Mumbai Court June 2012 Judgments
Jaywant Balkrishna Sail and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
V.M. Kanade, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. By this Petition which is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Petitioners are seeking appropriate writ, order and direction for quashing the FIR which is registered vide C.R. No.SPL LAC 28/2011 dated 10/08/2011 against the Petitioners and others at the Andheri Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 (Hereinafter referred to as “Gambling Act”) and they are also seeking appropriate writ, order and direction, directing G.B.C.B. C.I.D to register an FIR against Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 for falsely implicating the Petitioners in criminal case. They are also seeking further writ, order and direction to award compensation of Rs 1,00,000/- each to the Petitioners to be paid by Re...
Tag this Judgment!Dy. Collector and S.D.O. and Another Vs. Shri Kiran Madhav Vaidhya
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Ms. Linhares, learned Addl. Government Advocate, appearing for the Appellants and Shri Gawas, learned Counsel holding for Shri N. K. Sawaikar, Advocate, appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award passed in Land Acquisition Case no. 77/2001 whereby a reference preferred by the Respondents under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (herein after referred to as the 'said Act'), was partly allowed and the compensation for the land acquired was fixed at the rate of Rs.70/- per square metre. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that land belonging to the Respondents situated in Village Bethora of Ponda Taluka was acquired by the Appellants for the proposed Ponda bye-pass road from Dhavli to Khandepar pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of the said Act dated 18.10.1999. By an Award passed under Section 11 of the said Act, dated 15.12.2000, the Land Acquisition Officer offered a compensation for the land acquired a...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. the Bardez Bazar Consumer Co-op. So ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. This common judgment and order shall dispose of the above three appeals filed against the orders, of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Branch (I.T.A.T.), dated 6/9/2006 in I.T.A. No. 214 to 217/PANJ/2005; 2/1/2006 in I.T.A. No. 29/PANJ/1998; and 9/7/2007 in I.T.A. No. 92/PNJ/2007, thereby holding that the principle of mutuality applies and that the income earned from members is liable to be exempted from tax. 2. The respondent is the assessee, which is a Co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, engaged in trading in consumer goods to its members as well as non-members. 3. Facts relevant for the disposal of the Tax Appeal no. 13 of 2007 may be stated as under: The assessment years relevant for the purpose of this appeal are 1997-1998, 1998-1999, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. For the assessment year 1997-1998, the assessee had filed return of income on 15/10/1997 which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( I.T. Act,...
Tag this Judgment!Shehala Pramod Desai Vs. Nil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
1. The aspect which the court is called upon to consider is whether the Petitioner Snehala Pramod Desai, who is the widow of the deceased, is liable to pay ad valorem court fee upon the securities shown in the petition which are sought to be transferred to the names of the Petitioner as also the other heirs under the Succession Certificate applied for by the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner is the widow of the deceased who is one of the heirs alongwith her two married daughters. Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner stated that only the Petitioner has applied for waiver/exemption of court fee on the ground that she is a woman and that the securities will be used for her maintenance. 3. The Petition has been filed simplicitor for issue of succession certificate in respect of the securities left by the deceased husband of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not stated or substantiated that the Petitioner, as the widow, is not able to otherwise maintain herself. 4. It is settled position in law...
Tag this Judgment!Kakasaheb Haribhau Kamble Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The appellant, who stand convicted for the offence punishable u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo further RI for one month by Sessions Judge, Osmanabad vide judgment and order dated 31.03.2011 rendered in Sessions Case No.16/2009, by this appeal questions the legality and correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. Few facts, which are germane to decide the present appeal, may briefly be stated thus – a) Prosecutorix (Her name is withheld as per the directions of the Supreme Court), had lodged a complaint (Exhibit-26) on 10th November 2008 in Shirdhon police station against the appellant and pursuant to which an offence was registered by PW9 API Choure at Crime No.127/2007 u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation of the said crime was entrusted to PW7 PSI Jadhav. b) PW7 PSI Jadhav had visited the spot and had drawn the Spot Panchanama (Exhibit-35). Clothes of the ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramashankar S/O. Bhura Rajbhat
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. The State of Maharashtra has challenged validity and legality of the judgment and order dt. 13.3.2000 passed in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 1997 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur was pleased to set aside conviction of the respondent/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304A, 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts, in brief, are as under: It appears to be the case of prosecution that, on 22nd May, 1995, at about 10.30 to 11.00 p.m. an accident occurred on Pathanpura road in Chandrapur city when, according to the prosecution, a scooter rider with his wife and two children as pillion riders were travelling by a scooter, which was dashed by a truck driven by the respondent/accused. Result of the said dash was that the wife of the scooter rider and his two children died as the rear side wheel of the truck ran over them. It is alleged that, due to the accident, the truck driver ran away. However, he was apprehended subsequently. The incide...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/S. Castrol India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
J.P. Devedhar, J. 1) This appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ['1944 Act' for short] was admitted on 8th February, 2012 on two substantial questions of law. However, at the hearing of the appeal, the aforesaid substantial questions of law have been by consent reframed into one substantial question of law as follows:- “Whether the CESTAT was justified in directing the assessee to pay 25% of the penalty levied under Section 11AC within 30 days from the date of communication of the order passed by the Tribunal, when the first and second proviso to Section 11AC specifically provide that the benefit of reduced penalty at 25% shall be available only if the duty determined under Section 11A(2), interest payable thereon under Section 11AB and penalty at 25% of the duty determined under Section 11A(2) has been paid within thirty days from the date of communication of the order of the Central Excise Officer determining duty payable under Section 11A(2) of the 194...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Harishchandra Bhikchand Gupta and Others Vs. Nirmala Madhukar Kal ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member We heard Mr.D.S. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Vinay Tambat, Advocate for the respondent. Complainant had filed consumer complaint No.25/2012 in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik based on the agreement of sale executed on 25/08/2004 by the opponent in favour of the complainant. Consideration was `6,50,000/- and according to the complainant, she had paid `1,50,000/- to the opponent from time to time, but opponent was not giving possession nor opponent was giving documents to procure bank loan to pay remaining amount of consideration. Hence, after opponent had sent notice of termination, the complainant had filed consumer complaint on 03/02/2012 and it appears that condonation of delay application was filed on 07/02/2012 since office had raised objection on the ground of limitation and therefore, complainant/respondent herein thought it fit to file condonation of delay application. That application...
Tag this Judgment!Cipla Ltd. Mumbai Central and Another Vs. Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
Honble Mr. P. N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member Heard Adv. Sanjit Shenoy on behalf of the Applicants/Complainants, Adv. Esther Joshua instructed by Little and Company on behalf of the Non-Applicant/Opponent No.1 and Adv. Bhavik Manek instructed by Wadia Ghandy and Company on behalf of the Non-Applicant/Opponent No.2 on the application for condonation of delay. [2] The Applicants/Complainants have filed this Miscellaneous Application No.423 of 2010 seeking condonation of delay in filing Consumer Complaint No.128 of 2010. It is the case of the Applicants/Complainants that the Applicant/Complainant No.1, namely Cipla Ltd., had imported certain goods from Switzerland. Cargo was valued at CHF (Confederation Helvetica Francs) 227,327. Consignment was entrusted to the custody of the Non-Applicant/Opponent No.1, namely Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd., by M/s. HAPPA AG for carriage and safe delivery from Zurich, Switzerland to Mumbai. Said cargo was accepted by the Non-Applicant/Opponent No...
Tag this Judgment!Mr Dilip Jedhe Vs. Gadeshwar Kripa Chs Ltd. and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
ORAL ORDER Per Honble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, President Heard Mr.U.B.Wavikar-Advocate for the appellant. None for respondent. This appeal is directed as against the order dated 07/03/2011 passed by Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban in consumer complaint no.8/2010. By this order it has been directed that the respondent society shall give maintenance bills and receipts in that respect to the complainant. However, it is further directed that those bills and the receipts should be given to the complainant/appellant after giving proper intimation published on the Notice Board and fixing the date and keeping the person present in the office of the society. This complaint has been partly allowed and partly rejected. Therefore, being aggrieved by the rejection part present appeal has been filed. Complainant is a member of respondent no.1 society. Respondent no.2 is an ex-Secretary of the said society. Respondent no.1 is a Housing society wherein the complaina...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »