Mumbai Court April 2011 Judgments
Marten Borchert and anr. Vs. Arzan Khambatta and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-2011
1. The Petitioner No.1 is the father of Petitioner No.2. He is the brother of one Ursula Dara Mistry, the Testatrix who executed a Will dated 7th February 2004 and Codicil dated 29th November 2004 which have been probated. Respondents 1 and 2 are the executors under the said Will and the Codicil of the Testatrix. The Respondents have administered a large part of the estate of the testatrix as per the mandate contained in her Will. 2. The Petition is filed for removal of the Respondents as the executors and appointment of other executors in their place. The Petition is, therefore, essentially filed under Section 301 of the Indian Succession Act. The Petition is also filed for directing inventory of the estate of the Testatrix, information of the steps in administration, handing over of certain property being the Rural Electrification Corporation (REC) bonds, implementation of the Will, appointment of receiver and appointment of Petitioner No.1 as the sole trustee of the trust directed t...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax. Vs. Shri Bharat R. RuiA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-2011
1) This appeal was admitted on 21/12/2010 on one question of law, which at the hearing of the appeal, by consent, is reframed into two questions, as follows :-a) Whether the transactions in exchange traded financial derivatives are "speculative transactions" as defined in Section 43(5) of the Income Tax Act,1961 ?b) If so whether clause (d) inserted to the proviso to Section 43(5) of the Act w.e.f. 1-4-2006 would apply to such transactions undertaken in the assessment year 2003-04 ?2) The respondent-assessee is an HUF engaged in the business of trading in shares and securities, etc. 3) In the assessment year 2003-04, the assessee had entered into certain transactions in exchange traded derivatives ('derivative transactions' for short) which resulted in loss amounting to Rs. 28,37,707/-. The assessee claimed the above loss as business loss. In the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act' for short) the assessing officer rejected the contention o...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Rajmal Jain, and ors. Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-2011
1. These appeals filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code arise from the common judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Mumbai, in Sessions Case Nos. 189 of 1998, 570 of 1998, 1393 of 1998, and 328 of 2000. In all 16 accused came to be tried and accused Nos.1 to 9 and 13 to 16 were charged under Sections 396 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. decoity with murder and accused No.11 was charged under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, "I.P.C.") i.e. dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a decoity by accused No.1 and accused No.12 was charged under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code for voluntarily assisting the accused in disposing off the stolen property in decoity. Accused No.10 Balaram Shinde was also alleged to be a member of the decoity gang but though arrested, he subsequently absconded. Hence, the trial continued against the remaining 15 accused. Accused Nos.1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, ...
Tag this Judgment!Hiru B.Barot. Vs. Ipca Laboratories Limited, and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-2011
1. These LPAs are directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 26.10.2010 in Writ Petition No. 3139/2010 granting wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).The respondent-company is manufacturer of pharmaceutical products and the appellant was a workman. He was asked to prepare a Batch Manufacturing Record (BMR) but he refused to perform accordingly and instigated other workmen, therefore, charge- sheet was issued against him on 23.11.2007. In the inquiry he was held guilty and was dismissed from the service by order dated 9.6.2008. The workman challenged the said order by filing Reference before the Labour Court. In the said Reference, an application filed for interim award (Exh.E) was contested by the company and the Presiding Officer Dadra & Nagar Haveli at Silvasa, vide order dated 20th February,2010 ,has partly allowed the said application, and directed to provisionally re-instate the workman on his i...
Tag this Judgment!Bisram Sanu Jambhekar. Vs. State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2011
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26.10.2004, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Session Trial No.10/2004 by which the appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days, the present appeal was filed by the appellant.2. In support of the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant made the following submissions. (a) The prosecution case is not based on any direct evidence and is based only on oral and written dying declarations.(b) The witnesses on oral dying declaration have not supported the prosecution and the trial Court has also disbelieved them.(c) The only evidence on record that remains for consideration is that of written dying declaration proved by P.W.8 Abdul Jabbar, the Executive Magistrate.(d) Perusal of the evidence of P.W...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh S/O Vishwanath Gholap, and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra, a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-2011
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.2. In both the present writ petitions, the dispute concerns a common order of posting issued by respondent No. 4 Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar whereby respondent No. 5 in both the petitions, namely, Mohan Popatrao Shinde and Bhausaheb Shankar Bhondve were shifted from post of Taluka Health Officer of Panchayat Samiti, Sangamner and Karjat, respectively, and in their places, the present petitioners i.e. Suresh Vishwanath Gholap and Sunil Vitthalrao Borade were directed to take charge, respectively as Taluka Health Officer of Sangamner and Karjat. The said order was challenged before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, (4) wp2585258611 Bench at Aurangabad, vide Original Application Nos. 692/2010 and 693/2010. The learned Tribunal, by separate orders dated 23rd March, 2011, upheld the challenge and directed for reinstatement of respondents No. 5 in bot...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Kishore Chandrakant Mhatre. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police, and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-2011
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. Writ Petition is heard finally. 2. Perused the accompanying documents to the present Writ Petition. Also perused the affidavit filed by the Externing Authority Deputy Commissioner of Police, ZoneII, Panvel, District Raigad dated 7th March, 2011.3. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the externment order passed against him dated 29.08.2009 passed by the Externing Authority DCP, ZoneII, Panvel, Navi Mumbai and the order dated 3.6.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the externment order.4. By the externment order the petitioner was externed for the period of two years from Raigad, Thane and Mumbai Districts.5. Certain factual position, as emerged out from the documents produced in the Writ Petition, can be narrated in order to have proper perspective of the matter and to decide the challenge to the impugned orders.6. Senior PI of Taloja police station, Panvel submitted a proposal to...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Najib Mohd. Aslam @ Sheru. Vs. the State of Maharashtra, and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-2011
1. Writ Petition is heard finally. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.2. Heard rival arguments of the parties at length. Perused the accompanying documents to the present Writ Petition. Also perused the affidavit filed by the Externing Authority Deputy Commissioner of Police, ZoneI, Mumbai dated 14th December, 2010.3. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the externment order passed against him dated 20.09.2010 passed by the Externing Authority DCP, ZoneI, Mumbai and the order dated 22.11.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the externment order.4. Certain factual position, as emerged out from the documents produced in the Writ Petition, can be narrated in order to have proper perspective of the matter and to decide the challenge to the impugned orders.5. Senior PI of J.J. Marg Police Station submitted a proposal to DCP ZoneI, Mumbai on 4th August, 2010 for initiating actions ,under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Mumbai Poli...
Tag this Judgment!Adwait Surendra Aatre. Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2011
1. Heard both sides.2. By consent of the parties taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.3. The present application is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, invoking inherent powers of this Court in the matter of criminal justice, for quashing of the F.I.R. being C.R. No. 107 of 2010 registered by the Kherwadi Police Station, of offences u/s 279, 338 read with 134 (a), (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the applicant, on a complaint of one Mr. Nitin Satish Kale.4. The applicant is a student aged 23 years, having valid driving licence and it is alleged that while he was driving a motor vehicle (Mahindra Scorpio), it gave a dash to the complainant on a road and thereby caused some minor injuries to his leg and shoulder. The matter was therefore, reported to Kherwadi Police station, which was subsequently inquired and investigated. Concerned Investigating Officer of the Kherwadi Police station is present. He informed that investigation is complete a...
Tag this Judgment!Sadashiv Mahadev Ghate, and ors. Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-2011
1. This Appeal impugns the correctness of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence both passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur on 30th October, 1996 in Sessions Case No.29 of 1993. 2. By the impugned judgment of conviction all the four Appellants were held guilty. They were convicted under section 326 read with section 34 IPC and directed to suffer R.I. for 3 years, fined Rs.3000/- each i.d. R.I. for 1 year. They were also held guilty under section 324 read with section 34 of IPC and directed to suffer R.I.for 1 year each, fined Rs.1000/- each i.d.R.I. For 3 months each. Both the substantive sentences to run concurrently.3. However, by the same impugned judgment, all the four accused were acquitted of the charges under sections 302, 336, 337, 325 and 504 read with section 34 IPC and there is no challenge by the State to the said acquittal ordered in favour of these appellants. As such, it is not disputed that the scope of the hearing of this appeal is limited to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »