Mumbai Court November 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.
State of Goa, Executive Engineer Vs. Kazi Imtiyaz
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-28-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Rodrigues, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17/05/2010 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge, FTC, Panaji (Reference Court for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 87 of 2008. The appellant was the respondent in the said Land Acquisition Case whereas the respondent was the Applicant therein. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said Claim Petition. 3. Vide notification bearing no. 23/24/2004-RD dated 05/02/2005 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("L. A. Act", for short) and published in the Official Gazette dated 23/02/2005, land was acquired for improvement and widening of road from Prabhu Towers, Upper Bazar to Shantinagar including reconstruction of culvert in Ponda constituency. This included land admeasuring 585 square metres from Survey no. 167 (part) of vi...
Commissioner of Income-tax-11, Mumbai Vs. Nitin Panchamiya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-2014
1. This Appeal of the Revenue challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 17th February 2012 allowing the Assessee's Appeal partly and that of the Revenue dismissed. 2. The two Income Tax Appeal Nos.3874/Mum and 3244/Mum, both of 2009 were dealt with by the Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Assessment Year was 2005-2006. The only question and which has been termed as substantial question of law is in relation to the exercise carried out by the Assessing Officer of determining the cost of production allowable under Rule 9A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 in the assessment year in question and on the footing that part of the expenditure claimed was clearly not includible under explanation (ii) to Rule 9A(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Commissioner and the Tribunal concurrently noted that this is an attempt to get over and purporting to reopen an assessment of a partnership firm in which the Assessee before us was a partner. The firm wa...
Niranjan Vs. Priti
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-27-2014
P.C. 1. The petition is filed to challenge the order made by learned J.M.F.C. on Exhibit-57. The application was filed by present petitioner, husband, for giving permission to examine some witnesses and the same is rejected by the learned J.M.F.C. The proceeding is filed under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as the Act). Both the sides are heard. 2. In the proceeding, filed under section 12 of the Act, the wife, respondent has claimed the reliefs like compensation/ damages of Rs.5 Lakhs, make arrangement of separate residence at Aurangabad or to pay rent for the same, not to commit domestic violence against her, pay to her monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/- etc. The application was filed on 29th June, 2012 and till today that application is pending. 3. The husband appeared in the aforesaid proceeding on 3rd September, 2012 and the say came to be filed on 20th September, 2012. Interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month was gr...
Sangita C. Thakur and Another Vs. Dnyansagar Education Society and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2014
M.S. Sonak, J. Oral Judgment: 1] Rule in both the petitions. 2] By order made on 30 October 2014, the parties were put to notice that these petitions will be disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself. 3] Both the petitions challenge the orders dated 9 October 2013 made by the School Tribunal, Mumbai in two separate miscellaneous applications lodged in two separate appeals preferred by the respective petitioners in both the petitions, declining to condone the delay in filing of appeals against termination orders made by respondent Nos.1 and 2 (School Management). 4] Mr. Sanjay More, Headmaster of Dnyansagar Education Society appears on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. On 30 October 2014, as also on the previous occasion Mr. More, on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, had applied for adjournments on the ground that respondent Nos.1 and 2 seek to engage services of an advocate to appear on their behalf. On both occasions adjournment was granted at the request of Mr. More. In or...
Director of Income-tax (Exemption) Vs. Bommanji Dinshaw Petit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2014
1. This Appeal challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 20th March, 2012 in Income Tax Appeal No.3259/Mum/2011. The assessment year is 2007-08. 2. The Appeal before the Tribunal was filed by the Revenue against the order dated 15th November, 2010 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 3. The case of the Revenue is that the Assessee filed a return of income on 31st October, 2007 declaring losses of Rs.9,96,83,553/- after claiming exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act. The revised return was filed on 31st March, 2008 on declaring loss of Rs.9,73,45,636/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices were issued. In the Assessment Order, it has been noted that Assessee is a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 by the Charity Commissioner of Maharashtra State. It is also registered under section 12A of the Income Tax Act. The objects of the trust remaine...
Conros Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lu Qin (Hong Kong) Company Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2014
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. A Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 13th March, 2012, directed the office to place the papers before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. The Division Bench opined that the following question ought to be referred for consideration to a larger bench. Whether an appeal under the provisions of clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in a civil suit in an application filed in that civil suit because of the provisions of section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, is maintainable or not ? The learned Chief Justice constituted this Full Bench and referred the above question to it. 2. We have held that an appeal against an order in an application under section 8 is not maintainable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Our conclusion is based on principle and on authority. It is based on our interpretation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the framework in which it now sta...
Obi Okoroafor Vs. The State of Goa, Through the CID Crime Branch
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-27-2014
1. Heard Mr. Menezes, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 09/07/2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-I, Margao (trial Court, for short) in Sessions Case No. 14/2010/FTC-II. The appellant was the accused in the said case and shall herein after be referred to as the accused. 3. The accused was tried by the trial Court for offences punishable under Section 343 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short). The allegation against him was that on 18/04/2010 between 03.00 hours to 06.00 hours, at hut no.1, Laughing Buddha Hotel, Palolem, Canacona, Goa, the accused wrongfully confined the victim girl, an Australian national, major in age, and forcibly committed rape on her. 4. The prosecution had examined 17 witnesses in support of its case and statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C...
Parvatibai and Others Vs. Hareshwar and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-27-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition was admitted by order dated 26.7.1991 and interim relief was granted to the petitioners in terms of prayer clause C-1 which reads as under:- Pending hearing and final disposal this writ Petition, the Judgment and order dated 26.6.1986 passed by learned President, Agricultural Land Tribunal Taluka Udgir in Case No.84/TNC/O/2 which is confirmed by Deputy Collector, Latur and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Aurangabad on 6.4.1987, 16.6.1990 respectively may be stayed. 2. The submissions of Shri Chincholkar, learned Advocate for the petitioners with regard to the Civil Proceedings as well as Revenue proceedings are as under:- A. DETAILS REGARDING REVENUE PROCEEDINGS : (a) The petitioners are the legal representatives of Maharudrappa Baslingappa Swami. (b) Maharudrappa Baslingappa Swami purchased land from Limbabai w/o Gurlingappa Swami by registered sale deed dated 15.10.1968. (c) The land purchased by Maharudrappa Baslingappa Swami falls in Survey No.116-A ...
The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State and Others Vs. M/s. S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-2014
A.K .Menon, J. 1. This order disposes of all the above seventeen Sales Tax References and two Writ Petitions. For the purpose of the present judgment, we refer to the facts and issues raised in Sales Tax Reference No.11 of 2006, Writ Petition No.2055 of 2003 and Sales Tax Reference No.49 of 2006. The issues that arise for consideration pertains to additive flavor compounds only and synthetic essential oils, fragrances, etc. Vide order 31st March, 2006, the following questions were referred to this Court:- (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in negating the revenue's interpretation of the words and their compounds in schedule entry C-I-19 as covering only the compounds of natural and synthetic essential oils as not quite proper and interpreting the words and their compounds, therein to mean the compounds of the aromatic chemicals as well. (ii) Whether on the facts an circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in holding that the ...
Dr. Gitanjali Narendra Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-26-2014
1. The application is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for relief of quashing the proceeding of R.C.C. No.63/2012 presently pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamner. Both the sides are heard. 2. Regular Criminal Case No.63/2012 is a private complaint filed by the Appropriate Authority created under the provisions of Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The present applicant owns and runs ultra sound sonography centre. The Appropriate Authority paid visit to this centre with other officers and witnesses on 1-2-2011. Following irregularities were found :- (i) As per record one pregnant woman Ashabai Bhalekar was examined but Form 'F' was not maintained by the accused. Her declaration was also not obtained for such examination; (ii) it was noticed that Dr. P.B. Bhonde had referred some patients to this sonography centre but some referral slips...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »