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.
Union of India, Ministry of Railways, Through Dy. Chief Engineer Vs. D ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
Oral Judgment: 1] These appeals are directed against the judgments and awards passed between 9.1.2006 and 7.5.2007 by the Ad-hoc District Judge, Amravati on the references sought by the land owners whose lands situated at village Shirala, tahsil and district :Amravati were acquired for the public purpose - Narkhed Railway Route. 2] Details like survey number, gat number, area acquired, names of the owners, compensation fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer etc. are reproduced below in tabular form: Sr.No.F.A.NoSurvey No./ Gat No.TotalAreaAreaAcquiredName of ownerCompensationawarded byS.L.A.O.LACNo.Date ofDecisionCompensationby Referencecourt1785/0816141.09H.R.1.09 H.R.DineshPanjabrao Patiland another (Res)69,000/- P.H.32/0303/05/071,00,000/- P.H.2786/0816021.34H.R.1.34 H.R.PurushottamKrishnaraoBijagare(Res)69,000/- P.H.34/0304/05/071,00,000/- P.H.3787/0810291.21H.R.0.56 H.R.Ibrahim KhanChhotekhan(Rres)69,000/- P.H.47/0304/05/071,00,000/- P.H.4792/0815961.22H.R.0.38 H...
Kashinath Jairam Shetye and Another Vs. the State of Goa, Through the ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. Menezes, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs : “a. for any appropriate writ, order or direction directing and commanding the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to carry out and conduct a fair, proper and wholesome investigation into the offences registered vide Crime No.113/2009 of the Pernem Police Station, and thereafter to file a report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure within 3 months, and to take all such other action as law mandates in that regard, or, b. In the alternative for any appropriate writ, order or direction directing and commanding the Respondent No.1 to transfer the investigation into the matter to the CID-Crime Branch, or any such other independent investigating agency, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit; c. That this Hon'ble Court be please...
Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction M/S. Jaipur Golden Tr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
1. By the above report, the Official Liquidator has sought directions from this Court as follows: “(a) In view of paras 7 and 8 of this Report, whether this Hon’ble Court would be pleased to declare the sale of the property situated at H-16, MIDC Waluj Industrial Area, Waluj, Aurangabad to Smt. Sunita V. Warke as null and void; (b) If prayer (a) is in the affirmative, whether this Hon’ble Court would be pleased to permit the Official Liquidator to take possession of the said property situated at H-16, MIDC Waluj Industrial Area, Waluj, Aurangabad”. The facts in the matter are briefly set out hereunder: 2. On 7th April 1997, Company Petition No. 327 of 1997 seeking winding up of the Company - Hindustan Transmission Products Limited (“HTPL”) was filed /presented. Smt. Sunita V. Warke (“the occupant”) claims to have paid an aggregate sum of Rs. 30 lakhs to the Company between 14th May, 2007 and 26th September 2007 towards the purchase of the...
Shri Monya @ Rohit Rajendra Chavan Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.M. Khanwilkar, J.) 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Two points have been urged before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The first point is that on the one hand preventive action under Section 110(e)(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner came to be dropped on 22.8.2011, and on the other hand the police authorities decided to initiate externment proceedings against the petitioner in September, 2011 without there being any tangible material justifying initiation of the said action after 22.8.2011. As regards this contention, we find merit in the submission made by the learned APP that there is nothing wrong if the Sponsoring Authority decided to drop the preventive action under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. which is only in the nature of executing a bond of undertaking for maintenance of peace; whereas the preventive action under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act is intended to remove the person from the concerned area to ensure that he w...
Ashok Balasaheb Chaugule Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
This writ petition was heard on 3rd September 2012 and was placed today for judgment/order. Since the point involved in the writ petition is short, with consent of the parties, it is disposed of finally. Hence, Rule. The learned A.G.P waives service for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are duly served and respondent No.5 is represented by Mr.Sandeep Koregave. Respondent No.4 is a formal party and service on the same can be dispensed with. 2} The petitioner has been disqualified on an application made by respondent No.5. The proceeding is under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The Gram Panchayat of Tardal, Taluka Hatkanangale , District Kolhapur is the Gram Panchayat in question. The petitioner was elected as a Member of this Gram Panchayat in the elections held in 2007. An application for disqualification of the petitioner was made by respondent No.5 alleging that the petitioner is disabled from continuing as a Member as he was disqualified in terms of section 14(1...
Ashok Balasaheb Chaugule Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
This writ petition was heard on 3rd September 2012 and was placed today for judgment/order. Since the point involved in the writ petition is short, with consent of the parties, it is disposed of finally. Hence, Rule. The learned A.G.P waives service for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are duly served and respondent No.5 is represented by Mr.Sandeep Koregave. Respondent No.4 is a formal party and service on the same can be dispensed with. 2} The petitioner has been disqualified on an application made by respondent No.5. The proceeding is under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The Gram Panchayat of Tardal, Taluka Hatkanangale , District Kolhapur is the Gram Panchayat in question. The petitioner was elected as a Member of this Gram Panchayat in the elections held in 2007. An application for disqualification of the petitioner was made by respondent No.5 alleging that the petitioner is disabled from continuing as a Member as he was disqualified in terms of section 14(1...
Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. This is a Reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, by an order dated 24th October, 1988, dismissed the applicant's appeal being ITA No. 2983/Bom/84, against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) pertaining to assessment year 1980-81. The Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court:- (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of bank interest and bank charges of Rs.28,20,501/- incurred by it on Export Packing Credit facilities? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in holding that the professional fees of Rs.71,200/- paid by the assessee in respect of its cement project was a capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure? (3) Whether on the facts an...
Zenith Enterprise and Others Vs. Zenith Park Co-operative Housing Soci ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
Oral Order: Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above Writ Petition takes exception to the order dated 23/7/2012 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai by which order Chamber Summons No.506 of 2010 filed for amendment of the Written Statement came to be rejected. 3. It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary facts. Suffice it to say that the Application for amendment i.e. Chamber Summons No.506 of 2010 for amendment of the Written Statement has been considered by the trial Court on the touchstone of the amendments which have come into force from 1/7/2002 i.e. especially Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. The facts of the instant case are that the Suit in question has been filed on 21/2/2002. Undoubtedly the issues have been framed in the said Suit as also the Affidavit of Examination in Chief has been filed on 16/3/2009, and thereafter the instant Application for amendment of the Writ...
Shri Monya @ Rohit Rajendra Chavan Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.M. Khanwilkar, J.) 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Two points have been urged before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The first point is that on the one hand preventive action under Section 110(e)(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner came to be dropped on 22.8.2011, and on the other hand the police authorities decided to initiate externment proceedings against the petitioner in September, 2011 without there being any tangible material justifying initiation of the said action after 22.8.2011. As regards this contention, we find merit in the submission made by the learned APP that there is nothing wrong if the Sponsoring Authority decided to drop the preventive action under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. which is only in the nature of executing a bond of undertaking for maintenance of peace; whereas the preventive action under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act is intended to remove the person from the concerned area to ensure that he w...
S. Porkodi Though Her Constituted Attorney Ponvel Nadarajan Vs. Nandku ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2012
We have heard the Constituted Attorney of the Petitioner appearing in person. This is a Petition seeking action against the alleged contemnors for committing criminal contempt in accordance with the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971(hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1971). On 6th September, 2010 notice was issued on this Contempt Petition. When the notice was issued there were only 40 contemnors impleaded as parties. Subsequently by amendment, the Respondent Nos.42 to 49 have been added in the array of Respondents. We must note here that Criminal Application No.4 of 2011 was made by the Petitioner in which a prayer was made for impleadment of Respondent Nos.42 to 49 who have been impleaded as aforesaid and for leave to amend the Petition by adding certain averments. By order dated 9th July, 2012, this Court rejected the said Application. The said order has become final. Therefore, this Contempt Petition cannot proceed against the Respondent Nos.42 to 49 and we will ha...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »