Mumbai Court October 2011 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.
Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai Vs. New Marine Lines, Mumbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
JUDGMENT (PER J.P. DEVEDHAR, J.) 1) Although several questions of law are raised by the revenue in this appeal, counsel for the revenue presses only the last question. The said question (as reframed) reads thus :- "While computing the capital gains arising on transfer of a capital asset acquired by the assessee under a gift, whether the indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed with reference to the year in which the previous owner first held the asset or the year in which the assessee became the owner of the asset " The appeal is admitted on the above substantial question of law and taken up for final hearing by consent of both the parties. 2) The assessment year involved herein is AY 2004-05. 3) The relevant facts are that the assessee is an individual who derived income from business, house property, capital gains and other sources. 4) In the assessment year in question, the assessee had declared total income of Rs.20,92,400/-. The said return of income included long term capit...
Pushpalata Gopal Worlikar Vs. Mr.Ranjitsing Sharma and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ directions orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to remove the respondent Nos.4 to 6 from the possession of disputed shop being Shop No.1 in house No.460, Ramchandra Poshu Chawl, Bhagat Gully, Worli, Koliwada, Mumbai - 400 025, which premises according to the petitioner belongs to him. It is the case of the petitioner that she had initially filed a suit for getting possession of the said premises, in which a decree for possession was passed in favour of the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner got the decree executed and entered into possession, but subsequently, after some time, the respondent No.4 again entered the premises by trespassing the same with the alleged help of police constables and in that view of the matter, this petition has been filed in which police authorities have been joined as respondents and prayer for poss...
Anand at Bhausaheb Yuvraj Patil. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. Appellants are original accused Nos. 1 and 2. (For the sake of convenience they shall be hereinafter referred to as "accused Nos. 1 and 2".) They are challenging the judgment and order passed by the Ad-hoc Sessions Judge, who, by his judgment and Order dated 28/05/2004, convicted them for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. They were also convicted for the offence punishable under section 316 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. Fine of Rs 1000/- was imposed upon them on each count and, in default, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months was imposed. They were also convicted for the offence punishable under section 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs 500/- each an...
Shivaji Dnyandeo Patil and anr Vs. the Medical Council of IndiA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2011
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. The two Petitioners seek a direction to the First Respondent, the Medical Council of India (MCI), to issue a provisional certificate of registration under Section 25 (1) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The second relief sought is a direction to the Respondents - the MCI, National Board of Examination and the Union of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare "to preclude themselves from making any discrimination" against the Petitioners in granting a provisional certificate of registration. The second relief is essentially consequential to the first. 3. The Petitioners completed their HSC in February 2003. In October 2003, they secured admission to a course called the Bachelor of Science and Doctor of Medicine (B.S.M.D.) with the Fourth Respondent. The Fourth Respondent is a ...
Hetal Enterprises Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2011
1. The matter was adjourned thrice for settlement, but it could not be settled. The Defendants were willing to pay principal amount only, however, the Plaintiffs' insistence was also on reasonable interest on the same. Therefore, by consent heard finally. 2 The Defendants though served not filed any reply to the summons for judgment. 3 As per the averments made in the plaint, the Plaintiffs used to supply various kinds of stationery goods to the Regional Office of Defendants and always obtained due acknowledgment of delivery of goods on the delivery chalan/bill/invoice ranging from 16.12.2005 to 19.12.2005. As per the invoice/agreement, the grace period was of 7 days from the date of delivery of goods failing which the Plaintiffs entitled to claim interest at 19.5% on the principal amount. There is no serious dispute with regard to the receipt of the goods and the payment so raised and/or of any quality and/or quantity. 4 Even otherwise as per Article 18 of the Limitation Act, acknowle...
M/S. Noble Resources and Trading India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-2011
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 the challenge is to the validity of a public notice issued on 31 March 2011 by the Director General of Foreign Trade stipulating that the export of cotton shall not be entitled to DEPB benefits with respect to shipments made on or after 21 April 2010. The Petitioner has also questioned the legality of consequential notices of demand seeking to recover DEPB benefits allowed in respect of the export of cotton. 3. The Petitioner engages in the business of the manufacture and export of cotton bales. The Union Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992 has formulated the Foreign Trade Policy for 2009-2014. Chapter IV of the Policy contains provisions for duty exemption and inter alia covers the Duty Entitlement Passbook (DEPB) scheme. The handbook...
Prem Mahant Sahani at Tadipar Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-07-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. All these four Appeals can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment as the Appellants in these Appeals, who all were accused in N.D.P.S. Special Case No.21 of 2002, were convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge for Greater Bombay by one and the same Judgment and Order. The Appellants were accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 29 and 20(b)(ii) read with Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as "the NDPS Act"). After holding a trial, the Special Judge found all of them guilty and sentenced each of them to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and, in default, to suffer R.I. for six months. The Appellants, being aggrieved by the order of conviction and the sentences, have filed the above separate Appeals. 2. The Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.957 of 2005 is the original Accused No.3, the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.393 of 2005 is the origi...
Lubhan Gopal Nikhare Vs. Sau. Sandhya W/O Lubhan Nikhare
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-05-2011
1. This is an application filed by the father of the appellant seeking permission to prosecute the present appeal and for bringing him on record in place of his son- original appellant, who expired during the pendency of this appeal. 2. This application has been vehemently opposed by the respondent/wife and reply has also been filed. Placing reliance on the decision of supreme Court in the case of Smt. Yallawwa v. Smt. Shuntavva - AIR 1997 SC 35 learned counsel for the respondent/wife argued that the appellant/husband Lubhan having expired during the pendency of present appeal and the subject matter of the appeal being the proceedings for divorce between husband and wife on the ground of desertion and cruelty, the cause was purely a personal cause of action and, therefore, the same would die with the husband. He then argued that the respondent/ wife has one child and at any rate on merits of the matter there is no substance in the present appeal as the decree of dismissal of divorce pe...
Mangal S/O Tularam Warkhade and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-05-2011
1. These appeals, being disposed of by common judgment, are arising out of the judgment and order dated 15/5/2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Trial No. 18/2006. The appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 312/08 were accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3; the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 242/08 was accused No. 4; whereas the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 795/08 was accused No.5. The appellants shall hereinafter be referred to as the accused persons as per their numbers in the Sessions Trial. 2. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 were tried for offence punishable under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, I.P.C.) and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT NAGPUR /home/lichade/judgments/UVB/apeal242.08+.odt 3/18 3. Vide the impugned judgment and order, accused Nos. 1 to 5 are acquitted of the offence under Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. They are held guilty of t...
Matru Ashish Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and anr. Vs. the State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-2011
1. The issue in the above petition is as regards the challenge to the order dated 1st August, 2001 issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers under Section 79-A of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the Act"). By the said order, the State Government had directed the Co-operative Housing Societies in the State to charge non-occupancy charges on a particular basis. The said issue had come up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2635 of 2001. The Division Bench by its judgment and order dated 2nd March, 2007 in the matter of Mont Blanc Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others1 , inter alia, held that the power under Section 79-A of the Act cannot be exercised so as to be prejudicial to the interest of the Society. The Division Bench has further held that the directions in question issued are binding on the Co-operative Housing Societies. Paragraph 12 of the said report...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »