Mumbai Court October 2014 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.
The Commissioner of Income-Tax-11, Mumbai Vs. N.G.C. Network (India) P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2014
1. This appeal seeks to challenge the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 29th July, 2011 being a confirmatory order recording formation of a majority view pursuant to the order passed by the Third Member dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue. The Appellant seeks to raise following questions :- (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in confirming the order of the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of Rs.4,14,20,843/- made by the Assessing Officer out of advertisement and publicity expenses incurred by the Assessee ? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in not taking cognizance of the transfer pricing provisions because, the expenditure incurred by the Assessee by way of advertisement and publicity expenses, substantially benefited the two foreign principals and the Assessee did not receive any compensation on that account from the foreign principals and...
Shivaji University Teachers Association (SUTA) and Others Vs. The Stat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2014
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 2. Petitioner Nos.2 to 19 are the retired teachers from the various colleges affiliated to the Shivaji and Solapur Universities. Petitioner No.1 is an association of the teachers working in the colleges affiliated to the said universities. Petitioner Nos.2 to 19 retired between 1.1.2006 and before 1.9.2009 from various colleges in the State of Maharashtra. The University Grant Commission changed the qualifying service for retirement benefits from not less than 33 years to 20 years and the amount of pension was required to be calculated at 50% for the pensionable pay. Thus, the qualifying service from 33 years came to be reduced to 20 years in case of University Teachers entitling them for the benefit of full pension from 1.1.2006. That the said revision of qualifying service was pursuant to the 6th Pay Commission. The Respondent- State of ...
Madhu Rama Bhoir Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2014
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K.Tahilramani, J.) 1. Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2011 has been preferred by the appellant-original accused no.1 Madhu Bhoir. Criminal Appeal No.1182 of 2013 has been preferred by the appellant-original accused no.2 Ramchandra Bhoir. Criminal Appeal No.779 of 2014 has been preferred by the appellant-original accused no.3 Lahu Jadhav. (For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the appellants shall be referred to as they were referred to before the trial Court i.e. appellant Madhu Bhoir will be referred to as accused no.1, appellant Ramchandra Bhoir will be referred to as accused no.2 and appellant Lahu Jadhav will be referred to as accused no.3). All the three appeals are preferred challenging the judgment and order dated 2.2.2010 in Sessions Case No.20 of 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Palghar. As these three appeals are preferred against the same judgment and order, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. By the said judgment ...
Dattatraya and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra through the Princip ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-13-2014
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. The petitioners were appointed as Agriculture Supervisors/Extension Officers (Agriculture) in Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur some time in the year 197071 except petitioner no.8, who was appointed in the year 1975. Petitioner nos.1 to 7 were promoted as Agriculture Officers on the following dates.Sr.No.PetitionerDate of Promotion1.Petitioner No.109/12/19912.Petitioner No.217/06/19833.Petitioner No.302/11/19914.Petitioner No.403/11/19935.Petitioner No.503/11/19936.Petitioner No.603/11/19937.Petitioner No.730/05/1998 2. Petitioner no.8 was not promoted purportedly on account of some departmental proceedings against him. According to the petitioners, the next promotional post is in the Maharashtra Development Services Class II (Gazetted) (M.D.S. Class II for short). Upon being promoted in the said service, the petitioners were entitled to be posted as Block Development Officers, which is a gazetted post. The said promotion, according to the petitioners, could be granted to...
Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2014
1. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner challenges the Show Cause Notice dated 17 January 2014 and the order dated 30 January 2014 issued by Respondent No.2- Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. Brief facts leading to this Petition are as under: (a) The Petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of a Mauritian entity namely Vodafone Tele-services (India) Holdings Ltd (the Holding Company); (b) On 16 July, 2009, the Petitioner allotted 4,58,372 equity shares of Rs.10/- each at premium of Rs.7,100/- per share (total price being Rs.7,110/- per share), aggregating to a total consideration of Rs.325.90 crores to its holding company; (c) On 24 January 2010, the Petitioner allotted further 1,02,659 equity shares of Rs.10/- each at premium of Rs.6,437/- per share (total price being Rs.6,447/- per share) aggregating to total consideration of Rs.66.18 Crores to its holding company. Thus, in the Financi...
Vijay Kishore Prasad and Others Vs. Rajiv Om Prakash Bhargava
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2014
1. The applicants have sought to raise the attachment levied on the immoveable property being flat No.C2101, Whispering Palm Bldg. No.1, Akruli Road, Lokhandwala Township, Kandivali (E), Mumbai 400 101 and to cancel the warrant of attachment levied by the plaintiff / award holder / award creditor. 2. This application is made under Order 21 Rule 58 of the CPC upon the applicants claiming title in respect of the suit property. The claim would have to be adjudicated in this Chamber Summons itself. 3. The applicants claim title under a registered agreement of sale dated 1st November, 2012. 4. This was pending the arbitration proceedings. Monies came to be due from the award debtor to the award creditor since the award has been passed on 28th August, 2013. 5. The award creditor has sought to avoid the transfer in favour of the applicants between the applicant and the award debtor claiming that it is a fraudulent transfer under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the relevant p...
Yuvraj Ramchandra Pawar Vs. Dr. N. Ramaswami and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2014
A.S. Oka, J. 1. An order of preventive detention was passed against the Petitioner on 2nd December, 2013 under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short the said Act). By order dated 18th January, 2014, the State Government in exercise of powers under Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of the said Act revoked the order of detention and ordered release of the Petitioner. Initially, in this Petition, a prayer was made for quashing and setting aside the order dated 2nd December, 2013. Thereafter, an amendment was carried out and a prayer was incorporated for grant of compensation on account of wrongful detention of the Petitioner. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the issue of validity and legality of the order dated 2nd December, 2013 will have to be considered by this Court for the purposes of considering the case of the Petitioner for grant of compensat...
The Commissioner of Income-Tax-11, Mumbai Vs. N.G.C. Network (India) P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2014
1. This appeal seeks to challenge the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 29th July, 2011 being a confirmatory order recording formation of a majority view pursuant to the order passed by the Third Member dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue. The Appellant seeks to raise following questions :- (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in confirming the order of the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of Rs.4,14,20,843/- made by the Assessing Officer out of advertisement and publicity expenses incurred by the Assessee ? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in not taking cognizance of the transfer pricing provisions because, the expenditure incurred by the Assessee by way of advertisement and publicity expenses, substantially benefited the two foreign principals and the Assessee did not receive any compensation on that account from the foreign principals and...
Jigna Mahesh Dedhia Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Department o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2014
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. By an order dated 19.8.2014 notice for final disposal of this writ petition was issued. We have therefore, taken up the matter for final hearing. 2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : (a) That the Respondent may be directed by this Hon'ble Court to accept the application of Petitioner's son in the name of Jash Mahesh Dedhia and issue passport; (b) Grant of such other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require. 3. It is the petitioner's case that the previous marriage of the petitioner with one Mr.Jayesh Gala was dissolved by a consent decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 28th January, 2005 passed by the Family Court, Mumbai. Master Jash is her son from the said marriage. Under the consent decree passed by the Family Court the custody of her minor son 'Master Jash Jayesh Gala' (as named at the relevant time) was permanently given to the petitioner. 4. On 29.5...
Paresh Damodardas Mahant Vs. Arun Damodardas Mahant and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2014
1. Preliminary issue of limitation has been framed thus : (1) Whether the suit is barred by the Law of Limitation. 2. It is required to be decided under Section 9A of the CPC. Both counsel state that the parties do not desire to lead any evidence and the issue be decided upon the pleadings. 3. The suit is filed by the plaintiff for an undivided 1/5th share right, title and interest in the suit property claimed by him. The plaintiff claims as one of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Damodardas and also as a coowner with defendant Nos.1 to 4 having an undivided share right, title and interest in the suit property. The suit property consists of a tenanted building with a temple on a ground floor called Hanuman Temple. The suit is for partition of the property by metes and bounds as also for administration of the estate of the deceased father. 4. The plaintiff has averred in paragraph 6 of the plaint that the suit property was originally owned and managed by the lineal as...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »