Mumbai Court July 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.
Bhupatlal J. Sheth Vs. Income Tax Officer and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. Rule; By consent Rule returnable forthwith. The Respondents waives service. At the instance and request of the advocates for both sides, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The Petitioner now 77 years old, challenges: (a) an order dated 6 January, 2010 of the Income Tax Officer, holding that the petitioner is liable under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the “said Act” ) to pay the tax dues of a private limited company, in which he was a Director ; and (b) an Order dated 30th March, 2011 passed in Revision under Section 264 of the said Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax upholding the said order dated 6th January 2010, Both the orders have been challenged on merits as well as on account of a breach of the principles of natural justice. 3. The facts leading to this petition are as under:- (a) The petitioner was till his verification on 29th April, 1994 a non-executive Director on the Board of Directors of M...
Shri Dhaktu Vengurlekar Vs. State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Rohit Bras De Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Ms. Linhares, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.3. 2. The above Petition seeks for a writ of Certiorari or any other writ order or direction quashing the impugned Judgment dated 15.04.2004 on the file of the Director of Panchayat Petition no. 174/A/2003. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner has a Mundkarial dwelling house bearing house no. 63 in survey no. 13/5 and 13/6 at Vaddy Merces, Goa, bearing House no. 63 which dwelling house has been purchased by the Petitioner pursuant to the proceedings before the learned Mamlatdar under the Mundcar Act. A purchase Sanad was issued in favour of the Petitioner dated 02.08.2001, whereby an area of 300 square metres located in both the survey numbers were purchased by the Petitioner. It is not in dispute that the subject matter of the ...
The Manmandir Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Shri.Tukaram Dattu Pawar and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 1. Both the petitions are filed for challenging the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli. The petitioner, Co-operative Bank has filed a private complaints for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the respondent no.1. In one case viz. Case no.127 of 2008, there was a delay of two days caused for filing complaint and in the other proceeding there was delay of four days. The applications were moved for condonation of delay and notices of those applications were given to the accused. The Magistrate allowed the applications and condoned the delay subject to payment of cost of Rs.200/- in each proceedings. Those two orders made by the Magistrate came to be challenged in the Criminal Revision Application no.183/2009 and 184/2009. The Sessions Court has allowed the Revisions and has set aside the orders made by JMFC. The Sessions Court has observed that sufficient opportunity was not given to ...
Tarun Chhanalal Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
P.C. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. For considering the submissions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner across the Bar, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the relief claimed in this petition, which reads thus:- (a) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to ensure that the Petitioner is restored back to the possession of the same flat, being Flat No.503 Gamdevi Deepak Co-operative Housing Society, 12 Kashibai Navrang Marg, Gamdevi, Mumbai 400007 which has been auctioned and/or in the alternative, he be given compensation in lieu thereof or alternatively, the respondents be directed to hand over another flat in the same area/vicinity having 1000 sq. ft. area and similarly he be also compensated for the loss of 420.210 grams of gold, 14 kg. of silver and 14.95 Ct. of diamonds as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper; 2. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed in the following circumstances: The petitio...
Bhupatlal J. Sheth Vs. Income Tax Officer and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. Rule; By consent Rule returnable forthwith. The Respondents waives service. At the instance and request of the advocates for both sides, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The Petitioner now 77 years old, challenges: (a) an order dated 6 January, 2010 of the Income Tax Officer, holding that the petitioner is liable under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) to pay the tax dues of a private limited company, in which he was a Director ; and (b) an Order dated 30th March, 2011 passed in Revision under Section 264 of the said Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax upholding the said order dated 6th January 2010, Both the orders have been challenged on merits as well as on account of a breach of the principles of natural justice. 3. The facts leading to this petition are as under:- (a) The petitioner was till his verification on 29th April, 1994 a non-executive Director on the Board of Directors of M/s. Metroni Dr...
Rajubhai Dhamirbhai Baria and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 04/07/2012 All these appeals and applications taken out therein are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience the appellants shall be referred to as accused by their original numbers. 2. Appellants who are the original accused are challenging the Judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, Mumbai whereby the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict Accused No. 1 - Rajubhai Dhamirbhai Baria, Accused No.4 - Pankaj Virendragir Gosai, Accused No.11 - Sanjay @ Bhopo Ratilal Thakkar, Accused No.12 - Bahadursinh @ Jitu Chandrasinh Chauhan, Accused No.14 - Jagdish Chunilal Rajput, Accused No.15 - Dinesh Phulchand Rajbhar, Accused No.16 - Shanabhai Chimanbhai Baria, Accused No. 18 -Shailesh Anupbhai Tadvi and Accused No.20 - Suresh @ Lalo Devjibhai Vasava for an offence punishable under section 143 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine o...
Sidhambika Pharma Pvt Ltd. Vs. Drugs Controller General (i) and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
P.C. Not on Board. Upon mentioning, taken on Board. 2. The relief claimed in this Petition is to assail the decision of the Authority, cancelling import permission given to the Petitioner. 3. Considering the nature of relief, the matter ought to have been filed as Civil Writ Petition, as it is against the civil action taken by the Authority. The fact that some criminal proceedings are pending and is the basis for cancellation of licence, does not mean that the impugned action is criminal action to be amenable to criminal writ jurisdiction. 4. Accordingly, leave to amend to convert this Petition into Civil Writ Petition is granted. Amendment be carried out within one week from today. 5. Office to place the matter before Appropriate Bench. Liberty to apply....
Pathan Iliyas Khan Abdul Majid Khan and Others Vs. the State of Mahara ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Challenge is to order of respondent 3 Tahasildar, Badnapur cancelling the voting /poll scheduled on 24.10.2010 for division no. 3 of Gram Panchayat, Badnapur during its general elections in 2010 due to death of contestant Shri Chandramani Ramchandra Ragde on 23.10.2010. This has been done under Rule 14-A of the Bombay Gram Panchayat (Election) Rules,1959; hereinafter referred to as 1959 Rules framed under Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, referred as 1958 Act. This Court issued notice on 2.11.2010 and on 6.11.2010, this Court stayed part of order countermanding the poll which affected other two seats in said division viz. open seat and OBC(woman) seat. The election of Sarpancha and Deputy Sarpancha was made subject to outcome of this writ petition and a connected writ petition. On 24.11.2010, the subsequent election programme was stayed. Petition was allowed to be amended on 9.12.2010 to assail proposed holding of elections from ward/division no. 2 from open...
Shri Dhaktu Vengurlekar Vs. State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Rohit Bras De Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Ms. Linhares, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.3. 2. The above Petition seeks for a writ of Certiorari or any other writ order or direction quashing the impugned Judgment dated 15.04.2004 on the file of the Director of Panchayat Petition no. 174/A/2003. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner has a Mundkarial dwelling house bearing house no. 63 in survey no. 13/5 and 13/6 at Vaddy Merces, Goa, bearing House no. 63 which dwelling house has been purchased by the Petitioner pursuant to the proceedings before the learned Mamlatdar under the Mundcar Act. A purchase Sanad was issued in favour of the Petitioner dated 02.08.2001, whereby an area of 300 square metres located in both the survey numbers were purchased by the Petitioner. It is not in dispute that the subject matter of the ...
State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary, Health Department, Mantra ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-10-2012
Mrs. Vasanti A. Naik, J. 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Thepetition is heard finally with the consent of the learnedcounsel for the parties. 2] By this petition, the petitioners impugn theorder passed by the Maharashtra AdministrativeTribunal on 11.8.2010, allowing an original applicationfiled by the respondent and directing the petitioners toappoint the respondent in a Class-IV Category post oncompassionate ground. 3] The husband of the respondent was serving asa X-ray Assistant/Ward Boy in the Rural Hospital atLakhandur since 1988. The husband of the respondentexpired on 24.4.2003 while in service. On 12.8.2003the respondent submitted an application to the MedicalOfficer, Rural Hospital, Lakhandur, for an appointmenton compassionate ground. The application wasforwarded to the Collector, Bhandara, who registeredthe name of the respondent in the waiting list. Sincethe respondent was not appointed on compassionateground for some time, she again applied to theCollector. It was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »