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.
Abdul Khabeer Vs. Mohd. Osmanoddin
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-10-2014
1. Both the revisions are filed against the judgment and order of Criminal Appeal No.24/2011, which was pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Parbhani. The petitioner from Criminal Revision Application No.244/2013 was accused in SCC No.772/2007, which was pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class (hereinafter referred to as 'J.M.F.C.') and the case was filed for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the petitioner from Criminal Revision Application No.56/2014. The accused is convicted and sentenced by the learned J.M.F.C. and he is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for the period of two months. He was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh) and fine of Rs.2,000 (Rupees two thousand). This decision is modified by the learned Sessions Judge and the substantive sentence is reduced to the term, till the rising of the Court and compensation is increased to make it Rs.3,50,00...
Dr. Vijay Dinkarrao Shinde and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) 1. This petition filed in public interest challenges the provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Taxes and Fees (Amendment) Rules 1999 as being unconstitutional. 2. The petitioners are residents of Morewadi and Panchgaon situated in Karvir Taluka of District Kolhapur. A village Panchayat has been duly constituted in both the aforesaid villages under provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short 'the said Act'). The petitioners being residents of aforesaid villages are liable to pay taxes as per provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Taxes and Fees Rules, 1960 (for short, 'the Rules of 1960'). According to the petitioners, under the Rules of 1960 taxes on buildings and lands were being levied on the basis of the annual letting value of the building or land in question under Rule 7 of Rules of 1960. Rule 9 of the Rules of 1960 prescribed the procedure for preparation of the assessment list. As per Schedule ap...
Sanjay Bhairu Waskar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-2014
Oral Order: 1. The applicant is one of the nine accused - i.e. the accused no.9 in the MCOC Special Case No.4 of 2010, pending before the Special Court under the MCOC Act at Pune. The said case arises out of C.R. No.85 of 2010 registered at Rajarampuri Police Station, Kolhapur. The allegation against the applicant and other accused is in respect of offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and 307 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC, 147 of IPC, 148 of IPC, 341 of IPC, 323 of IPC, 120B of IPC, 427 of IPC, in addition to the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the MCOC Act', for short). The applicant and other accused are alleged to have committed murder of one Avdhut Malave on 4th June, 2010. It is alleged that the applicant is the leader of the organized crime syndicate, and the offence of committing murder of Avdhut Malave, is an organized crime. 2. I have heard Mr.A.H.H. ...
Rohit Ramesh Doshi Vs. State of Maharashtra through Additional Chief S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) 1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, an exception is taken to the order of preventive detention passed under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short "COFEPOSA") against one Ramesh B. Doshi. The present Petitioner is the son of the detenu. The order of preventive detention has been passed with a view to prevent the Petitioner in future from abetting the smuggling of goods. 2. Considering the grounds of challenge raised by learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, it will be necessary to make a brief reference to the grounds of detention. The allegation incorporated in the grounds of detention is that one Vishal Madan was importing PVC / PU coated cloth commonly known as artificial leather cloth through Nhava Sheva port and CFS Mulund. The import was in the name of four different firms as stated in paragraph 2 of the grounds. In paragra...
Michael Lorence Lopis and Others Vs. Joseph Lorence Lopis and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-2014
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14th December, 1993 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane allowing the suit filed by the respondent no. 1 for letters of administration with the will annexed of the deceased Mr. Joseph Lorence Lopis (hereinafter referred to as the said deceased). Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under: 2. The respondent no. 1 was the original plaintiff. The appellants were the original defendant nos 1, 3 and 4 respectively. Respondent no. 2 herein was original defendant no. 2. Respondent no. 3 herein was the original defendant no. 5. During the pendency of the appeal the original appellant no. 3 expired. By an amendment permitted by this court by order dated 18th November, 2008, his legal heirs are brought on record. Original Appellants and the respondent no. 1 and 2 were the sons of the said deceased. Mr. Joseph Lorence Lopis. Respondent no. 3 is the daughter of the said deceased. It is th...
Rohit Ramesh Doshi Vs. State of Maharashtra through Additional Chief S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) 1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, an exception is taken to the order of preventive detention passed under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short "COFEPOSA") against one Ramesh B. Doshi. The present Petitioner is the son of the detenu. The order of preventive detention has been passed with a view to prevent the Petitioner in future from abetting the smuggling of goods. 2. Considering the grounds of challenge raised by learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, it will be necessary to make a brief reference to the grounds of detention. The allegation incorporated in the grounds of detention is that one Vishal Madan was importing PVC / PU coated cloth commonly known as artificial leather cloth through Nhava Sheva port and CFS Mulund. The import was in the name of four different firms as stated in paragraph 2 of the grounds. In paragra...
Michael Lorence Lopis and Others Vs. Joseph Lorence Lopis and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-2014
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14th December, 1993 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane allowing the suit filed by the respondent no. 1 for letters of administration with the will annexed of the deceased Mr. Joseph Lorence Lopis (hereinafter referred to as the said deceased). Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under: 2. The respondent no. 1 was the original plaintiff. The appellants were the original defendant nos 1, 3 and 4 respectively. Respondent no. 2 herein was original defendant no. 2. Respondent no. 3 herein was the original defendant no. 5. During the pendency of the appeal the original appellant no. 3 expired. By an amendment permitted by this court by order dated 18th November, 2008, his legal heirs are brought on record. Original Appellants and the respondent no. 1 and 2 were the sons of the said deceased. Mr. Joseph Lorence Lopis. Respondent no. 3 is the daughter of the said deceased. It is th...
Commissioner of Income-tax -24 Vs. Sportsfiled Amusements
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-2014
1. In challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, rendered in Income Tax Appeal No.3980/Mum/2007 for assessment year 2003-04 dated 16th March, 2012, the Revenue raised two questions of law and terms them as substantial. 2. The first relates to the non-refundable fees collected from members, namely, questions at para 6.3 and 6.4. Those are in relation to income by way of non-refundable deposits collected from members. The Revenue would urge that the Tribunal has failed to note that there is no liability to refund these deposits. Therefore, they could not have been allowed to be spread over or income spread over, as in the manner done and following its Special Bench decision in the case of Mahindra Holidays. The finding of the Tribunal, therefore, and relying upon the order of the Special Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in the case of Mahindra Holidays (Income Tax Appeal Nos.2412 to 2416/Mds/2005 dated 26th May, 2010) would raise thes...
Herald Publications (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panjim
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-2014
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. By this appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the appellant - assessee challenges the order dated 22.02.2007 in IT(SS)A No. 7/PNJ/2004 for the Block period 01.04.1989 to 01.11.1999. This Court has admitted the appeal on 26.09.2008 on the substantial questions of law as raised in ground No. VII(a), (d) and (e) of the appeal memo. Those questions read as under : "(a) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- advanced by the appellant to their sister concern by cheques drawn in favour of the said sister concern out of disclosed bank account and duly recorded in the bank account and cash book of the appellant as unexplained investment ? (d) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in concluding that the income of the new industrial until, the receipts of which were admittedly found recorded in books...
Amar Nagar (SRA) Sah. Gruhanirman Sanstha (proposed) and Others Vs. Vi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-2014
1. By this petition filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Petitioners have impugned the order dated 10th February, 2014 passed by the learned Arbitrator under Section 17 of the said Act directing the petitioner no.1 not to proceed with the SRA project with the heirs of the original owners or M/s. Gupta Housing Pvt. Ltd. or persons claiming through them as developers on the portion of land belonging to the original owner late Mrs. Rajrani Harbanslal Gupta admeasuring 2500 sq. mtrs. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition which is in the nature of an appeal under Section 37 of the Act are as under:- 2. By a notification dated 18th March, 1976, the Maharashtra Slum Improvement Board of Mumbai declared the area bearing Survey No.58, Amar Nagar, Borla Village Chembur, Mumbai as a slum area. Members of the petitioner no.1-Society are residing in the said slum area. Area admeasuring 5651 sq. yards equivalent to 4724.80 sq. mtrs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »