Court : Mumbai
JUDGMENT : (Per J.P. Devadhar, J.) 1. Although several questions are raised by the Revenue in this appeal, the basic question raised in the appeal is :- "Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the sum of Rs.2.20 crores being export proceeds which were realized beyond the period of six months from the end of relevant assessment year and there was no specific extension of time granted by the Competent Authority under Section 10A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961." The appeal is admitted on the above question and by consent taken up for final hearing. 2. The assessment year involved herein is A.Y. 2004-05. 3. In the present case, admittedly the export proceeds amounting to Rs.2.20 crores has not been received within six months from the end of the relevant assessment year. As the exports were effected prior to 31st March 2004, the export proceeds ought to hav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.) : These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution have been instituted by the Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., which is a financial institution within the meaning of Section 2(1)(m)(iv) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, read with a notification dated 10 November 2003 issued by the Union Government in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs Banking Division). The Petitioner during the course of its business has disbursed housing loans. The loans are secured inter alia by mortgage of immovable properties and the Petitioner claims to have an enforceable security interest. Upon a default by a borrower, the loan account is classified as a non-performing asset. Under the Act, which was enacted by Parliament in 2002, statutory provisions have been enacted to provide a speedy mechanism for the recovery of amounts due to financial institution...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Top of Form 1. Perused the investigation papers which were made available for inspection purpose, as well as, heard learned respective Counsel for the parties, finally. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant i.e. original complainant, for setting aside the order dated 10th May 2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, in Criminal Bail Application No. 294/2011, granting bail to respondent no.1 herein, and also requesting to issue directions to arrest the respondent no.1. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The applicant, namely, Arun s/o. Sudhakar Jain, is the original complainant who filed the FIR on 30th March 2011, under Crime No. 45/2011, with Police Station, Paranda (District : Osmanabad), against respondent no.1 herein, namely, Vivek s/o. Padamrajendra Mahajan, and the other co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 306, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The applicant had a daughter, namely, Vijaya who married with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Heard learned Advocates and perused the record. 2. In all ten accused were tried for offenses punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341 with Sections 149 and 302 with 149, 307 with 149 of IPC. All accused have been convicted towards all the offenses charged and have been sentenced. 3. In these appeals, the accused have challenged the judgment and order of conviction. 4. Cause of death is "Hypo-volumic shock due to compound fracture of upper end of both Tibia and fibula with lower end of humurus leading to cardio-respiration arrest" 5. The prosecution has relied upon eye witnesses, namely, PW No.3 Kuldip Ragde, PW No.5 Dhananjay Hande, PW No.6 Balaji Pandhare, PW No. 10 Bharat Ragade, while other witnesses pertain to other matters pertaining to the investigation. 6. PW No.1 Dr. Ravindra Mali is the medical witness who has conducted the post mortem examination. Other medical witness is PW No.2 Dr.Sanjay Walke and PW No.15 Dr. Vilas Deshmukh. The medical certificates, at Exhs.75, 76...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1 Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. 2 For the purpose of hearing this Civil Applications and considering whether Applicants/Appellants should be granted leave to file Second Appeal or not, the presence of the other Respondents is not necessary. 3 The facts leading to the filing of these proceedings are brief and the same are as under:- (a) Respondent No.1 claims that an Agreement for Sale dated 21st May, 1994 was executed in her favour by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in Special Civil Suit No.184 of 1997 filed in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Niphad, namely Dhondopant M. Dokhale and Ramkrishna M. Dokhale. The suit was filed for specific performance on 5th December, 1997. Shri Suresh P Sonawane, son of present Applicant/Appellant was. impleaded as Defendant No.3. (b) All the Defendants filed joint Written Statement below Exhibit 17 and contended that the transaction was money lending transaction. They contended that Defendant Nos.1 & 2 and their brother Manik...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1. The appellant and three others were the accused in Sessions Case No.167 of 2001 before the Court of Sessions, Nashik. The allegation against them was that they had committed an offence punishable under section 307 of the IPC r/w section 34 thereof. After holding a trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted the other accused, but convicted the appellant of an offence punishable under section 307 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer RI for one month. 2. The appellant being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, has appealed to this court. 3. The prosecution case before the trial court was as follows: The appellant was the husband of Sangita - the deceased. The marriage between the appellant and Sangita had taken place in the year 1996. After the marriage, the appellant and the said Sangita were residing jointly with the appellant's brother - Suresh (original accused no.2), fathe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Top of Form 1) Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2) Heard both the sides and perused the record. 3) This writ petition, filed by the detenu, challenges the order dated 5th April, 2011 passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, Jalgaon, exercising powers under Section 3(1)(2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing And Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter to be referred to as the said Act.) 4) Factual background of the petitioner and contentions raised by the petitioner are summarized as follows, - (a) In 1999, the petitioner was holding a licence of wholesale distributorship for sale of kerosene. He continued to hold the licence up to 2003-2004. (b) He withdrew from the business of sellling of kerosene owing to change in the policy of distributing kerosene through public distribution system (PDS) which is known as "blue kerosene" by the State Government. (c) He has thereafter started business of sweet mart. (d) He claims to be a law-abiding and law...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
ORAL JUDGMENT(PER:- A.R.JOSHI,J.) 1) Heard rival arguments for some time. Perused the judgment and order of conviction. Also perused the notes of evidence and the material produced before the learned Sessions Judge during the trial by way of documentary evidence. 2) The present appellant/sole accused has filed the present appeal, challenging the judgment and order passed in Sessions Case No. 8/2011 dated 10th June, 2011. By the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Beed, the present appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for two months. 3) Prior to discussing the arguments advanced, mainly on behalf of the appellant/accused, case of the prosecution can be narrated, in nutshell, as under - (i) The present accused, his wife, his parents and his brother and his wife, were all residing togethe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. The former appeal is directed against the impugned Judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Mumbai in Petition No. A-2320/2007 whereby the prayer of the appellant-husband for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been dismissed. 2. The other appeal is against the Judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Mumbai in Petition No.C-87/2008 providing for maintenance to the respondent-wife at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per month including accommodation charges payable from the date of the order and direction to the appellant-husband to repay the loan amount to the daughter which she had taken for pilot training. The companion civil application is filed for interim relief of stay of operation of the impugned judgment and decree which is subject matter of challenge in the latter appeal. 3. Both the appeals were listed for admission. Before the appeals were heard for admission, the matters were kept in Chambers to explore the possibility of s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. By this application for review, the applicants -tenants are seeking review of the judgment dated 21.10.2010 delivered in Writ Petition No.711/2010. In that Writ Petition styled as one under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, they had questioned the judgment dated 12.12.2006 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No.326/2002 and subsequent judgment and decree dated 9.12.2009 of Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.24/2007. The respondents-landlord had sought their eviction on the ground that the premises were required on account of bona fide need. The trial Court as also the Appellate Court accepted that need and this Court rejected tenants' Writ Petition on 21.10.2010. The learned counsel for the tenants had sought time of eight weeks to approach the Hon'ble Apex Court. That request was opposed but then the said period was granted on condition of tenants' depositing all monetary part as per the impugned judg...
Tag this Judgment!