Mumbai Court June 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.
Dr. Shailaja D/o Bhujangrao Wadikar Vs. the Hon'ble Chancellor and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-10-2013
1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner filed a petition before the Hon'ble Chancellor, purportedly U/s 76(7) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, thereby challenging the appointment of the present Respondent No.4 to the post of Associate Professor for English subject. The petitioner had also applied for the said post, pursuant to the advertisement. The Respondent No.1 disposed of the said petition vide order dated 26.8.2012, by holding that the Respondent No.1 does not find any justification to interfere with the decision taken by the University authorities in the matter f selection and appointment of Respondent No.4 to the post of Associate Professor in English with the Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University. The petitioner has assailed the said order in the present Writ Petition. 4. Mr.S.M.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner during course of his lucid argumen...
Deepak @ Pradeep Shriram Dhavle and Another Vs. the State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-10-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J) By this appeal, the appellants are assailing the Judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge thereby convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer R.I. for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 and R.I. for two years for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that deceased Pushpabai had marred Omprakash Dhavle, who is original accused no.3, prior to about seven years from the date of incident. It is the prosecution case that on 21st March, 2002, quarrel took place between the deceased and her mother-in-law i.e. appellant no.2 and in that incident accused no.2 Sau. Nirmala poured kerosene on the person of Pushpabai and accused Deepak set her on fire. Deceased Pushpabai was taken to the Government Hospital and thereafter was transferred to the General Hospital, Akola. In the H...
Vidarbha Ayurved Mahavidyalaya and Others Vs. Tuleshwar Mangalmurti Dh ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-10-2013
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. The grievance and demand in all these writ petitions is in respect of superannuation pension. Writ Petition No. 5771 of 2011 seeks that benefit for the Teachers in Non-Government aided Ayurvedic Colleges affiliated to Non-Agricultural Universities/ Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nasik. Writ Petition No. 682 of 2012 seeks similar benefit for the Teachers in Non-Government Aided Social Work Colleges being Education Colleges affiliated to Non-Agricultural University viz., Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University. Writ Petition No. 3277 of 2012 is for similar benefit by the Teaching and Non-teaching staff of Social Work Colleges, who are joined as respondents therein. Writ Petition No. 185 of 2012 was also heard for some time with these matters but then because of need felt by the petitioners therein to produce more documents and to amend it, the same has been separated from this group. 2. Writ Petition No. 5771 of 2011 has been filed in the backgro...
Mukesh B. Madhavddas Vs. Union of India Through the General Manager an ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2013
Smt. Leena Mehendale, Member (A) This OA is filed on 07th June, 2012 praying for quashing the transfer order No. E/C/839/DAR Vol V dated 25/04/2012 (Annexure A-1) mainly on ground of malice. 2. The brief facts about the applicant are that he was appointed as ACC (Assistant Commercial Clerk) in Western Railway on 01.10.1994. Through various promotions, he reached the post of Senior Ticket Examiner in May 2008. During this entire period his posting has remained within the limits of Bombay from Churchgate to Nallasopara although his job is transferable all over Western Railway. He has alleged some instances of misconduct of traveling without ticket by some officials of Railway but he has not impugned any one of them. 3. The order contains following: That Applicant is transferred to Vapi in the same scale and pay. He should be debarred from cash handling duties. He should be relieved without any delay to report to the new place of posting. He should join the new posting within 15days from ...
Smt. Selva W/O Subramani Mani Naidu Vs. Divisional Railway Manager (Pe ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2013
Smt. Leena Mehendale, Member (A) This OA is filed on 07th June, 2012 praying for quashing the transfer order No. E/C/839/DAR Vol V dated 25/04/2012 (Annexure A-1) mainly on ground of malice. 2. The brief facts about the applicant are that he was appointed as ACC (Assistant Commercial Clerk) in Western Railway on 01.10.1994. Through various promotions, he reached the post of Senior Ticket Examiner in May 2008. During this entire period his posting has remained within the limits of Bombay from Churchgate to Nallasopara although his job is transferable all over Western Railway. He has alleged some instances of misconduct of traveling without ticket by some officials of Railway but he has not impugned any one of them. 3. The order contains following: That Applicant is transferred to Vapi in the same scale and pay. He should be debarred from cash handling duties. He should be relieved without any delay to report to the new place of posting. He should join the new posting within 15days from ...
M/S. Magnum Trading Corporation and Another Vs. Ito Ward 20(2)(2) and ...
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-2013
Per Sanjay Garg (JM): With this common order, we shall dispose off three appeals i.e. two filed by the assessee relevant to A.Ys 2004-05 and 2006-07 respectively and one filed by the revenue relevant to A.Y. 2006-07. For the sake of convenience we shall take up the facts of the case from ITA No.7413/Mum/20 relevant to A.Y. 2004-05. ITA No. 7413/Mum/2012 for A.Y. 2004-05 2. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) dated 08.11.2007 relevant to A.Y. 2004-05. The first ground of appeal read as under: 1. Re : Computation of Long Term Capital Gains Rs.4,01,31,193/- 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (hereinafter referred to as learned CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in not allowing the compensation for alternate accommodation paid to the tenants amounting to Rs.4,25,00,000/- as cost of improvement in computing the capital gains on sale of the...
Ramkrishna Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. the Ito 8(3)(3)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-2013
N.K. Billaiya, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-18, Mumbai dt. 11.2.2011 pertaining to assessment year 2007-08. 2. The assessee has challenged the correctness of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) by raising two substantial grounds of appeal. Ground No. 1 relates to confirmation of the action of the AO by which the claim of the assessee has been reduced u/s. 10A of the I.T. Act on the ground that payments made directly abroad by way of deduction from export receivables on account of agency commission do not form part of export turnover eligible for claiming exemption u/s. 10A of the Act. 3. In alternative and without prejudice to this ground, the assessee has also raised additional ground by which it claims that export turnover in the numerator as the same meaning as the export turnover which is a constituent element of the total turnover in the denominator. 4. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that if certain item of expe...
Dilip C. Karnik Vs. Department of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-2013
N.K. Billaiya, AM: 1. This appeal by the Revenue and the Cross objection by the assessee are directed against the very same order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Mumbai dt. 24.6.2011 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09. 2. The Revenue has raised following substantive grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), Mumbai, has erred in deciding that the tenancy rights in the property at Room No.2197, Building No.44 of Gandhi Nagar Pranav Co-operative Society Ltd., Bandra(E), Mumbai- 400 051 were owned jointly by the assessee and his partner in the firm M/s.Furnin Furnin Services 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Mumbai, has erred in basing his decision merely upon an affidavit filed by the assessee, which was never filed before the A.O. and the contents of which were not borne out by the facts on record. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Mumb...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›