Mumbai Court August 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.
Dahyabhai Papers and Boards Pvt.Ltd. and Another Vs. Maharashtra Housi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2012
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Rule. Counsel for the Respondents waive service. By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, by consent and on the request of learned counsel. 2. The First Petitioner is the owner of a plot of land being C.S. No.952 of Bhuleshwar Division, situated at 583, Jagannath Shankershett Road, Mumbai-400 002. A building consisting of a ground floor and five floors was situated on the land, having been constructed prior to 1940. The building was a Cessed `A' category building in the island city. The building was in a dilapidated condition and according to the Petitioners, had partially collapsed. On 11 April 2001, an application for redevelopment and for obtaining the No Objection Certificate of the First Respondent was submitted under Development Control Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control Regulations, 1991 (`DCR'). On 14 August 2001, the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board (`th...
Govind Umaji Gai Gopal and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2012
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Rule. Counsel for the Respondents waive service. By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, by consent and on the request of learned counsel. 2. These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution have been instituted by two teachers in order to impugn an advertisement dated 24 May 2012 issued by the Fifth Respondent, who is the principal of Shree Sant Damaji Mahavidyalaya, at Mangalwedha, an institution which is conducted by the Third Respondent-management. 3. There have been disputes in the management of the Third Respondent as a result of which two earlier proceedings came to this Court in the form of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. On 25 October 2010, a Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with one of those petitions namely, Shri Vidyavikas Mandal Vs. Board of Colleges and University Development and others (Writ Petition No.7119 of 2010 decided on 25 October...
Dr. Prakash S/O Shamrao Chaudhari Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Throug ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-21-2012
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner is a medical practitioner. The clinic of the petitioner possess the certificate of registration under the provisions of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act. The same is for the purpose of Genetic Counselling Centre, Ultrasound Clinic, etc. as is detailed in the certificate of registration. 3. The respondent authorities on 18.06.2011 visited the said centre of the petitioner and found certain discrepancies. On the very same day, the respondent authorities cancelled the registration of the sonography centre of the petitioner. After cancelling the same, the respondent authorities have asked for the reply from the petitioner within seven days. The same is assailed in the present writ petition. 4. Shri Choudhari, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that, the registration of the sonography centre of the ...
Sunil Gudlar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Bran ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-21-2012
Oral Order: Heard Shri Teles, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Shri Vaz, learned Special Public Prosecutor, and Shri J. P. D' Souza, learned Counsel, appearing for the Respondents. Shri J. P. D' Souza, learned Counsel assisted the Prosecution. 2. The application for bail filed by the Applicant on the ground that he was aggrieved by an Order dated 07.04.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge, North Goa, Panaji, in Bail Application no. 68/2012 whereby, the bail application filed by the Applicant came to be rejected. It is the contention of the Applicant that the Applicant has been arrested by the police attached to the Anti Corruption Branch on 06.03.2012 at 10.45 hours in Crime No. RC 3(A)/2011/CBI/ACB/Goa, for offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 21(b) and 22(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, (herein after referred to as the 'NDPS Act'). It is further the contention of the Applicant that he was the Investigating Officer and the...
Govind S/O. Vithalrao Joshi Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-21-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 3. By the present petition filed by the petitioner (original complainant) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he prays that the order dated 7-8-2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Sailu (District : Parbhani), below Exhibits 94 and 104, in R.C.C. No. 22/2005, be quashed and set aside and both the said applications Exhibits 94 and 104, filed in R.C.C. No. 22/2005, be allowed. 4. The petitioner is running a shop under the name and style as Mirag Agro Services and Consultants, Sailu, of which he is a proprietor. Respondent no.2 is the Director of one Company called as Biovision Corporation, Pune, which is engaged in the activities of manufacturing organic fertilizers. There were commercial transactions between them a...
Commissioner of Income-tax And#8211; 9 Vs. M/S. Pelican Investments Pv ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2012
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 dated 30th October, 2009, dismissing the appellant's appeals, ITA Nos.1611/Mum/2008 and 4730/Mum/2008, pertaining to assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06, respectively. The present appeal pertains to ITA No.1611/Mum/2008. 2. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law and heard finally: (A) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal in law was right in holding that the rent and compensation of Rs.60,27,027/- received by the assessee is to be charged under the head business income and not under the head “Income from House Property” as held by the Assessing Officer in the order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (B) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in following its orders for assessment ...
Dattaprabhu S/O Sharadchandra Joshi Vs. the State of Maharashtra and A ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-21-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard. Rule. By consent of the parties, the matter is heard for final disposal. Such order was made in the past. 2. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and also under section 482 of Cr.P.C.. The proceeding is filed for the relief of quashing and setting aside the order made by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yavatmal in Criminal Case No. 564/2007. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yavatmal has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under section 294 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (x) and 3(1) (xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The order made by the Magistrate is confirmed by the Sessions Court in Revision No. 92/2007. 3. The respondent no.2 is an Advocate. His cousin sister Smt. Madhuri Walke has been working as Jr. Clerk in the Office of the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Yavatmal. She was transferred from one section to other section on 27.11.2006. She approac...
Govind Umaji Gai Gopal and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2012
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Rule. Counsel for the Respondents waive service. By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, by consent and on the request of learned counsel. 2. These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution have been instituted by two teachers in order to impugn an advertisement dated 24 May 2012 issued by the Fifth Respondent, who is the principal of Shree Sant Damaji Mahavidyalaya, at Mangalwedha, an institution which is conducted by the Third Respondent-management. 3. There have been disputes in the management of the Third Respondent as a result of which two earlier proceedings came to this Court in the form of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. On 25 October 2010, a Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with one of those petitions namely, Shri Vidyavikas Mandal Vs. Board of Colleges and University Development and others (Writ Petition No.7119 of 2010 decided on 25 October...
Dahyabhai Papers and Boards Pvt.Ltd. and Another Vs. Maharashtra Housi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2012
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Rule. Counsel for the Respondents waive service. By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, by consent and on the request of learned counsel. 2. The First Petitioner is the owner of a plot of land being C.S. No.952 of Bhuleshwar Division, situated at 583, Jagannath Shankershett Road, Mumbai-400 002. A building consisting of a ground floor and five floors was situated on the land, having been constructed prior to 1940. The building was a Cessed `A' category building in the island city. The building was in a dilapidated condition and according to the Petitioners, had partially collapsed. On 11 April 2001, an application for redevelopment and for obtaining the No Objection Certificate of the First Respondent was submitted under Development Control Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control Regulations, 1991 (`DCR'). On 14 August 2001, the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board (`th...
Commissioner of Income-tax â 9 Vs. M/S. Pelican Investments Pvt. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-2012
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 dated 30th October, 2009, dismissing the appellant's appeals, ITA Nos.1611/Mum/2008 and 4730/Mum/2008, pertaining to assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06, respectively. The present appeal pertains to ITA No.1611/Mum/2008. 2. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law and heard finally: (A) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal in law was right in holding that the rent and compensation of Rs.60,27,027/- received by the assessee is to be charged under the head business income and not under the head Income from House Property as held by the Assessing Officer in the order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (B) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in following its orders for assessment year 2003-2004...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »