Mumbai Court February 2013 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.
Hanuman S/O Rangnath Giram and Others Vs. the Divisional Commissioner ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-08-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. The writ petition No. 7569 of 2012 takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Additional Collector, Parbhani dated 11th June, 2012 in Dispute No. 2012/A-1/VP/CR-29 and the judgment and order dated 30th July, 2012 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad in Appeal No. DB/ Desk-2/ZPVP /Appeal /CR /55 /2012. The writ petition No. 7574 of 2012 takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Additional Collector, Parbhani dated 11th June, 2012 in Dispute No. 2012/A-1/VP/CR-28 and the judgment and order dated 30th July, 2012 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad in Appeal No. DB/ Desk-2/ZPVP /Appeal/CR /54/2012. 3. The background facts for filing the writ petitions, as disclosed in the petitions, are as under:- It is the case of the petitioners that, the general elections of the Grampanchayat Amdapur, Taluka...
Jagannath S/O Anna Khakare and Others Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Th ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-08-2013
R.M. Borde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. Petitioners in all these petitions are prospective applicants who are desirous of participating in the process initiated by Respondent-Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., for making appointment to the post of Electrical Assistant (Vidyut Sahayyak). Petitioners are seeking direction to the Respondent-Company to provide maximum age relaxation up to 45 years to the petitioners belonging to Project/Earthquake Affected Persons category in the advertisement no.1/2012 published on 08.06.2012. It is also prayed to declare that petitioners belonging to age group of 18 to 45 years are qualified and entitled to apply for the post of Electrical Assistant and to direct the Respondent-Company to consider candidature of petitioners for the said post. Petitioners are also seeking to quash advertisement no.1/2012 being in contravention of Government Reso...
M.A. Rafiq and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-08-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard both the learned Counsel. 2. Criminal Appeal No.161/2010 was admitted on 21st April 2010. The appellants challenge conviction recorded under Section 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, in Special Case No.21/2007, on 31-3-2010, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, thereby directing the appellants / original accused nos.1 and 2, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, each, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. 3. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant no.2 - M.A. Raheman @ Baba s/o. Shaikh Farid expired on 4-5-2012 at Nanded and consequently, the appeal abates to his extent. 4. The original complainant, feeling aggrieved by the same judgment, recording acquittal of original accused nos.3 and 4, namely, M. Yakub s/o. M. Hajisahab and Moin Ahemad s/o. A. Majid, respectively, has preferred Criminal Appeal No.365 of 2011 which was admitted on 12th July 2011. 5. Nasar Pasha,...
Caylx Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Dcit Range 8(1), Ltd. Vs. Pa No.Aa ...
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-2013
1. The assesee has filed these three appeals for assessment year 2005-06 against order dated 10.11.2010, for assessment year 2006-07 against order dated 18.1.2010 and for assessment year 2007-08 against order dated 29.10.2010 of ld CIT(A) . 2. Since most of the grounds and relevant facts in all these appeals are common, we heard these appeals together and dispose them off by a common order for the sake of convenience. 3. Firstly, we take up appeal for assessment year 2005-06 being I.T.A. No.34/M/2011. Grounds of appeal taken by assessee are as under: Ground No.1 "1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 16 Mumbai [the CIT (A)1 erred in confirming the disallowance made by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Range 8 (1), Mumbai (the AO) of Rs. 12,37,420/- on account Depreciation on building purchased from firm. 2. On the facts and Circumstances of the case Learned CIT (A) ought to have held that since the Appellant had paid the consideration to the firm in terms of agreement for...
ShamIn A. Agboatwala Vs. the Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-2013
P.M. Jagtap, A.M. 1. This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of learned CIT(Appeals)-30, Mumbai dated 18-11-2011 and the solitary issue involved therein relating to assessee's claim for deduction on account of indexed cost of acquisition taking into consideration the holding period of the previous owner of the property has been raised by way of the following grounds : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing to consider the indexation from F.Y. 1981- 82 in which the previous owner first held the property without appreciating the fact that the assessee became the owner of property in F.Y. 2001-02 i.e. after the death of her father. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the Explanation (iii) to section 48 clearly states that the cost Inflation Index shall be adopted from the first year in which the asset was held by the ...
M/S Greaves Cotton Limited and Another Vs. the Income Tax Officerand A ...
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-2013
P.M. Jagtap, A.M. 1. These two appeals, one filed by the assessee being ITA No.3103/Mum/2011 and the other filed by the Revenue being ITA No. 4450/Mum/2011 are cross appeals which are directed against the order of learned CIT(Appeals)-15, Mumbai dated 10-03-2011. 2. In ground No. 1 of its appeal, the assessee has challenged the action of the learned CIT(Appeals) in setting aside the issue relating to disallowance of Rs.48,94,509/- on account of MK 20 Development Expenses to the AO despite the fact that all the relevant details were available on record. 3. The assessee in the present case is a Company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of engines. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 27-11-2003 declaring a loss of Rs.71,98,89,222/-. In the profit and loss account filed along with the said return, the assessee had debited Rs.47,76,850/- and Rs.1,21,659/- on account of MK 20 Engine Development Expenditure. In the assessment co...
Rajesh A. Kanojia and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2013
P.C. The applicants are the husband, father in law and the sister of the father in law of the victim wife who committed suicide by consuming poison. They are charged with having abetted suicide under the Section 306 of the IPC. They were initially also charged U/s.498A of the IPC. They have applied for discharge u/s.498A. The trial proceeded against them U/s.306 only. 2. Upon the evidence led the prosecution considered that the charge U/s.498A also can be framed against all the accused. The prosecution applied for altering the charge by addition of the charge U/s.498 A of the IPC U/s.206 of the CrPC. 3. Section 216(1) allows the Court to alter or amend charge before judgment is pronounced. It, however, requires the charge be read over and the new trial to be commenced for that charge. That would mean that the witnesses who are examined would have to be called for cross examination again by the same accused in this case with regard to the charge which was not framed against them. 4. The...
Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. Through Its Chief Engi ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-07-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.H. Joshi, J.) 1] These Letters Patent Appeals have come up for admission hearing. The learned Advocates for the parties have agreed for having the final hearing in the motion hearing itself. Admit. Advocate Shri G.K. Thigale waives service for the respondent in both the appeals. Therefore, the appeals are taken up for final disposal. 2] The respondents filed two separate cases. Those were complaints of unfair labour practice, in the Industrial Court of Maharashtra at Aurangabad. 3] The relief by way of declaration prayed for in the complaints is summarized as follows:- [a] Declaration that the respondent (present appellant's predecessor) had engaged in various unfair labour practices under Item 1(a) of Schedule II and Items 2, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (in short MRTU and PULP Act). [b] Direction to the employer to desist from engaging in those unfair labour practices; and [c]...
Suresh Bhat and Others Vs. Pedro Damiao Lazario Caeiro and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-07-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri S.D. Padiyar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri A. Gomes Pereira, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. 3. The above petition seeks to quash an orders passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division dated 17/10/2012 and 9/11/2012 whereby the learned Judge has closed the evidence of PW3 and proceeded to record the evidence of the respondents herein and rejected the application to recall/review the said order. 4. Shri S.D. Padiyar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that the matter was posted for evidence of PW3 on 17/10/2012 and there was a direction by the learned Judge to initially produce the affidavit of the said witness on 29/09/2012. The learned Counsel further points out that on the said date the learned Judge had directed the petitioners to furnish such advance copy of ...
Sudhakar Raghunath Juware Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-07-2013
Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Heard Shri G. N. Khanzode, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri D. B. Patel, learned Additional Public prosecutor for respondents 1 to 3. 2. Perused the impugned order. Impugned order on the face of it is not sustainable. Proposal for externment was submitted to the competent authority in the year 2008. The inquiry was ordered in the month of September 2008. The inquiry report was submitted on 4th February 2011. Show cause notice was issued to the applicant on 24th March 2011. Applicant had appeared before the competent authority on 5th May 2011. The externment order had been passed on 30th August 2012. If one goes to the chronology of events, it would show that no urgency was shown or there was no anxiety on the part of either Inquiry Officer or on the part of the Competent Officer to see that necessary steps were taken against the applicant as early as po...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »