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.
Dr. Pragji Savji Vaja and Others Vs. Dr. Chhotalal Narsidas Parmar and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2013
Oral Judgment : Petitioners who are claiming to be beneficiaries of Shree Gujarati Mochi Gnyati Navnat Trust registered with Charity Commissioner, under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, by this trust petition seeks sanction of the amendment of the scheme which was sanctioned by this Court (hereinafter referred to as the said trust). In Chamber summons No.567 of 2013 filed by the applicants, who claims to be beneficiary of the said trust, seek amendment to the trust petition as per schedule appended to the said chamber summons, for deletion of the names of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and for holding of further annual general meeting to carry out further amendments and to appoint new trustees of the said trust. Applicant No. 1 in the Chamber summons is not party to the trust petition. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have expired during the pendency of the trust petition. Respondent nos. 3 to 5 are present trustees of the said trust. Respondent no. 6 is the Charity Commissioner of Mum...
Accra Investments Private Ltd. Vs. the Income Tax Officer, Range-3(1)( ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2013
M.S. Sanklecha, J. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act) from the order dated 25 April 2012 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) relates to assessment year 200607. 2) On 25 September 2012 this appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, an investment made in the shares of a private limited company for purposes of acquiring control over the business conducted by it, can be said to be stock-in-trade and not a capital asset especially when the shares were not freely transferable and were held by the assessee for 31 months? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal's finding that the appellant had purchased the shares of Millennium Alcobev Pvt. Ltd. with the object of trading in them and not to hold as a capital asset is perverse and such that no person reasonably instructed as to the facts and the law co...
Godrej and Boyce Shramik Sangh Vs. Maharashtra Navnirman Kamgar Sena a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) The Petitioner is a recognised Union in the undertaking of the Second Respondent in pursuance of a certificate of registration issued on 21 October 1982 under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The First Respondent filed an application under Section 14 on 19 January 2011 before the Industrial Court, seeking to be declared as a recognised Union for the undertaking instead and in place of the Petitioner. The application initially bore the date of 21 December 2010, but was eventually filed on 19 January 2011. 2. Under Section 14(3) read with Section 11(1), the relevant period with reference to which the applicant has to establish the required strength is six calendar months immediately preceding the calendar month, in which the application for recognition is made. Sub-Sections (1) to (4) of Section 14 provide as follows: 14. Recognition of other union:- (1) If any union makes an applica...
Mohammad Hassan Jafari Naeimi Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dharmadhikari, J.) 1] This petition was amended and placed before us and, therefore, in terms of the earlier orders and directions, we have heard it finally. 2] Hence, Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. 3] By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police and Foreign Registration Officer (FRO for short). By that order dated 2nd February 2013/ 21st-24th December 2012, the petitioner has been informed that his application made to the competent authority for conversion of his X visa into Business Visa is rejected. 4] In the petition, the petitioner has stated that he received his visa (extended upto 31st October 2011 on 21st March 2011 and immediately thereafter on the next day i.e. 22nd March 2011, he had to leave for Iran in order to get married. The petitioner states that he returned to India after about one month on 22nd April 2011...
Suresh Hiralal Barwal Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-06-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule against the respondent No.1. It is not necessary to issue rule against the respondent no.2. By consent of the learned APP rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, decided finally. 2. The petitioner came to be convicted of an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on a complaint filed by the respondent no.2 herein. The learned Magistrate sentenced him to suffer R.I. one year and also to pay a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs. Four lacs) to the respondent no.2. Against his conviction and sentence the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions by filing an appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge admitted the appeal and also ordered that substantive sentence imposed upon the petitioner to be suspended on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit 50% of the compensation within a period of two months from the date of the said order which was passed on 23.7.2013. The petitioner is aggrieved by the condition requiring h...
Sanjeev Alias Sanjay Subash Grover Vs. Vertext Trading Co. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2013
1. By this chamber summons, plaintiff seeks modification of order dated 24th August 2010 passed by learned Court Receiver fixing the royalty at Rs.45,000/- and seeks enhancement of royalty at Rs.2,23,208.40 ps. Plaintiff also seeks liberty to withdraw the royalty amount deposited and direction to the parties to share professional fees of the Valuer charged at Rs.1,00,000/- in equal proportion. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the predecessors of the plaintiff had given a portion of the suit premises to the defendants for use of storage facility and they were in possession of the entire suit premises. It is the case of the plaintiff that the license granted to the defendant for storage facility came to an end and defendant continued to occupy the said portion of warehouse illegally. On 6th June 1995, plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for a declaration that portion of the suit premises was given for use to the defendant for storage facility only and the possession of th...
M/S. Vodafone India Service Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known as 3 Global Ser ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2013
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, seeks a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside a Transfer Pricing Order dated 31st October, 2011, passed by respondent No.2 Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing (hereinafter referred to as the TPO) to the extent that it relates to the addition of Rs.84,34,39,52,555/- on account of two unreported international transactions and a Draft Assessment Order dated 29th December, 2011, passed by respondent No.3Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (hereinafter referred to as the AO or Assessing Officer). The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3 the AO to revise the Draft Assessment Order, after excluding the said transfer price adjustment. Lastly, the petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the respondents from taking any steps pursuant to the impugned orders. 2. The two unreported transactions are the sale of the call centre business b...
Laxman S/O Eknath Mohite Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-05-2013
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. The appellant-accused, who is in jail, has been convicted for the murder of his uncle Bhanudas Gangadhar Mohite, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC - in brief) and has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- i/d to suffer imprisonment for six months. He was also charged with the offence of attempt to commit murder of his father Eknath but (as the father turned hostile) he has been acquitted of that charge under Section 307 of IPC. 2. The accused has filed this appeal against his conviction under Section 302 of IPC. The State has not filed any appeal regarding acquittal of accused under Section 307 of IPC. 3. Before referring to the case of prosecution, it would be appropriate to refer to the relations between the accused and major witnesses examined in the matter, who are his own near relatives. The family tree relevant for the matter is as under:- CHART Bhanudas (Br.) ----------- Eknath (Br.) ---------- Rameshw...
Gahihinath Vs. Kausalyabai
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-05-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 2. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. The respondent had filed an application under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [For short, ' Domestic Violence Act'] before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ausa, seeking monetory reliefs. The learned Magistrate, after holding due inquiry in the matter, rejected the said application. The respondent approached the Court of Sessions by filing an Appeal U/s 29 of the Domestic Violence Act. The Court of Sessions allowed the Appeal and directed the petitioner herein to pay maintenance @ Rs. 1,500/- [Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only ] per month to the respondent herein. 3. Though a number of contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it is not necessary to discuss the same in details in view of the final order that is proposed to be passed...
M/S. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. the Board of Trustees of the Port ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2013
1. This Petition is filed for reliefs under Section 9 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (The Act) upon an award of Rs.141,12,44,247/- being passed in favour of the Petitioner. The Petitioner had applied for directions against the Respondent to deposit the said amount in the Court and to permit the Petitioner to withdraw the same upon a bank guarantee. The Petitioner claims that the challenge to the award is frivolous on the grounds set out in the Petition and upon the provisions of law contend in the Act and judgments thereupon. It would contend that the award is highly unlikely to be unsettled. Consequently the Petitioner has applied for aforesaid interim reliefs pending the hearing of the Petition U/s.34 of the Act filed by the Respondent challenging the award. 2. It would be apt to set out Section 9 to see its applicability and its ambit for the grant of reliefs after the making of the arbitral award. Section 9 runs thus: 9. Interim measures, etc., by Court. A party may...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »