for final hearing on Board. 2. I have heard Mr. Dani, Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. Naik for Respondents at some length. 3. It is not disputed that the person by name - Omprakash D. Sharma who is shown as Applicant in this Civil Revision Application who was the tenant of the suit flat. It is not disputed that Vasant S. Velinkar had 2/5th undivided share in the ownership, and Manek Shrikrishna Velinkar had 3/5th undivided share in the ownership. The said Manek Velinkar had a daughter by name Kamalini alias Leena. By executing her last Will dated 3rd February, 1965 in which she had appointed her brother Vasant Velinkar and sister in law as executors she had bequeathed her 3/5th undivided share in the suit flat to her daughter Kamalini alias Leena. On 16th July, 1977, Kamalini, mother of Pramod and Pranali (who are Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein) died...
Tag this Judgment!indo European Breweries Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.) : 1. The assessment of the Petitioner for Assessment Year 2004-05 has been sought to be reopened by a notice dated 17 March 2011 issued under Section 148(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 2. The Petitioner filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2004-05 on 19 October 2004. The Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment under Section 143(3). The assessee had declared a loss of Rs. 2.10 Crores. Depreciation in the amount of Rs.2.11 Crores was claimed by the assessee on fixed assets. The Assessing Officer made a general disallowance on the depreciation claimed by the assessee in the amount of Rs.20 lacs on the following grounds : "On perusal of records and details furnished during the course of assessment proceedings, it is seen that the assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs.2,11,77,238/- on fixed assets. The assessee has furnished the copies of bills of purchase of assets. It is seen that many of the capital assets are purchased at th...
Tag this Judgment!Lok Housing and Construction Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.) : 1. Rule, by consent returnable forthwith. With the consent of Counsel and at their request, the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution the Petitioner has challenged the validity of a notice dated 29 March 2011 issued by the First Respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 proposing to reopen an assessment for Assessment Year 2004-05 together with an order dated 25 July 2011 dealing with the objections of the Petitioner. 3. During the financial year 2003-04 the Petitioner entered into a financial restructuring arrangement with its lending institutions by which the lenders agreed to waive / forego accumulated finance cost in the amount of Rs.20.58 Crores. The payments of the balance agreed amounts were rescheduled. According to the Petitioner, as per the settlement terms, the waiver of interest was subject to the Petitioner paying the agreed balance liabil...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Mulchand Jain. Vs. Smt. Purnima Prakash Kulkarni and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the present matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal at the stage of admission itself. . This Civil Revision Application takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 07th March 2011, passed by the learned District Judge, Dhule, in Civil Appeal No. 72 of 2009 and Judgment and decree dated 9th May, 2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division Dhule, in Regular Civil Suit NO. 431 of 2004. 2. It is the case of the revision applicant that, he was inducted as tenant by Shamrao Raghunathrao Kulkarni, the original landlord, father-in-law of the plaintiff No.1 and grand father of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4. The revision applicant is running his business in the suit premises since 1985. It is the case of the evision applicant that, the agreed rent for tenancy was of Rs. 200/- per month. It was regularly paid by the revision applicant. The rent was regularly accepted by Shamra...
Tag this Judgment!Anil So Marotrao Dhongade. Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-2011
JUDGMENT:( Per A.H.JOSHI, J.) 1. These appeals arise out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence awarded to ten accused persons, who were tried in Sessions Case No.57/2008 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Nanded, passed on 10th Nov.,2009. 2. Heard Advocate for the respective parties and perused the record. 3. The accused were charged for offences under Sections 302, 120(b), 341, 323, 504, 506, 324, 147, 148, 149 of IPC and Section 4(25) of Indian Arms Act. 4. Prosecution story, in brief, can be narrated as follows: At a location known as Jangamwadi Chowk, the quarrel began over allegation that accused persons have thrown stones on the motor cycle of Nikhil Kurdukar. The incident resulted into quarrel. All accused persons flocked there. Prashant Medpallewar arrived and tried to pacify. Ultimately, the unlawful assembly of accused persons assaulted the deceased and other prosecution witnesses, by use of Khanjar, stick, stones, etc. Prashant Medpallewar suffered seve...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Umashankar So. Late Durgaprasad Saraf and ors. Vs. the Official L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
1] By this appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act the order dated 29.09.1985 passed by Company Judge of this Court on Company Application Nos. 17 of 1993 and 27 of 1994 granting applications moved by respondent-Official Liquidator to bring legal representatives of deceased respondent no.1 and of one of his legal heirs has been questioned. The legal representatives are permitted to be brought on record in Company Application Nos. 27 of 1986 under Section 542 and 543 of Companies Act. 2] Rai Bahadur Shreeram Durgaprasad Limited is the company being wound up as per orders dated 16.11.1981 in Company Petition 1 of 1981. The Official Liquidator on behalf of said company filed application No. 27 of 1986 on 04.11.1986 under Sections 542 and 543 of Companies Act 1956, against deceased Durgaprasad son of Shreeram Saraf and 6 other persons. On 21.11.1986 Company Judge issued notices in the matter. The Official Liquidator took out misfeasance summons dated 19.02.1987. Respondent no.1 there...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Smt.U.P.Adke and anr
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
1 The appellant-State of Maharashtra and the Secretary of Public Works Department of Government of Maharashtra have preferred the present appeal for challenging the Judgment and decree dated 6th may 2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Nashik by which the appellants have been directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to respondent nos. 1 to 6 who are the original plaintiffs. The appellants have been directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of suit till realization. The compensation has been ordered and decreed to be paid as the State Government failed to maintain a public road in a proper condition which resulted in the accidental death of the husband of the first respondent. The State Government and the Cantonment Board have blamed each other for the accident. 2 The record of the suit was called for and the appellants were permitted to file paper book. The parties were put to notice that the Appeal will be taken up for final disposal. The a...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Indrayani Foods Ltd. Vs. Pam-pac Machines Pvt.Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-2011
1. The Applicant/Petitioner(original Defendant)(judgment debtor) by this Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has challenged the order dated 30 April 2011 passed by the learned IInd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Satara below Exhibits 28 and 31 in Special Darkhast No.42 of 2010, whereby both these applications raising objection to the execution proceeding instituted by the Respondent (original Plaintiff) (decree holder) based upon a compromise decree, passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune have been rejected. 2 The Memorandum of Understanding cum Agreement to Sell (for short, "the Agreement") was executed between the Applicant and the Respondent at Mumbai, whereby the Applicant agreed to sell the two properties situated at Mouje Dhangarwadi, taluka : Khandala, District : Satara, for total consideration of ` 3,60,00,000/- out of which ` 60,00,000 was paid at the time of execution of the Agreement. The balance consideration wa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »