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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-2014
1. These two Appeals by the Revenue raise identical question. They challenge the order of the Tribunal for the relevant Assessment Years. The Assessee before us is a Trust running a super specialty hospital styled as "Lilawati Hospital" in Mumbai. Surprisingly in the statement of facts in these memo of Appeals, the Revenue refers to the object of the Trust and which is to offer medical reliefs and spread medical science, to establish and maintain and support hospital health centre, dispensaries with or without medical schools and nursing institutions or any of them for treatment of patients suffering from diseases or accident etc. 2. A return of income was filed and the Assessee declared the income as Nil. The return was processed and scrutinized. There was an exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 claimed by the Assessee. However, the Assessing Officer arrived at a conclusion that the application of the Assessee seeking approval for exemption under section 10(23)(c)(iv...
Ravindra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Others Vs. Madhukar Atmaram Koch ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-20-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner-management challenges the order dated 30th June, 2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Additional School Tribunal, Nagpur (Chandrapur) in STC No. 31 of 1997. 2. Heard Shri R.L. Khapre, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Shri N.D. Khamborkar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Shri A.K. Bangadkar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. The respondent No.1 Shri Madhukar Koche was appointed as Headmaster in the school run by the petitioner-institute namely Jawahar Smruti Vidyalaya, Delwadi, Taluka Ashti, District Wardha on the substantive and permanent post. Initially the school was being run as a school on non grant-in-aid basis till 1990 from the year. From the year 1990-91, a school was admitted to the grants and was receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government. The respondent No.1 was served with a show cause ...
Syed Akram Ali Vs. Rubina Begum
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2014
1. Heard learned counsels for both the parties. 2. The Petition is filed to challenge the Judgment and Order passed in Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2012, which was pending in the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. In the proceedings filed under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short "Domestic Violence Act"), direction is given against the present Petitioner, husband to return Dahej (Jahez) articles to the Respondent or to pay Rs.2,00,000/- in lump sum towards the price of those articles to the present Respondent. 3. It is the case of the wife that the articles given in Jahez, which include ornaments, are in the custody of the husband and he has not returned those articles though the parties are living separate. In the proceedings filed under Domestic Violence Act, many reliefs were claimed but the aforesaid relief is granted by the Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal. This relief was refused by learned J.M.F.C. by making some ob...
Ramesh Damodar Ghagre Vs. Jail Superintendent, Nagpur Central Jail
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for hearing. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court for grant of parole on account of death of his grand father. The application is opposed on the ground that the grand father is not included in Rule 19 of the Bombay (Parole and Furlough) Rules, 1959. The other ground is that when the petitioner was released on 23.3.2013 on parole he did not surrender within time and was required to be arrested for bringing him to the prison. 4. Insofar as the first ground is concerned, perusal of Rule 19 of the Bombay (Parole and Furlough) Rules, 1959 would reveal that the definition is not exhaustive but illustrative. The words used after the words 'nearest relatives' cannot be given restricted meaning. They are illustrative in nature and not exhaustive. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammad Wasim vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2012(6) A...
Arvind Kumar Seth Vs. Babaji Govind Sawant and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-20-2014
1. Heard Mr. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Both the respondents, though duly served after admission of the appeal, are absent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 17.10.2008, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of Salcete at Margao (M.A.C.T., for short), in Claim Petition No. 15/2007. 3. The appellant was the claimant, whereas respondent no. 1 was driver as well as the owner of the offending vehicle which was insured with the respondent no. 2. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the claim petition. 4. The claimant had filed the said claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act, for short) for compensation of ` 6,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident. 5. The case of the claimant was as follows:- On 24.10.2006, at about 2:00 p.m., the claimant was riding the motor cycle bearing registration no. GA-08/D-5771 on th...
Mohd. Ismail Vs. Badruddin and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2014
1. This Revision is filed against the Judgment and Order dated 22nd August 2014, passed in E. No.262 of 2012 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, which was filed by the present Respondents under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Family Court has directed the present Petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to each of the Respondents, the parents of the present Petitioner, from the date of application i.e. 28th November, 2012. 2. Both the sides are heard. 3. Present Petitioner is the only son of the Respondents and it is their case that the Petitioner is engineer and he is taking contracts of construction. It is their case that since the year 2008 the son did not turn up to them and he did not make any provision for their maintenance. It is their case that they had given power of attorney to him to take care of the property but he misused that power of attorney and grabbed their property. It is contended that they have no so...
Union of India, through General Manager, South East Central Railway an ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-20-2014
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner-Indian Railways have put to challenge the judgment and order dated 28.01.2014 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Nagpur, in O.A. No.2094/2006, which made an order for grant of pension to the two widows of the deceased railway employee in equal share. In support of the writ petition, Mr. Lambat, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the tribunal committed error in making the impugned order particularly when the marriage of the second wife/widow of the deceased railway employee was clearly illegal and in violation of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act being the second marriage during the lifetime of the first wife, who was not divorced. He, therefore, submitted that in the wake of void marriage of the second wife/widow, the tribunal could not have made an order, contrary to the law. He, th...
Padmavati Oils (India) Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and O ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2014
1. The petition is filed for relief of quashing of the proceeding of complaint bearing R.C.C. No.163/2006 which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhusawal[hereinafter referred to as 'J.M.F.C.']. The order dated 16.4.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is also challenged. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the Criminal Revision Application No.83/2010 filed by the present petitioners against the order of framing charge made by the learned J.M.F.C. for the offences punishable under section 7 r/w. 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Both the sides are heard. 2. The complaint is filed by Food Inspector appointed under the provisions of the Act. The accused No.1 - Ashok Agrawal, vendor and proprietor of M/s. Agrasen Provision, owns and runs shop near S.T. Stand at Bodwad. He stores and sells soya oil. Petitioner No.1 - M/s. Padmavati Oil (India) Ltd. is the manufacturer of refined...
Abasaheb Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2014
1. The petition is filed against the judgment and order of Criminal Revision Petition No.78/2011 which was pending in Sessions Court, Beed. The order of issue process made in a private complaint, R.C.C. No.202/2010, which was pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ashti, was challenged by the respondent Nos.2 and 3. The challenge was on the ground of absence of sanction as required under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are police officers. The revisional Court allowed the revision petition and has set aside the order of issue process. Both the sides are heard. 2. In the complaint, R.C.C. No.202/2010, filed by the present petitioner the process was issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, for offences punishable under sections 166, 167, 384 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant himself is a retired Police Sub Inspector. Accused No.1 was working as Police Head Constable and accused No.2 was working as Pol...
Manisha Santosh Chhajed Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-20-2014
1. The petitions are filed under the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order made by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmednagar on applications filed under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner and respondent No.2. The Judicial Magistrate First Class has directed to hand over the possession of two shop premises during pendency of the trial to present respondent No.2 -Jitendra Shantilal Chhajed on execution of bond of rupees three lakhs. Some conditions are imposed on him to prevent him from alienating the property or for creating interests of any third party in the property. Both the sides are heard. 2. The petitioner, Smt. Manisha Chhajed, gave report to Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar on 24-5-2011. She contended that the two shop premises owned by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Ahmednagar were given to her husband by the APMC and after the death of her husband, she is entitled to occu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »