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.
Unique Delta Force Security Private Ltd. Vs. Sumeet Facilities Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
Oral Judgment: By the above Company Applications, the Applicants have sought the following relief: The order dated 25.06.2010 passed by this Court (Coram: S.J. Vazifdar, J.) in above referred Company Scheme Petition No. 266 of 2010 and Company Scheme Petition No. 267 of 2010, thereby allowing the said Company Scheme Petitions, may kindly be recalled and/or set aside and the status of the Resulting Company and the Demerged Company may kindly be restored to its original status as it was prior to the Scheme proposed for approval. 2. According to the Applicants, the Demerged Company Sumeet Facilities Pvt. Ltd. and the Resulting Company Unique Delta Force Security Private Ltd. are under a common management and it was believed that the Scheme would result in the following advantages: (I) Consolidation of Facility Service Business into a single entity and thereby streamlining business verticals; (ii) Pooling of resources and focussed management attention into separate business verticals. 3....
Ramesh Bhayal Gavit Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
P.D. Kode, J. 1. By the present appeal the appellant-sole accused in the Sessions Case no. 261 of 2005 has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 25th November, 2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay convicting him for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer R.I for one year. At the said trial the appellant was charged for committing murder of one Anil Gavit on 6th December, 2004 at about 2.00 a.m, on the footpath of Shell Colony, Chembur, Mumbai by hitting him with a stone on the head and thereby causing injuries to him resulting in death of the said person on 10th December, 2004. 2. The said prosecution has emerged out of the charge-sheet submitted by Nehru Nagar Police Station as a result of investigation of FIR no. 319/2004 dated 6th December, 2004 lodged by Suresh Rupjibhai Patel (PW-1). 3. According to the prosecution, PW-1,...
Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Vs. Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
M.S. Sanklecha, J. These appeals by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") are against the common order dated 12/8/2009 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal") in relation to assessment years 2002-2003, 2003-04 and 2004-05. 2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 12/8/2009, the appellant revenue has formulated the following identical question of law for the three assessment years for the consideration of this Court. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in allowing exemption to the assessee company u/s. 10A of the Income Tax Act in respect of its unit at SEEPZ Mumbai even though it has not complied with the requirements of the sub section 10A(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Act? 3. The facts are similar in all the three appeals. However, for the sake of convenience, we are setting out the facts stated in appeal No.1150 of 2010 pertaining to the assessment year 2002-03 as under: a) The respond...
Prabhakar Ramchandra Desai and Others Vs. Kamalakant Rajaram Parab and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Rule. With the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The challenge in the above petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 22.6.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vengurla. The said order in terms of Clause 4 thereof mandates the Bailiff to follow a particular course of action in identifying the 10 ft. wide road starting from Adeli Zarap Road leading to Kamalivir Village. The above petition, in a way, exemplifies the manner in which an order passed by this Court is sought to be over reached by the Respondent Nos.13 to 15. The Respondent Nos.13 to 15 herein are the proponents of the application Exhibit 122 which has been filed by them in which the impugned order has been passed. The other respondents are the decree holders and out of them the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are represented before this Court. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner herein that the s...
Mrs. Ivy C. Da Conceicao Vs. State of Goa Through Its Chief Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
A.P. Lavande, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges appointments of respondents No.4, 5, 6, and 7 vide orders dated 31.7.08, 31.7.08 and 4.6.2008, respectively to the post of Principals of Higher Secondary Schools run by respondent No.3 Society. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that while making appointments of respondents No.4 to 7, the name of petitioner was not considered for promotion as required under Rule 74 of the Goa School Education Rules, 1986 (the Rules for short) framed under the Goa School Education Act, 1984 (the Act for short). It is further the case of the petitioner that all the said appointments have been made in breach of Rule 86, read with Rule 78 of the Rules inasmuch as all the four respondents are not only junior to the petitioner, but also not coming within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Principal. It is further the case of the petitioner that the appointments of the said respondents w...
Sau. Mangal W/O Ambadas Gaikwad Vs. Ambadas S/O Kachru Gaikwad and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the parties. 2. This application is filed seeking transfer of Hindu Marriage Petition No. 56 of 2012 pending on the file of the Court of 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar to the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Beed. 3. The background facts as disclosed in this application for filing the same, are as under. The marriage of the applicant and respondent No.1 was solemnized at Beed on 22nd January, 2006. A son by name "Om" is begotten out of their wedlock, who is five years old and staying with the applicant at Beed. It is the case of the applicant that, after marriage, she went to her husband's house at Avhane (Kh.) District Ahmednagar and was treated well by respondent No.1 and his family members initially for one month and thereafter started ill-treatment to her. It is further case of the applicant that, after shifting to Ahmednagar, the respondent-husband and his family member...
Harshad J. Choksi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay City-vii, Mumb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
M.S. Sanklecha, J. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal') has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 'vatav kasar' of Rs.44,98,210/- which was held to be not deductible as a bad debt in view of the provisions of Section 36(2) could be considered as an allowable business loss?" 2. This reference has been made at the instance of the assessee and arises out of the order of the Tribunal dated 19.12.1994 in Income Tax Appeal No.1495/Bom/94 relating to the assessment year 19911992. 3. Briefly the facts leading to this reference are as under: a) The assessee is a stock and share broker. During the assessment year 1991-1992, the assessee sought to write off an amount of Rs.47.58 lacs as bad debts, due to breach committed by 3 members of the Bombay Stock Exchange. The Assessing Officer on examination of the ass...
Smt. Shobha Wd/O. Late Arun Pohare and Others Vs. Gajanan S/O. Wasudeo ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
1. The instant appeal is by the Complainant directed against the Judgment and Order, dated 16th April, 2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Court No.VI), Akola challenging the acquittal of the respondent/accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- The Complainant and the accused were in cordial terms with each other. In the month of April, 2004, the accused demanded a sum of Rs1,00,000/- from the Complainant as he was in dire need of money. The amount was paid in cash on 19/04/2004. The accused had issued a Cheque bearing no.351152, dated 04/10/2004 for the sum of Rs 95,000/- drawn upon the Akola Janata Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd, Akola Branch. The cheque when presented for realisation, was returned dishonored with remarks fund insufficient vide intimation memo, dated 05/10/2004. The demand notice was issued by R.P.A.D. and under postal certificate. It was duly received by the accused on 03/11/2...
Laurente Mascarenhas Vs. Jose C. Pereira (Deceased) and His Wife and O ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri V. A. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 1, 2, 6 to 9. 2. The above Writ Petition challenges an Order passed by the Courts below whereby the Petitioner has been held guilty of disobeying the Order of the Court under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code and, inter alia, directed to remove the loose stones placed after an exparte Order came to be granted in favour of the Respondents by Order dated 21.06.2003. 3. It is not in dispute that the Respondents who are defendants in the suit filed by the Petitioner, moved an application for temporary injunction on the ground that the access claimed by the Respondents was being blocked by the Petitioner by putting up a compound wall. After the exparte Order dated 21.06.2003 came to be served on the Petitioner on the same day, it is the case of the Respondents that in blanket disobedience of the said exparte Order, the ...
Samadhan Steel Traders, Through Its Proprietor, Jaynarayan S/O. Nagola ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-14-2012
Oral Judgment: [ B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.] 1] Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2] The question is, whether before ordering search under Section 105 of the Customs Act, the competent authority had formed a legal opinion and was there a reason to believe that it would lead to goods liable to confiscation or any document or thing in his opinion would be useful or relevant to any proceedings under the Customs Act, 1944? 3] This court had issued a notice on 20th August, 2011 and on 15.6.2012 after briefly recording the question, we directed respondents to produce the original record. The reply affidavits by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have been filed initially on 28th September, 2011 and after said order, on 13th July, 2012. 4] Shri Chandak submits that warrant for search issued under Section 105 shows satisfaction record by one D.S. Mane, Assistant Director, while the files produced does not reveal any such satisfaction reached by that Officer. He ...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »