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.
Arunkant Sridhar Pandey Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-2014
P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Kansara, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rayrikar, learned AGP for the State. 2. By the order dated 1.11.2002, respondent no.3 suspended Place of Public Entertainment Licence in respect of the petitioner's establishment namely, Kaveri Restaurant and Bar, Ghyansham Tower, M.G.Road, Borivali (East), Mumbai-400 066 for a period of 15 days for breach of the provisions of Rules 7, 8(1), 8(2) of the Rules for Keeping Places of Public Entertainment Licence, 1953. Petitioner challenged this order by filing an appeal before the appellate authority of the State Government and by the order dated 10.5.2004, Hon'ble Home Minister not only dismissed petitioner's appeal but also enhanced period of suspension of licence from 15 days to 30 days. This order is impugned in this writ petition. Matter was admitted on 15.6.2004. The order reads as follows: "1) Heard. Rule. 2) Interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) as the petitioner has already completed the period of 15 da...
Shell India Markets (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-2014
M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 30 January 2013 passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and the Draft Assessment Order dated 28 March 2012 passed by the Assessing Officer. The assessment year involved is A.Y. 2009-10. 2. Mr. Pardiwala, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that after having filed this petition on issue of jurisdiction as a matter of abundant caution objections to the Draft Assessment Order were filed before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) on various issues including issue of jurisdiction raised in the present proceeding. Mr. Pardiwala, learned Senior Counsel on instructions undertakes that objections filed with the DRP in respect of the issues raised herein would be withdrawn by them. Undertaking accepted. Therefore, the challenge to the jurisdictional issue viz. the jurisdiction of the revenue to bring...
Syed Ishrat Tabassum Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2014
1. The petition is filed to challenge the decision given by the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Criminal Revision No.185/2012. The Sessions Judge has set aside the order of issue process made by Judicial Magistrate, First Class in RCC No.1765/2010 against the present respondents. The process was issued for offences punishable under sections 341, 342, 323 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. Respondent No.1 was working as Police Inspector in the office of Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad and respondent No.2 was working as Police Sub-Inspector in the police station at the relevant time. Both the sides are heard. 2. Both the sides have produced the copies of some documents. A private complaint was filed by petitioner before J.M.F.C., Aurangabad for aforesaid offences. She has made allegations that she was called to Osmanpura Police Station by contacting her on mobile phone on 1.9.2010 at about 1.00 p.m. It was informed to her that she was called in connection with the complaint received ...
Leighton India Contractors (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-2014
1. The issue arising in the present petition relating to A.Y.2010-11 is whether the issue of equity shares by the petitioner to its non resident Associated Enterprises and the conversion of its preference shares held by the non resident Associated Enterprises into equity shares would attract the provisions of Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ("the Act"). 2. It is agreed between the Counsel that the above issue stands covered in favour of the petitioner by virtue of the decision of this Court in Vodafone India Services Pvt. ltd. vs. Union of India 368 ITR Page 1 (Vodafone IV). 3. This petition challenges the order dated 27 January 2014 of the Transfer Pricing Officer passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act and also the Draft Assessment Order (served upon the petitioner on 2 April 2014). By the impugned orders it has been held that there is a short fall in the amounts received on issue of equity shares and conversion of Preference shares into equity shares when benchmarked against ...
Dr. Kalpana Pundlik Jamdade and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-18-2014
1) All the petitions are filed under the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The proceedings are in respect of action taken of filing complaint by the authority created under the provisions of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and so all the proceedings are being decided by common order. 2) Complaints are filed against the petitioners by an officer to whom the authority under the Act has been given to take action and file complaint for the breach of the provisions of the Act and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 framed under the Act (for short, "the Rules"). The matters are relating to the provisions of Sections 4 (3), 5,6, 23, 29 and 30 of the Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate has made order of issue process in all the complaints. Prayers are made for setting aside...
Shrinivas Guramkondu Vs. The State of Goa, through Police Inspector
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
Oral Judgment : 1. Heard Mr. Pavithran, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Amonkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This appeal is filed by the accused no. 2 of Sessions Case No. 35/2009 against the judgment and order dated 30.07.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-I), South Goa, Margao (trial Court) in the said Sessions Case, by which the accused no. 2 has been sentenced for offence punishable under Section 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short), to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. The period during which the accused had been in custody has been set off in terms of Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C., for short). 3. In all four accused persons were tried by the trial Court for offence punishable under Sections 307, 353, 189, 506(i) read with Section 34 of I.P.C. ...
Namdeo Vithal Deokar Vs. Indubai Pandurang Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The application arises out of an eviction decree under Maharashtra Rent Control Act (for short " the MRC Act"). The respondent filed eviction suit against the applicant on three grounds 1) nuisance 2) arrears or rent and 3) bona fide requirement. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The respondent-landlady, however, challenged the trial Court's order by way of an appeal before the appellate Court and, as stated above, the lower appellate Court decreed the respondent's suit on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement. 3. Mr. Shastry, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no pleading about reasonable and bona fide requirement and, therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the suit, however, the lower appellate Court wrongly decreed the suit. He relied upon the decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in Tarachand Shamdasani vs. Durgashankar G. Shroff 2004 (supp) Bom.C.R. 333. Mr. ...
Dhondiba and Others Vs. Rajendra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. N.V.Gaware, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. M.V.Ghatge, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 at length. 2. By this Appeal u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ' C.P.C.'), plaintiff has challenged the Judgment and decree dated 28/12/2009 passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Nanded in Spl.C.S. No. 56/2006, as also the Judgment and decree dated 08/08/2013 passed by learned District Judge-1, Nanded in R.C.A. No. 163 of 2012. By these orders, the Courts below dismissed the Suit instituted by appellants for declaration that the sale deed dated 11/10/2005 executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 1 in respect of plot No. 1-11-148 admeasuring 16' x 75' ( for short, 'suit plot' ) is illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing their possession. The parties shall hereinafter required to be referred to as per their status before the trial Court....
Rahul Yogesh Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for State. Perused the papers. 2. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant herein is arrested on 8/1/201 in Crime No.1 of 2013 registered at Arnala Sagari Police Station for offence punishable under Section 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 4/1/2014. The investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed on 30th March, 2014. Learned APP submits that statement of material witnesses have also been recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 4/1/2014 at about 7.45 a.m. one Joseph Ignatius Rodrigues informed the police that he is the owner of the agricultural land known as wadi. He has two wells. On 4/1/2014 in the morning when he had been to agricultural land to start electric motor, he had noticed dead body of an unidentified male aged about 35 to 40 years in his well. H...
Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. N.C. Tewari, Commissioner ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 28 September 1999 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). The impugned order holds that no interest is payable under Section 244A(1)(b) of the Act on the refund of excess amount paid as tax on self assessment under Section 140A of the Act. 2. The Assessment Year involved in Assessment Year 1994-95. 3. Briefly, the facts leading to this petition, are as under : (a) On 23 November 1994, the petitioner filed its return of Income for Assessment Year 1994-95 declaring a total income of Rs.13.12 crores. The tax payable on the declared income was Rs.6.79 crores. The petitioner paid the tax by way of advance tax and credit for tax deducted at source. However as there was still a shortage of tax payable, the petitioner paid Rs.2.60 crores on 31 August 1994 as and by way of tax on self assessment. The challan evidencing the payment of the tax on self assessment w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »