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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S.Sheth Developers (P) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
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”) challenges the order dated 12/10/2009 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the said Tribunal) relating to assessment for the block period 1/4/1995 to 21/2/2002. 2) The appellant has formulated the following questions of law for consideration of this court. “1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that deductions u/s.80IB (10) has to be allowed from the income computed as undisclosed income u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act,1961? 2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) where no such claim is made by the assessee in the return of income for the block period?” 3) The appeal is admitted on Question (1) and (2). 4) At the instance of the Advocates ...
Mrs. Pritam Prabhu Kholkar Vs. Mr Sushant Prabhu Kholkar and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri M. Rodrigues, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mrs. Asha Dessai, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 1. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, waives service. 3. The above Petition challenges the Order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Sanguem, dated 18.03.2010, whereby the interim relief sought by the Petitioner under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, came to be dismissed. Appeal preferred challenging the said Judgment also came to be dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao, by Judgment dated 26.08.2011. 4. After hearing the matter for sometime, it was agreed by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties that the interim maintenance fixed by the learned J.M.F.C. of Rs.2,500/- to be paid to the minor child can be modified whereby the Respondent would pay a consolidated amount for main...
Speed Trade Securities Private Limited Vs. Idbi Bank Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. The Plaintiffs have filed this suit based on directives issued by the Reserve Bank of India contained in the Scheme of Amalgamation. 2. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that one Maliram Makharia Finstock Pvt. Ltd. had approached the Plaintiffs for an advance of inter corporate deposit of a sum of Rs. 1,70,00,000/. The said company pledged 7,10,000 equity shares of United Western Bank Ltd. On 5th June 2006, the said Company and Rekha Makharia pledged additional 1,00,000 equity shares of United Western Bank in favour of the Plaintiffs and one Jawahar M.Shah, HUF. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that since the said company did not repay the advance to the Plaintiffs, on and from 4th September, 2006, the Plaintiffs started selling the pledged shares of United Western Bank in the open market. The Plaintiffs sold 7,95,000 shares and realized an aggregate sum of Rs.1,32,75,373/. 3. It is the common ground that on 12th September, 2006, Reserve Bank of India announced Scheme...
State of Goa, Through Police Inspector Vs. Madivalappa Chalwadi, S/O M ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. D. Lawande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the applicant, Mr.Arun Bras De Sa, learned Advocate for the respondent and Mr. V. A. Lawande, learned Advocate for the intervenor. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this revision application the applicant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 28.3.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-I, South Goa, Margao in Criminal Revision Application No.14/2011 allowing the Revision Application against the order dated 23.2.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sanguem in Criminal Miscellaneous Application no.18/2011 whereby Judicial Magistrate, First Class ordered the Investigating Officer to release the animals to the respondent after obtaining the treatment and medical charges, if the injures were sustained by the animals prior to the attachment and rest of the cost of maintenance of the animals was to be borne by the applicant. 4. Briefly, the facts leading to filin...
Miss Catarina Fernandes (Since Deceased) Daughter of Late Caetano Rosa ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. The above Second Appeal takes exception to the Judgment and Decree dated 30/11/2002 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao (first Appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1999, which was filed by the defendants of Special Civil Suit No. 117/96/II, against the Judgment and Decree dated 29/04/1999, passed by the 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao (trial Court) in the said suit. The defendants of the said Special Suit have filed cross-objection in the present Second Appeal. This common judgment shall dispose of the Second Appeal as well as the cross-objection. 2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said Special Civil Suit. 3. The plaintiffs had filed the said suit for recovery of possession and permanent injunction for directing the defendants to remove the compound wall, the room and the store room and whatever encroachments that may be existing in the suit property and to give vacant po...
Remedios Crasto, Son of Pedro Rosario Crasto Vs. Mrs. Dorothy Siqueira ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
Oral Judgment: By this appeal, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 24.10.2007, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Margao in Criminal Case No. 42/P/97/A, acquitting the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 452 read with 34 IPC. The respondents were accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in Private Criminal Case No. 42/P/97/A. 2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that on 28.1.1997, at about 9.00 a.m. all the accused entered into his tailoring institute “Remedios Tailoring Institute” at Kharband road, Margao, thereby trespassing into the premises of the complainant and started abusing the complainant. Accused No.4 Agnel Pontes who was armed with danda, assaulted the complainant on his back. Thereafter, accused No.1 Dorothy Siqueira snatched danda from accused No.4 and gave blow on the head of the complainant, due to which the complainant started bleeding profusely. Thereafte...
Dr. Devika Damji Shah Vs. Rashmi Mukesh Shah and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by defendant No.1 for dismissal of the suit and release of the assets of the deceased whose estate is being administered. The deceased was one Dr. Mukesh Ramji Shah. The plaintiff is the mother of the deceased (mother). Defendant No.1 is the wife of the deceased (wife). Defendant No.2 is the son of the deceased (son). All these parties are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased under Section 8 of the Indian Succession Act. The mother has sued for claiming her 1/3rd share in the estate of the deceased and for that purpose prayed for declaration that the will of the deceased dated 19th February, 2002 and two joint declarations dated 16th August, 2001 are illegal and void and accordingly for administration of the estate of the deceased as on intestacy, making accounts, and giving her share. 2. The will of the deceased was sought to be probated by his wife as the guardian of his son who was the sole legatee under the will. The will was exe...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S.Sheth Developers (P) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
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) challenges the order dated 12/10/2009 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the said Tribunal) relating to assessment for the block period 1/4/1995 to 21/2/2002. 2) The appellant has formulated the following questions of law for consideration of this court. 1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that deductions u/s.80IB (10) has to be allowed from the income computed as undisclosed income u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act,1961? 2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) where no such claim is made by the assessee in the return of income for the block period? 3) The appeal is admitted on Question (1) and (2). 4) At the instance of the Advocates for the appellant and the re...
Miss Catarina Fernandes (Since Deceased) Daughter of Late Caetano Rosa ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
U.V. Bakre, J. The above Second Appeal takes exception to the Judgment and Decree dated 30/11/2002 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao (first Appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1999, which was filed by the defendants of Special Civil Suit No. 117/96/II, against the Judgment and Decree dated 29/04/1999, passed by the 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao (trial Court) in the said suit. The defendants of the said Special Suit have filed cross-objection in the present Second Appeal. This common judgment shall dispose of the Second Appeal as well as the cross-objection. 2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said Special Civil Suit. 3. The plaintiffs had filed the said suit for recovery of possession and permanent injunction for directing the defendants to remove the compound wall, the room and the store room and whatever encroachments that may be existing in the suit property and to give vacant po...
Nandkishor Bhaggulalji Jaiswal Vs. Mohan Tataiyya Yadav
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-27-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard. Rule. The Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 2. Inspite of service of notice, none appears for the respondent. 3. The petitioner-original plaintiff is challenging the order passed below Exhibit 24 in Regular Civil Suit no.220 of 2009 dated 4.8.2011, whereby the application presented by the petitioner-original plaintiff seeking permission to lead secondary evidence in respect of the document namely issar pawti have been turned down by the trial Court. 4. The plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit no.220 of 2009 against the defendant-respondent herein, claiming decree of specific performance of agreement dated 30.8.1988. It is stated by the petitioner-plaintiff in the plaint that original document i.e. issar pawti is lost in the year 1990 and xerox copy of the document is being tendered alongwith the plaint. The plaintiff has also stated in the plaint that he reserves the right to lead secondary evidence, if the defendant denies the exe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »