Mumbai Court September 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.
Raana Haripada Roy Vs. Subhash Chander Rewari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
P.C. By this petition, petitioner seeks revocation of grant of probate dated 10th May, 2006 issued by this Court in respect of the Will dated 8th November, 2002 of the deceased Mr.Haripada Roy who died on 25th November, 2002. The petitioner is the son of the said deceased. 2. It is not in dispute that one of the executors named in the Will Mr.Subhash Chander Rewari had filed petition (436 of 2005) in this court inter alia praying for probate of the Will dated 8th November, 2002. Consent affidavits of Mrs.Bani H.Roy, Ms.Shobha Mukherjee and the present petitioner i.e. Mr.Rana H. Roy were filed. Deponents of the affidavits have deposed that they were aware that the said deceased died on 25th November, 2002 and had left a Will dated 8th November, 2002. The deceased had appointed Mrs.Bani H.Roy, Mr.Subhash Chander Rewari and Mr.Durga Shankar Sharma as executrix/executors of the estates of the said deceased and Mr.Subhash Chander Rewari had appointed M/s. Rajani Associates, Advocates and So...
M/S. Vidarbha Winding Wires Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. Three different industries i.e. Small Scale Units (SSI) have filed these writ petitions for quashing and setting aside the amendment made to Section 41C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the ground that it is ultra-vires the Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. There was also a challenge to Section 41D of the said Act but during the course of hearing, it has been given up. 2. To state the challenge very briefly, the petitioners urge that Eligibility Certificates given to them under the Package Incentive Scheme of 1979 do not contain any ceiling on the quantum of benefits / incentives envisaged thereunder. By the impugned amendment effected in the year 1995, that ceiling on quantum has been added retrospectively and taxes otherwise exempt with penalty are being claimed. 3. We have heard Shri M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior Advocate with Shri V.V. Bhangde, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Dangre, l...
Rare (H) Minerals Private Limited Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the Notification (Revised Guidelines for Making Selection of Applicants for Grant of Off-shore Exploration Licence) issued on 29th December 2010. Considering the nature of controversy we have heard the Writ Petition finally with the consent of parties. Hence Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of parties. 2. Shri N. H. Seervai, learned Senior Counsel with Shri A. A. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri K. Setalvad, learned Additional Solicitor General with Shri S. K. Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondents 1 and 2, Shri N. C. Phadnis learned counsel for respondent no.3, Shri A. S. Mardikar learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and Shri Anand Parchure for the respondent No.5 have been heard at length. 3. The facts relevant for considering the aforesaid challenge are that, according to petitioner-Company it carries on the business of prospecting...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Jayashree Sadashiv Lugade and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
1 The appellant insurer has challenged validity and legality of the judgment and award dated 18 November 2009 passed by Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane in MACP No.562 of 2005, whereby owner and insurer of the offending motor vehicle were held jointly and severally to pay compensation amount in the sum of Rs.3,85,500/- inclusive of 'no fault liability amount' along with interest @ 6% p.a. on the awarded sum on the date of order till realization thereon. 2 The facts briefly stated are that on 22 May 2004 at about 1.15 hours when Tejas Sadashiv Lugade was driving his motor cycle bearing registration no.MH-04/DL-7563 when it was near Babaji Patel wadi, at that time, offending motor vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration no. MH-04/AA-4205 came in a very high speed and driven rashly and negligently dashed the motor cycle of Tejas. In the result, he was thrown of the motor cycle, fell down and sustained grievous head injury. Though he was removed to Chhatrapati Shivaji hospita...
Mrs. Salete Miranda E Shetty and Another Vs. Pramod Faterpekar and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
This revision is directed against the revisional order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa whereby the learned Judge set aside the order of the learned Magistrate dismissing a complaint and directed issuance of process against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 380 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Facts which are material for deciding this revision are as under:- The complainant, one Mr. Pramod Faterpekar, filed the complaint in his individual capacity, though in the body of the complaint he stated that he was Branch Manager of Sine Fine Advertisement Private Limited, Mumbai and duly constituted Attorney of the Managing Director of the Company Mr. D.K. Bandekar and filed the complaint in terms of the Power of Attorney. The applicants are owners of property bearing Survey No.60 at village Betim. Sine Fine Advertisement Private Limited claimed to have entered into an Agreement with the applicants for permitting the Compa...
Shahul Hamid Vs. State of Goa, Through Public Prosecutor
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-17-2013
U.V. Bakre, J. The appellant before us faced trial in Sessions Case No. 38 of 2009 for offences of sodomy and murder punishable under Sections 377 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C) and he has challenged the Judgment dated 14/2/2011 and order of sentence dated 4/3/2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji in the said case. 2. The prosecution case, in short, was as follows: Between 20.00 hours of 11/05/2009 and 08.30 hours of 12/05/2009, the accused had forceful, unnatural anal sex with Dharmalingam, since deceased, at Palm Grove Apartment, Upper Bazar, Ponda Goa. The accused had tied a jute thread around the neck of the deceased and during the course of having unnatural sex with him, the jute thread was pulled back in the process of deriving lust of unnatural sex as a result of which Dharmalingam was strangulated and he died on the spot. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge explained to him in respect of the said offences and claimed to be tried. 4. ...
Shree Krishna Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Perpetual Co-operative Hsng. So. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2013
1. The petitioner is a developer who entered into an agreement with defendant No.1 who is society consisting of 11 members having 12 flats being respondent Nos. 2 to 12. The members of the respondent No.1 sought to redevelop their society building. They entered into an agreement with the petitioner dated 14th December, 2011. Thereafter in lieu of the change in the DC Rules with regard to the additional area to be given to the existing members in the newly constructed building they resolved to consider certain changes in their agreement under the meeting held by them on 2nd March, 2012. They have assigned the plan of the construction as finalized by and between the petitioner and the members and sent under the petitioner's letter dated 3rd March, 2012. They have entered into a supplemental agreement on 15th October, 2012 altering certain terms of the initial development agreement. 2. Five out of eleven members holding six out of twelve flats in the society are thereafter stated to have ...
Malhari Vitthal Jadhav Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-16-2013
Oral Judgment : The appeal is filed against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No.28 of 2011, which was pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, Dist.Beed. The trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence punishbable under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. The appellant is directed to suffer R.I. for three years for offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and for seven years for offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. Both sides are heard. 2] In short, the facts leading to institution of the appeal can be stated as follows: Deceased Meera was given in marriage to the appellant / accused about two years prior to the date of incident. She has left behind a son aged about seven months. The crime was registered on the basis of the dying declaration of Meera. In the dying declaration, Meera has disclosed that there was ill-treatment to her and the same was started after six months of the marriage. She has disclosed that t...
Anjali Sudhakar Chumbalkar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2013
Oral Judgment: [A.R. Joshi, J.] 1. Heard rival arguments at length on this Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant/accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction in Sessions Case No.101 of 2006. 2. The present appellant/accused was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer RI for six months. This judgment and order is challenged in the present appeal. 3. Prior to discussing the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate Ms. Rebecca Gonsalvez, certain factual position and the case of the prosecution can be narrated as under: Victim one Sudhakar Chumbalkar has earlier married with one Shrimati and was residing in Laskar area of Solapur city. One son by name Yuvaraj was born out of the said wedlock. Said Shrimati died somewhere in the year 1993-94 due to illness. Yuvraj after having marriageable age married and started residing elsewhere sinc...
Sitara Diamond Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-2013
M.S. Sanklecha, J. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the notice dated 3 May 2012 issued for reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) and the order dated 25 July 2012 dismissing the petitioner's objections while seeking to reassess the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2006-07. 2 At the very outset, it is made clear that though the petition as filed challenges the approval/sanction of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No.3) under Section 151 of the Act for issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act, no submission in respect of the same was advanced during the hearing before us. Therefore, as the challenge to Section 151 of the Act is not pressed before us, we are not dealing with the same. 3 Briefly the facts leading to the present petition are as under:- a) On 29 November 2006, the petitioner filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2006-07 uploading the same electronically; (b) On 30 Nove...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »