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.
Manoj Kundanlal JaIn and Another Vs. Arti Amar Pande
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Mr. Santosh Adukia, learned Advocate for the applicant. The learned Advocate for the respondent is absent. 2. Admitted. Heard finally. 3. The applicants are accused Nos.4 and 6 in Criminal Complaint No.160/2011 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court Room No.10, Nagpur. The applicants have applied for transfer of the said Criminal Complaint case from Nagpur to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Mumbai. The alleged offence had taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of Nagpur Court. During the course of hearing, it was indicated to the learned counsel for the applicants that this Court is not inclined to grant relief as prayed by the applicants. However, it was also indicated that considering the peculiar facts of the case and the alleged conduct of the respondent/complainant, the Court is inclined to grant exemption from personal appearance to the accused except one of the accused who will attend the case on the dates of hear...
Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation, Through Its Ex ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 24.12.2010, passed on Misc. Civil Application (Requiring Judicial Inquiry No.16/2009). This application was moved under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (henceforth be referred to as the Act). 2. Facts leading to the appeal in short can be stated as under: Way back in the year 1986 the appellant Corporation awarded an irrigation work contract to the respondent company (hereinafter be referred to as the Contractor). The estimated cost of the work was 34.81 lac. But the contractor succeeded in getting this contract because he submitted a tender about 11.2% below the estimated cost. The contract period was 18 calendar months. Work order was issued on 22.5.1986. The work got delayed due to apparent unforeseen situation such as hard substratum found during excavation and the quarry given to the contractor was found insufficient and so a new quarry at a distance of 14 kilometers away was required to be used. 3. De...
Sandstone Capital Advisors Pvt Ltd. Vs. the Asst Commr of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
Vijay Pal Rao, JM 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the assessment order dated 28.9.2012 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) in pursuant to the directions of the DRP u/s 144C(5) of the I T Act for the AY 2008-09. 2. The only ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is as under: "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in making an adjustment of Rs. 15,16,87,983/- to the international transaction of providing investment advisory services. "3 The assessee is a 100% subsidiary of Sandstone Capital LLC., a Delaware limited Liability Company having registered office at Boston, USA. The assessee company was incorporated in financial year 2004-05 and is engaged in carrying out business in providing financial services. As per the investment advisory agreement, the assessee was appointed as an investment advisor by Sandstone Capital LLC to provide investment advisory services in connection with investments in Indian securities. The se...
M/S. Ambit Securities Broking P. Ltd, Vs. the Additional Commissioner
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
D. Karunakara Rao, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee on 21.11.2011 is against the order of CIT (A)-16, Mumbai dated 23.8.2011 for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. There are two issues in the grounds raised by the assessee and the first one relates to the disallowance u/s 14A amounting to Rs. 21,54,498/-, when the dividend income of Rs. 1,80,613/- relates to the shares held only as stock-in- trade and not at investment; and the second issue relates to the applicability of provisions of section 115JB vis--vis rebate u/s 88E of the Act. The issues raised in ground nos. 8 to 10 are not pressed as they are only academic in nature and therefore, they are dismissed as academic. 3. During the proceedings before us, regarding the first issue, Shri Sanjay R. Parikh, Ld Counsel for the assessee, brought our attention to page 13 of the paper book and mentioned that the assessee held whole of the dividend yielding shares as stock-in-trade only and also demonstrated the investment in shares in th...
M/S. Prithvi Prakashan (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
D. Karunakara Rao, AM: 1. There are two appeals under consideration and the same are cross appeals. These two appeals are filed against the order of CIT (A)-36, Mumbai dated 11.11.2010 for the assessment year 2007-2008. The grounds raised in both the appeals are connected and the same are being disposed of by this common order. Ground wise and appeal wise adjudication is given in the succeeding paragraphs. Firstly, we shall take up assessee's appeal and the grounds raised by the assessee read as under: "Ld CIT (A) of has erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 15,80,832/- out of Rs. 52,69,440/- paid to M/s. Media World Enterprises for purchase of "Kaldarshika" calendars on the ground that payment made by the assessee is excessive and unreasonable. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the said disallowance made ought to be deleted. 2. Ld CIT (A) has erred in confirming disallowance of professional charges of Rs. 3,60,000/- paid to Mrs. Ashoo Darda on the ground that no d...
M/S. Aditya Builders Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Dheeraj Plaza
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2013
D. Karunakara Rao, AM: 1. This appeal filed by the assessee on 3.4.2012 is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-15, Mumbai dated 27th March, 2012 for the assessment year 2007-2008. 2. In this appeal, assessee raised the following grounds which read as under: "1. The CIT (Adm) erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when the conditions precedent for attracting section 263, are not satisfied in the appellant's case and subsequently, in setting aside the original assessment order dated 13.7.2009. 2. The Ld CIT (Adm) further erred in this connection in directing the Assessing Officer to compute the income of the appellant from the Link Corner Project for assessment year 2007-2008 by applying the percentage completion method. 3. The Ld CIT (Adm) further erred in this connection in holding that:- a) in almost all cases, the appellant has received advances from buyers in excess of 70% of the agreement value; b) the payments received indicate ...
Nazim H. Kazi, of Bombay Indian Vs. Kokan Mercantile Co-operative Bank ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short `Arbitration Act, 1996), the petitioner seeks to challenge an award dated 15th February, 2011 made by the Arbitral Tribunal dismissing the dispute filed by the petitioner under section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. Since 1986, petitioner was member of the respondent bank. For the period between 25th November, 2000 and March 2008, the petitioner was elected as the Chairman of respondent. In February 2008, once again the petitioner was elected as the director by mandate of the members of the respondent. 3. In the meeting of the respondent bank, on a querry raised by one of the members, it was decided to appoint M/s.Choksi and Choksi, Chartered Accountants to conduct an enquiry into the alleged irregularities of some accounts. Pursuant to the said resolution, M/s. Choksi and Choksi,...
Abdul Jabbar Abdul Abdul Gafar Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
Oral Judgment: This appeal is directed against Judgment of conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Hereinafter referred to as "NDPS Act" and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- or in default further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years recorded by the learned Special Judge for trial of cases under the NDPS Act at Mumbai on the conclusion of trial of Special Case No.111 of 2006 before him. 2. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:- On 4th March, 2006 at about 1:00 p.m., Police Inspector Shri Ramchandra Mane of Anti Narcotic Cell received specific information that absconder Javed Chikna and his wife Banu were selling Charas from Room Nos.7 and 10 on the 2nd and 3rd floors of Halim Manzil, Nishan Pada, Dongri, Mumbai. The officer had further learnt that Javed stores the contr...
Mrs. Jennifer Krishnan Vs. State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Ms. Collasso, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Ms. Milena Gomes e Pinto, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor 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 Order passed by the Respondent no.2 dated 24.01.2013, whereby an application filed by the Petitioner for parole came to be rejected. 4. Ms. Collasso, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has pointed out that under Rule 324 of the Goa Prison Rules 2006, there are specific situations wherein a prisoner can seek parole. Learned Counsel has taken me through the said provisions and pointed out that considering the intent of such Rule, it clearly shows that the right of a prisoner for parole is not restricted only to specific situations as stipulated therein. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the provisions itself qualifies the situation wit...
Mohammad BasitoddIn S/O KhaliloddIn Siddiqi and Others Vs. the State o ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-05-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Perused. 2. The petitioners, the accused in R.C.C. No.659/1994, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Latur, have assailed the judgment and order dated 28.1.2008, passed by the learned Adhoc Sessions Judge-4, at Latur in Criminal Revision Petition No.68/2007. 3. The respondent No.2 lodged the complaint being R.C.C No.659/1994 against the petitioners in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur on 12.12.1994. The respondent No.2 alleged that the petitioners have forged the document dated 29.10.1989, described as Kararnama for the purposes of falsely claiming share in his property and used the said document for his own benefit. It appears that during the process of leading evidence before charge, the respondent No.2/complainant had examined himself and was to examine few more witnesses in support of his case for the purpose of framing charge; and an application for discharge came to be moved before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Firs...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »