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.
Kohinoor Ctnl Infrastructure Company Private Limited and Another Vs. M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) Rule; with the consent of the Counsel for the parties returnable forthwith. With the consent of the Counsel and at their request, the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The First Petitioner is the owner of a plot of land bearing Final Plot No.46 of Town Planning Scheme-III situated at N. Kelkar Road, Shivaji Park, Mumbai. The First Petitioner is developing a highrise Information Technology Park and Residential and Public Parking Building. The development comprises of three level basements for captive parking and three wings. Wing-A consists of a ground floor and seven upper floors for shops and a restaurant; Wing-B consists of a ground floor and 48 upper floors for office units; and Wing-C consists of a ground floor and 32 upper floors. The dispute in the present case relates to Wing-C. Wing-C envisages municipal public parking on the ground floor and 14 upper floors and residential premises on eighteen floors above the par...
M/S. Rabo India Finance Limited, Mumbai Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.) :- 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner has challenged a notice dated 28.3.2011, issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to reopen the assessment for the A.Y. 2004-2005 and an order dated 27.3.2011 rejecting the petitioner's objections thereto. 3. We have come to the conclusion that the reopening of the assessment is based only on a mere difference of opinion. It is admittedly not on the basis of any new material or the existence or even the realization of any provision of law or a judgment which had not been noticed earlier. The change of opinion occurred in the assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2007-2008 leading to the present proceedings for the A.Y. 2004-2005. The very material relied upon had not only been produced before the AO in the previous years but had been brought to his notice and considered by him while passing the assessment orders of the earli...
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...
Aplab Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
P.C. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed to issue direction to Respondent Nos.1,2 and 3, in particular, the Senior Police Inspector, Wagle Estate Police Station, Thane to take necessary action for enforcement of order passed by the Industrial Court, Thane dated 29.3.2012 passed in complaint (ULP) No.72 of 2012. The relevant portion of the said order reads thus: "I would direct the respondents not to hold any violent demonstration and not to do any coercive activity near the factory premises or periphery of company till the next date and be away within the vicinity of 100 meters from the factory gate. The next date is 02.04.2012." 2. The grievance in this petition is that in spite of the said peremptory directions, the respondents in the proceedings before the Industrial Court continued to violently demonstrate outside the factory premises and in breach of the order of the Industrial Court restraining them from doing so within the vicinity of 100 ...
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...
M/S.inox Air Products Limited Vs. the Commissioner of Central Excise a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
Oral Judgment: (J.P. Devadhar, J.) 1. Whether the CESTAT was justified in directing the appellant to deposit Rs.1 crore for entertaining the appeal against the order-in-original dated 22nd September 2009 is the question raised in this appeal. The appeal is admitted on the above question and taken up for hearing by consent of both the parties to the appeal. 2. The appellant assessee is inter alia engaged in setting up air-separation plant (equipments for short) at the customers premises. The said equipments are used for manufacturing the oxygen which is ultimately used by the customers in manufacturing their final products. The equipments owned by the assessee are leased to its customers and the assessee enters into an agreement with the respective customer for operating and maintaining the equipments given on lease at a consideration mutually agreed upon by and between the assessee and its customers. 3. The dispute in the present case relates to the service tax liability of the assess...
Ms Gauri Vasant Ovhal Vs. the Secretary, Gold Mist Chs Thakur Complex ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
Honble Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Judicial Member This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 07/05/2011 passed in consumer complaint no.259/2010, Smt.Gauri Vasant Ovhal v/s. The Secretary, Gold Mist CHS; passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. This appeal is filed by the complainant being not satisfied with the relief granted in her favour as per the impugned order. It is stated by the parties that the opponent Gold Mist Co-op. Housing Society (herein after referred as Society) did not prefer any appeal. It is a consumer complaint pertaining to alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Society for not taking appropriate steps towards the complaint of repairs and ignoring the orders passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, when a complaint about repairs to be carried to the flat were ignored by the Society. In the consumer complaint, complainant-Smt.Gauri Vasant Ovhal (herein after referred as complainant) also claimed reimbursement of her ex...
Domingos Fernandes and Another Vs. State of Goa and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General for respondents no.1 and 2, Mr. Ferreira, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent no.3 and Mr. Sonak, learned Advocate for respondent no.4. 2. By this petition, which is filed as a Public Interest Litigation, the petitioners seek the following reliefs : (a) For a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents from doing any work within 100 metres of the river bank. (b) For a further writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents no.1 and 2 to remove construction, as also the diesel pump which falls within 20 metres of the river bank. (c) For a further writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondent no.3 to...
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...
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...
- ‹ Prev
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- Next ›
- Last »