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.
The Director of Income Tax (international Taxation) Mumbai Vs. M/S. Cr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
Oral Judgment: [S.J. Vazifdar, J.] 1. This is an appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissing the appellant's appeal and allowing, in part, the respondent's cross objections. The appeal is admitted and, with the consent of the parties, heard finally on the following substantial questions of law : I). Whether interest can be said to have accrued to the respondent / assessee on 31st March, 2001 (i.e. the last date of the financial year) in respect of securities held by it on that day although the interest was not due or payable on that date ? II). Whether the CIT(A) and the ITAT were right in holding that the sale of securities was covered by Article 14 of the tax treaty between India and Cyprus? 2. The respondent is a company incorporated in and is a tax resident of Cyprus. It carries on business of banking and was, at the relevant time, registered in India with the Securities and Exchange Board of India ...
Kishore Singnapurkar and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
Oral Order: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By consent, admitted and taken up for hearing forthwith. 3. The applicant is one of the accused in Special Case No.48/00, pending before the Special Judge, Bombay. The said case is in respect of offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, apart from the offences punishable under section 120B of the IPC read with409, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC. The trial has progressed substantially. In the midst of trial, the prosecution made an application for calling one Mr.Chaskar as a witness. It appears that initially the application was styled as “for recalling” but later on, the relevant prayer was corrected by saying that the said Mr.Chaskar should be called as a witness 'under the provisions of section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.' The learned Special Judge, after hearing the parties, allowed the said application. Being aggrieved thereby, the applicant has approached this Court invoking its inheren...
Shailesh Manohar Sastikar, S/O. Late Manohar Sastikar Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. The appellant is the original accused no. 2 in Sessions Case no. 21 of 2008. He has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji (Trial Court) for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. He is also convicted for offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C. and is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment dated 28/04/2011 and order dated 01/06/2011, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 2. The appellant as accused no.2 and his father namely Manohar Sastikar, since deceased, as accused no. 1 were tried for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 324, and 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. During the course of the trial, accused no.1 expire...
State of Maharashtra Through Shri S.G. Dharme, Food Inspector Vs. Raje ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
The appeal is filed by the State challenging validity and legality of the Judgment and Order dated 10/05/2000 passed by the Learned 6th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola in Criminal Case No. 415 of 1993, whereby the respondent were acquitted. 2. Facts stated briefly are:- On 07/04/1992, the complainant Food Inspector Shri S.G. Dharme along with the witness Gajanan Bansilal Agrawal visited the grocery shop namely; M/s Navjivan Tel Kendra situated at Rajeshwar Mandir Road, Jaihind Chawk, old City, Akola. The accused No. 1 - Rajesh was sitting in the Shop. Various kinds of edible Oils, Tea powder, Sugar, Turmeric Powder were kept for Sale. On being inquired, the Food Inspector was told that the accused No. 2 - Tulsidas is proprietor of the shop. The complainant after disclosing his identity had inspected the shop and prepared inspection note. He found that the Groundnut Oil was kept for sale in a tin. The Food Inspector asked 375 grams of the Groundnut Oil from the said tin for analy...
Rehmat Ali Baig Vs. Minocher M. Deboo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) This appeal arises from the decision of a Learned Single Judge dated 8 July 2011 in an Arbitration Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The challenge to an arbitral award has failed before the Learned Single Judge. 2. The Appellant and the Respondent are co-owners of a building in which the share of the Appellant is 42%, while that of the Respondent is 26%. There is a room admeasuring 200 sq.ft. According to the Respondent, who was the claimant in the arbitral proceedings, the Appellant obtained possession of the room from a tenant but sought to exclude the co-sharers. The Respondent instituted a suit before this Court for the recovery of a sum of Rs.4,05,600/- as his proportionate share in the value of the premises. The co-owners, who were impleaded as parties to the suit, were not appearing. By an order dated 13 October 2006, a Learned Single Judge of this Court recorded that the disputes between the Appel...
M/S. Pakdhane Cement House Vs. Ramesh S/O. Sheshrao Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mangrulpir, District Washim in Summary Criminal Case No.884 of 2003 delivered on 24th September, 2000 whereby the respondent/accused Ramesh Sheshrao Deshmukh was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Heard the submissions at the bar. 3. It was the case of the complainant in the trial Court that he is a proprietor of Pakdhane Cement House, Mangrulpir, Tq.Mangrulpir, District Washim and the complainant was carrying on the business of selling building materials as a proprietor of the said firm. According to the complainant, the accused had purchased cement worth Rs.90,750/- on 2nd November, 2001 on credit. The accused had paid cash amount of Rs.14,750/- and for balance amount of Rs.76,000/-, he had issued a cheque bearing No.131210 drawn upon the Bank of Maharashtra, Mangrulpir Branch. That cheque was presente...
The Bal Ganesh Mandir Association and Another Vs. State of Goa Through ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2. By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have prayed for an order to quash and set aside the order dated 17/6/2011 passed by the Respondent no. 3 and to declare that the action of Respondent no. 2 is illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires the provisions of the Goa Land (Prohibition of Construction) Act, 1985 ('The Act', for short) and the Constitution of India and to direct the Respondent no. 2 to consider the representation for regularization of the structure on the terms and conditions as deemed fit by the Respondent no. 2. 3. By the said order dated 17/6/2011, the Respondent no. 3, in exercise of the powers conferred under sections 4 and 6 of the Act, has directed the opponents who are 194 in number, all residents of PDA Colony, Alto Porvorim, Bardez-Goa, whose names are mentioned below the impugned order and which includes the petitioner no. 2, t...
The Director of Income Tax (international Taxation) Mumbai Vs. M/S. Cr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
Oral Judgment: [S.J. Vazifdar, J.] 1. This is an appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissing the appellant's appeal and allowing, in part, the respondent's cross objections. The appeal is admitted and, with the consent of the parties, heard finally on the following substantial questions of law : I). Whether interest can be said to have accrued to the respondent / assessee on 31st March, 2001 (i.e. the last date of the financial year) in respect of securities held by it on that day although the interest was not due or payable on that date ? II). Whether the CIT(A) and the ITAT were right in holding that the sale of securities was covered by Article 14 of the tax treaty between India and Cyprus? 2. The respondent is a company incorporated in and is a tax resident of Cyprus. It carries on business of banking and was, at the relevant time, registered in India with the Securities and Exchange Board of India ...
The Commissioner of Income Tax-3 Vs. Icici Bank Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
M.S. Sanklecha, J. This appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) is directed against the order dated 27/8/2010 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) relating to assessment year 1996-97. 2) Being aggrieved by the Order dated 27/8/2010 the appellant has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration by this Court: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in holding that the notice for reopening of assessment issued u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act was bad in law as the notice was based on mere change of opinion even though the assessment was reopened within a period of four years and the record shows that the Assessee Company had claimed excess deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act on income which included non fund base income and income from short term finance? 3) The appeal is admitted on the above ...
Kishore Singnapurkar and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
Oral Order: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By consent, admitted and taken up for hearing forthwith. 3. The applicant is one of the accused in Special Case No.48/00, pending before the Special Judge, Bombay. The said case is in respect of offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, apart from the offences punishable under section 120B of the IPC read with409, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC. The trial has progressed substantially. In the midst of trial, the prosecution made an application for calling one Mr.Chaskar as a witness. It appears that initially the application was styled as for recalling but later on, the relevant prayer was corrected by saying that the said Mr.Chaskar should be called as a witness 'under the provisions of section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.' The learned Special Judge, after hearing the parties, allowed the said application. Being aggrieved thereby, the applicant has approached this Court invoking its inherent powers. 4. A...
- ‹ Prev
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- Next ›
- Last »