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.
Natubhai G. Patel Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
P.C.: 1. Rule. By consent, Rule returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. Heard Counsel for the parties. This petition is for quashing of FIR registered against the petitioner for offence punishable u/s 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR is registered in respect of acquisition and possession of disproportionate assets than the known source of income of the petitioner for the financial years 2001 to 2009. In the FIR, it is mentioned that as against the income of Rs.1,22,68,613/- and loan amount of Rs.17,97,627/-, the petitioner has amassed assets to the tune of Rs.1,56,38,257/- and has incurred expenditure of Rs.2,07,03,417/-. On that basis, the disproportion of assets and expenditure combined together is stated to be to the tune of Rs.2,18,96,689/- than the known source of income. 3. The first point canvassed before us is that the FIR has been registered merely on the basis of some credible information as can be discerned from the statement in the FI...
The Commissioner of Income Tax-6 Vs. M/S.Hindalco Industries Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
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 28.11.2008 in ITA No.3668/Mum/2005 in relation to the assessment year 2003-2004. 2. The appeal is admitted on the substantial questions of law as stated in paragraph 4 (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (k), (l) (only partly insofar as it relates to rent but not insofar as it relates to interest) (m), (n) and (o). However, question (n) is reframed as under:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT are justified in law in holding that turnover attributable to sales of items sold only locally is to be excluded for the purpose of calculation of total turnover for the purpose of deduction under section 80HHC(3) of the Income Tax Act? “ 3. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the questions sought to be raised in paragraph 4 (a) and (l) (only partly insofar as it relates to inte...
The Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. the District Collecto ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard by consent of parties finally in view of urgency shown at admission stage. 2 The impugned order is passed by the Collector/Respondent No.1 dated 5 July 2012 pursuance to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.291/2012 dated 1 March 2012. 3 The basic events as recorded in the earlier order are as under: 3 By the present writ petition, the Petitioner who has advanced loans to Respondent No.3 sugar factory, which are outstandinggggg, had challenged the order dated 27.09.2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the further order passed by the Tahsildar, Taluka Haveli on 12.12.2001 attaching the stock of sugar bags to the extent of 82092 quintal. The further action of the proposed auction of the said sugar bags is also challenged. 4 The Petitioner claims that the entire stock of sugar of Respondent No.3 Karkhana has been pledged with the Petitioner by the Karkhana by executing various D...
NitIn Ramesh Dhiwar Adult Vs. Sou. Roopali NitIn Dhiwar Adult
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
Oral Judgment: [V.M. Kanade, J.] 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant. None appears on behalf of the Respondent, though she was served. 2. The Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the District Judge-4, Pune on 7.9.2006, who was pleased to dismiss the petition for divorce filed by the Appellant herein. 3. Brief facts are as under: The Appellant is the husband and the Respondent is the wife (hereinafter the Appellant shall be referred to as husband and Respondent shall be referred to as wife). They got married on 12.11.2001. However, soon thereafter, there were disputes and differences between the husband and wife. A complaint was registered by the Pimpri Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 323, 504, r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. I The husband filed a petition for divorce in the District Court, Pune on the ground of cruelty, inter alia, it was urged in the trial court that a false complaint was filed by th...
Kailash Nath and Associates and Another Vs. Girdhar Gopal Sureka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
Oral Judgment: (R.D. Dhanuka, J.) The Appellants challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18 June 2010 passing a decree against the Appellants under Order 8 Rule 5(2) and Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The suit is decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (a)(i), (a)(ii), (b), (c) and (h) for want of written statement. 2. The present Appellants are original defendants in the suit. The respondent is the original plaintiff in the suit. The parties are described in this judgment as described in the plaint. 3. In the suit, the Plaintiff applied for specific performance of the Agreement dated 10 December 1984 (hereinafter referred to as Suit Agreement) and for a declaration that the purported agreement dated 10 January 1994 entered between the First Defendant and the Second Defendant was sham, bogus and not binding upon the Plaintiff and for declaration that the suit agreement was equally binding on the Second Defendant and for specific performance thereof. In the ...
Mrs. Humera Sarfaraz Patel Vs. Sarfaraz Sadiq Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and the learned counsel for the Respondent. The appeal is taken up for final hearing by consent of parties at the stage of admission. 2. The Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai dated 10th February, 2012. By the said judgment and order, the Learned Judge of the Family Court was pleased to dismiss the petition filed by the Appellant herein for divorce and dissolution of marriage under section 2(viii)(a) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939. 3. Brief acts are as under: The Appellant and the Respondent got married at Ahmedabad on 17.10.1998 and after the marriage they were residing at Ahmedabad for some period and they last resided at Byculla. The Appellant filed a petition for divorce under section 2(viii)(a) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 in the Family Court at Bandra, in which it was alleged that the husband...
Tushar P. Shah Vs. International Asset Reconstruction Co. P. Ltd. and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
D.D. Sinha, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is one of the director and guarantor of the respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 1 is a Securitization Company duly registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and assignee of the original applicant, Bank of Baroda, Chandravarkar Branch, Matunga, Mumbai. Respondent No. 3 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and a principal borrower of the respondent no.1. Respondent no.4 and respondent no. 5 are guarantors of respondent no. 2. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Bank of Baroda, the lender bank of the respondent no. 2, has filed a suit before this Court being Suit No. 5568 of 1998, during the pendency of the suit The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDB and FI Act) came into force and therefore the suit was transferred to the Debt ...
Deepak Nanku Singh Vs. the State of Goa
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
Oral Judgment: By this appeal, the appellant (herein after referred to as the accused) takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 1st April, 2009, passed by the Children's Court, Panaji in Special Case No.1/09, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 (the Act for short), read with Section 376 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-, in default, to undergo further six months' Simple Imprisonment. The entire fine has been ordered to be paid to the victim girl. 2. Pursuant to the FIR lodged by PW.2 Sunita Moolya, at Quepem Police Station on 23.3.2008, alleging that the accused had kidnapped her minor daughter, FIR was registered under Section 363 IPC and Section 8(2) of the Act at Quepem Police Station. Pursuant to the said FIR, investigation was taken up. In the course of investigation, it was revealed that the accused had tak...
Nanasaheb Alias Sharad Madhav Varade Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
A.V. Nirgude, J. 1. In this appeal, the appellant is challenging the judgment and order dated 18th December, 2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, in Sessions Case No. 07 of 2010. The learned Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default clause. 2. Facts leading to the prosecution case, in short, can be stated as under:- (a) Appellant, aged about 28 years. Deceased Maya and appellant were not spouses. They were living in relation, in one room tenement, since five years prior to the incident. The room was taken on rental basis from one Shri Wikhe, at village Loni (Bk.), Taluka Rahata, District Ahmednagar. There were few more adjoining tenements. A few days prior to the date of incident (27th November, 2009) roof of the room collapsed due to rain and they went to stay elsewhere. (b) On 27th November, 2009, at about ...
Dr. Sujit Govind Dange and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra Through It ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-2012
D.D. Sinha, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents. 2. The petitioner is challenging the legality and propriety of notice/order dated 21.6.2011 passed by the respondent no.3 and order dated 9.11.2011 passed by the respondent no.4. Similarly, a direction is sought against the respondent nos.2 and 3 to release and/or return to the petitioner sonography machine seized vide order dated 21.6.2011. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER : 3. Mr.Thorat, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the action of the respondent-authorities is wholly illegal, incorrect and, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. It is contended that the provisions of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 4 of the Act require the Doctor to keep a record in the clinic as prescribed under the Rules, failing which it can be presumed that the provisions of sections 5 and 6 are contravened by such Doctor. It is submitted that before dra...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »