Mumbai Court October 2012 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.
M/S. Roman Tarmat Ltd. Vs. M/S. (indukuru Venku Reddy Constructions) I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
1. By this petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 petitioner seeks an order of injunction restraining the respondent in any manner utilizing the amount of Rs.14,59,19,989/- received by the respondent from encashment of the bank guarantee and for a direction to the respondent to secure the petitioner to the extent of the said amount by depositing the same in this court. The respondent has raised a preliminary objection about territorial jurisdiction of this court to entertain, try and dispose of the present petition filed under section 9 of the Act in its affidavit in reply. This court has thus directed both the parties to address this court on the preliminary objection raised by the respondent. Some of the relevant facts on this issue are as under: 2. By Piece Rate Work Contract executed on 16th June, 2010 at Chennai by and between the petitioner and respondent, the petitioner was awarded the project of construction of automotive test tracks at GARC, Che...
Kaustubh Sudhir Mestry Vs. Praveena Lakshmanan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Rule. Made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order of the learned Judge, Family Court No.7 Mumbai dated 31st July, 2012 dismissing his application to dismiss the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent-wife. 3. The parties married in 2006 and went to the U.S.A. in 2006. They lived together in the U.S.A. until 2010. In the meantime they had disputes. They were residing in the U.S.A. The petitioner-husband filed the petition for divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and also cruelty. The wife filed a counter claim. The parties applied for, opposed and ultimately accepted an interim order by consent. The parties appeared in person as also through their respective attorneys in the Judicial District Harris County, Texas, U.S.A. The interim order restrained the parties from entering upon their respective places of residence. The interim order directed the husband to pay house rent, car and motor cycle loan and phone ...
Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Mumbai Vs. Birla Global Asset Finance Co. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
P.C. Two questions of law raised by the Revenue in this appeal read as: (A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the tribunal was right in holding that motor cars are commercial vehicles and the assessee is entitled to depreciation at the rate of 50% by ignoring the provisions of Old Appendix 1 part A SNC 1/3 ITXA 6835-10 .doc item III(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 relevant to the A.Y. 2004-05, which specifically provide for depreciation @ 20% on motor cars not used in the business of running them on hire? (B) Whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing depreciation on intangible assets viz. Business and commercial brand equity even though such an asset is not a depreciable asset within the meaning of section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act or Part B of the depreciation schedule in old Appendix of the IT Rules relevant to the A.Y.2004-05? 2. As regard the first question is concerned, Counsel for the parties state that the said question is answered i...
Smt. Nafisa Syed Ali Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
A.S. Oka, J. We have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties on 11th October, 2012. 2. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Writ of Habeas Corpus, the petitioner has prayed quashing and setting aside the order or detention dated 30th March, 2012 passed by the Detaining Authority in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act"). 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has made detailed submissions on various grounds urged in the Petition. The learned Counsel has pressed into service grounds Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 set out in the petition. The learned Counsel has also pressed into service the grounds Nos.6 and 7 of the Petition. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the order of detention has been passed in exercise of powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 ...
Fiat India Automobiles Limited Vs. Virendra Singh, Assistant Commissio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Oral Judgment: (J.P. Devadhar, J.) : 1 Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2 This writ petition is filed to challenge the notice dated 30.03.2012 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-10(1) Mumbai under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 3 The basic argument of the Petitioner is that once the CIT-10 Mumbai in exercise of the powers vested in him under Section 127(2) of the Act has transferred the power to assess the Petitioner on 22.11.2011 from ACIT-10(1) Mumbai to DCIT, Circle-1(2) Pune, then the ACIT-10(1) would have no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice dated 30.03.2012 and therefore, the said notice dated 30.03.2012 is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4 The relevant facts are that on shifting the registered office of the Petitioner from Mumbai to Pune, the Petitioner in June-July, 2009 had applied for transfer of assessment records from Mumbai to Pune. After, exchange of several letters, the CI...
NavIn Makhija and Others Vs. Tulsi Bhimjiyani and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Oral Judgment: By this petition, the petitioners seek interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. Admittedly, the Arbitral Tribunal has been already constituted in the above matter. The petitioners have made statement before the Arbitral Tribunal that this application would be withdrawn. The petitioners have taken out Chamber Summons in this proceedings (1215 of 2012) for seeking certain amendments. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that reliefs in the Chamber Summons be granted and the petitioners be permitted to withdraw this petition. 3. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, strongly oppose this petition on the ground that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of this petition and consequently this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Chamber Summons filed by the petitioners. In view of the preliminary objection raised by the respondents this court shal...
Girish Son of Sanjay Bole Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
A.P. Bhangale, J. 1. The applicant prayed for to quash and set aside FIR bearing no 44 of 2012 dated 16-03-2012 registered under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Mangrulpir Police station, District Washim against the applicant,Chaitanya Neval, Manoj Janjal,and Swapnil Tayade. 2. The case against the applicant is that a girl Miss Ekta Ajabrao Pradhan aged about 18 years resident of Shahapur Taluka Taluka Mangarulpir decided to commit suicide at her residence by pouring kerosene on her body and setting herself ablaze on 29-02-2012 at about 10.00 p.m. While she was receiving medical treatment at Sarvopchar Rugnalaya at Akola, her dying declaration was recorded by Executive Magistrate, Akola at about 7.30 a.m. after obtaining endorsement from the doctor attending the patient Ekta, about her fitness and consciousness to give statement in the nature of dying declaration. Ekta made a statement on oath that she had poured kerosene on her body and burnt herself due t...
Poisar Navjiveen Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Another Vs. Div ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Oral Order: This writ petition along with some civil applications appeared on board under caption "for orders". When the civil applications were argued and since they were argued extensively, a suggestion was given to parties as to why the petition cannot be taken up and disposed of. All parties having consented to this course, the petition is heard and disposed of. 2. On 18th September 2003, this Court admitted the petition and made interim orders of status quo. That has led to filing of applications by several persons who are not even parties to the petition but who are anxious to have a decision on this petition. 3. In such circumstances, even those who have moved the applications, have been heard by me. 4. The petition is directed against an order dated 22nd October 2003 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies by which an appeal has been allowed, which appeal was preferred by the respondent No.3 to this petition. The appellate authority has allowed the appea...
Akhil Bharatiya Ashanghathit Rozandari Kamgar Sanghathana, Through Its ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Oral Judgment: [S.S. Shinde, J.] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the communication dated 20th January, 2011 by the District Programme Coordinator, Maharashtra Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme cum Collector, Aurangabad, thereby directing the Functional Officer, Maharashtra Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (for short, "MREG Scheme") cum Tahsildar, Sillod District Aurangabad and Assistant Functional Officer, MREG Scheme cum Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kannad that, the persons who are local residents of concerned village are only eligible to be registered under the MREG Scheme and accordingly steps should be taken. It was further directed that, names of persons belongs to VJNT and whose names are registered under the said scheme, the said names should be deleted. It was further observed in said letter that, while giving work under the sa...
M/S. Mineral Enterprises Pvt. Limited Company Vs. Nilconta G. Amonkar ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Shri Nitin Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Petition challenges the Order passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, at Margao, dated 26.07.2006, passed in Misc. Civil Appeal no. 13/2005, whereby an Appeal preferred by the Respondents challenging the Order passed by the learned Trial Judge, dismissing the application under Order 39 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, came to be allowed and the defence of the Petitioners was struck down. 3. Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has raised a grievance as far as the impugned Order is concerned essentially on the short ground that the learned Appellate Court has proceeded to hold that once there is a breach of an Order, the consequences of striking of the defence under Order 39 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code was mandatory. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge ha...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »