Mumbai Court September 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.
Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Limited Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 1.8.2006 in a group of Income Tax Appeals pertaining to various assessment years. The present appeal is against the order insofar as it relates to ITA No.1964/M/1997 and pertains to the assessment year 1993-1994. 2. By an order dated 3.3.2008, the Division Bench admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:- 1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in confirming the allocation of Research and Development expenses incurred by the Head Office among the four manufacturing units on the presumption that the expenditure so incurred is for the benefit of these manufacturing units, when in fact such research conducted had no connection with the business of the said units, nor any benefit is received by them from the said research? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumsta...
Smt. Seema Sunil Khinvasara Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
A.A. Sayed, J. 1. The Petitioner who is a doctor by profession and practices in a rural village has filed this Petition for and on behalf of her minor daughter Pranjal. The Petitioner has questioned the denial of admission by Respondent No.3 college to Pranjal in the First year MBBS course from the Maharashtra Rural quota. The Petition was amended after a Reply was filed by Respondent no.3 and the Petitioner has also challenged the constitutional validity of clause 3.2.4 of the 2012 Prospectus of the college on the ground that it is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. Respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra. Respondent No.2 is the Directorate of Medical Education and Research. Respondent No. 3 is the Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences situated at Sevagram in District Wardha (referred to as Respondent No. 3 college). Respondent No.4 is the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nasik. 3. The facts leading to the filing of the prese...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Another Vs. Kashinath S/O Narayan ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Both these appeals are directed against judgment and award dated 02.06.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola in M. A. C. P. No.268/1999, which was filed for grant of compensation on account of death of one Kiran occurred in motor vehicular accident involving a Jeep driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 (for short the Insured) and insured with original respondent no.3 (for short the Insurer). 2. After appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned tribunal held that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. Since the deceased, while travelling had not held rod/iron bar and secured himself, he was also held to be negligent to the extent of 10%. Owing to the absence of evidence of the income of the deceased, the learned tribunal assumed notional income at Rs.15,000/- per year and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses of the deceased and considering his contributory n...
Union of India, Owning and Representing the Central Railway Through th ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
This appeal arises out of the order dated 17.10.1996 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal: Nagpur Bench Nagpur, in Claim Petition No.48/OA-1/RCT/NGP/92 whereby the appellant was directed to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.48,310/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. on account of loss sustained by the latter. 2] The facts in brief are thus: the respondent Maharashtra State Electricity Board, through Controller of Stores, Chandrapur Thermal Power Station, Chandrapur was the consignee of the consignment containing 600 bags of stable bleaching powder booked by M/s Chlorochem Industries Kota (Rajasthan) cosignor. The consignment was booked on 15.3.1989 which reached to the destination in November, 1989 i.e. after about 8 months that too in a damaged condition. The respondent lodged claim with the appellant, but in vain. Therefore, the claim application was filed claiming damages of Rs.56,690/- towards value of the consignment. 3] The appellant filed written reply. The booking of the consign...
Mrs. Ursula Renha Rumaldina Soares and Others Vs. Mrs. Fatima Conceica ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Oral Judgment : Heard Mr. Nigel Costa Frias, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. P. S. Lotlikar, learned Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2, Mr. R. Menezes, learned Advocate for respondent no.3 and Mr. B. Rodrigues, learned Advocate for respondent no. 4. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition the petitioners challenge order dated 25/4/2012 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao in Regular Civil Suit No. 219/2011/C by which the application dated 11.4.2012 for restoration of the suit qua defendant nos. 4 and 5 filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. 4. The petitioners filed the above suit against respondents/defendants seeking reliefs of declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunctions. Record discloses that on 26.3.2012 notices were issued to defendant nos. 4 and 5, but copies were not given by the plaintiffs. On 9.4.2012 learned trial Judge dismissed the suit as against newly added defendant nos. 4 and 5 on the ground that no ste...
Dr. Mrs. Sukhada W/O Dilip Mulay Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner before this Court is a Medical Practitioner possessing certificate of registration issued by the Appropriate Authority under the provisions of the Preconception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act 1994 (hereinafter referred as to the "Said Act" for the sake of brevity) for the purpose of carrying out Genetic Counselling Centre/Genetic Laboratory/Genetic Clinic, Pre-Natal Diagnostic Test, ultrasound as laid down under said certificate. The said certificate of registration is for a period of five years ending on 11th December, 2012. It appears that, the petitioner is engaged in the said profession. 3. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 14.06.2012 from the Appropriate Authority seeking explanation from the petitioner about the irregularities in the maintenance of the record as is enumerated in the said show cause notice...
Gopinath S/O Baban Pawar and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Oral Judgment: (U.D. Salvi, J.) 1. The appellants assail their conviction for the offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also consequent sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months each imposed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No. 112/2011 on 23rd February, 2012 in the present appeal. 2. The appellants were husband, brother-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased Mangal respectively. 3. According to the prosecution, the deceased Mangal succumbed to the 72% burn injuries sustained in the incident which occurred at her residence situated at Neknoor around 8.00 pm on 7/3/2011; and the appellants/ accused along with the absconding accused-Pooja had set her on fire. 4. Law was set in motion on registration of crime at Cr.No. 26/2011 under Section 307, 504 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Neknoor Police Station ...
Antonio Vicente Lucas Vs. Smt. Maria Mendes Alias Maria Joana Mendes a ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. None for the respondents though served. 2. The above appeal has been admitted by this Court by order dated 1/09/2006 on the following substantial question of law: Whether in view of issue no.1, viz. “the Defendants prove that they are deemed owners of the paddy field surveyed under no.219/37 of village Quelossim, Taluka Mormugao, Goa”, it was obligatory on the part of the trial Judge to refer the same to the Mamlatdar for decision, in view of the provisions of G.D.D. Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, and whether the failure on the part of the lower Courts below to do so, have vitiated the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondents had filed the suit against the appellants inter alia for a permanent injunction to restrain the appellants from interfering in any manner in the suit property which is surveyed under no.21...
Dhirajilal Vishanji Chedda and Others Vs. Kshitija Infrastructure Pvt. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Oral Judgment:- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. Since parties and issues involved are similar, these Civil Revision Applications are being disposed of by common judgment. The representative facts are taken from the first matter, viz., Civil Revision Application No. 662 of 2012, for the sake of brevity and convenience. 3. By this Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the applicant is challenging the orders of the learned Single Judge and Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, whereunder the applicant's plaint is rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (d), of C.P.C. 4. Respondent No. 1 is the owner and landlord of the suit premises, and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the Authorities under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. The applicant filed a suit for declaration that his possession of the suit premises is protected under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and by prayer (b), a declaration is sought that the...
Smt. Maria Antonetta Pereira E Miranda and Others Vs. the Society of t ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri S. S. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1. None for the other Respondents. 2. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court dated 29.11.2006, whereby a reference preferred by the Appellants under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (herein after referred to as the said 'Act'), came to be rejected. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that pursuant to a Notification under Section 4 of the said Act dated 10.09.2003, land belonging to the Appellant admeasuring an area of 2500 square metres from the property bearing P. T. Sheet no. 16, Chalta no. 8, Sub-division 4 of Margao City, was acquired for the purpose of constructing a school complex. By an Award passed under Section 11 of the said Act dated 10.04.2005, the Land Acquisition Officer, offered a compensation at the rate of Rs.8/- per square metre besides a sum of Rs.13,400/- for th...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »