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.
Ashok Zende Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
P.C. 1. Heard. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant herein is taken into custody on 6.8.2014 pursuant to his appearance in the Summons received by him on 2.8.2014 under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as PMLA 2002) in PMLA Special Case No.1 of 2014. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the present applicant was working as the Assistant Manager in Union Bank of India till 2009. That on 5.2.2009, Nikesh T. Shah, proprietor of Skand Industries along with Santosh S. Bhosale, proprietor of M/s. Shree Imports visited Union Bank of India and submitted six pay-in-slips before the Cashier. That the pay-in-slips showed that the said persons wanted to deposit Rs.10,87,34,700/- in the account of Manibhadra Trading Co. and Rs.5,06,000/- in the account of Accure Impex Pvt.Ltd. which they were operating in Union Bank of India. It is pertinent to note that no cash was actually deposited. The Cashier h...
Vinod Ghanshyam Meshram and Others Vs. The Hon'ble Minister of State, ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-17-2014
1. The respondent No.4-Ordnance Factory Bhandara Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha at Jawahar Nagar, Bhandara (the respondent No.4-Society), is classified as a resource Society under sub-class of credit resource Society and is restricted to the Salary Earners' (Employees) Credit Co-operative Society of the Ordnance Factory, Jawaharnagar, Bhandara. The petitioner Nos.1 to 8 along with two other persons were duly elected as the members of the Managing Committee of the respondent No.4-Society in the month of December, 2009. The tenure of this Managing Committee is of five years, which would come to an end in the month of December, 2014. 2. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (the said Act), a show cause notice was issued on 16-4-2012 by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhandara, levelling certain charges of making defaults, negligence in performance of duties under the Act, Rules and Bye-law...
Director of Income-tax (IT)-I Vs. Delmas France
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-2014
1. This Appeal challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Tribunal, Bench at Mumbai dated 11th January, 2012 in Income Tax Appeal No. 9001/Mum/2010. Delmas, France v. Asstt. DIT (International Taxation) [2012] 49 SOT 719/17 taxmann.com 91 (Mum.). The assessment year is 2006-07. 2. The five questions at page Nos. 3 and 4 formulated by the Revenue's Advocate are termed as substantial questions by Shri. Tejveer Singh. He submits that the Assessee in this case is incorporated and is tax resident of France. It is in the business of operation of ships in International traffic. The Assessee claims that it did not have any permanent establishment in India and therefore, its business profits cannot be taxed in India. 3. The Assessment Officer admits that there is an Indian agent of the Assessee. He was responsible for concluding contracts of the Assessee and also various other functions, such as broking, liaison and contact contracting parties for loading of cargo etc. This agent was also ma...
Yogendra Vs. Superintendent of Medical Rural Hospital Rahata and Anoth ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-15-2014
1. The petition is filed to challenge the order made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class in Regular Criminal Case No.152/2007 by which the Judicial Magistrate has decided to frame charge against the petitioner for offences punishable under sections 3 and 18 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, (for short, "the Act"). This order was challenged by filing Criminal Revision Application No.30/2013 by the petitioner and the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kopargaon has dismissed the revision. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The complaint is filed by the Appropriate Authority in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rahata. There are allegations that the present petitioner Dr. Yogendra Sachdev has registered Sonography Centre by giving his address as "Ashirwad Clinic, Loni, Taluka Rahata, District Ahmednagar". It is bearing registration No.ANR-255. Allegations are made that there was ...
Nilesh Mahendra Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-2014
P.C. 1. Rule. 2. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. By consent, heard finally forthwith. 4. The petitioner is accused No.2 in C.C. No.253/PW of 2013, pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 18th Court, Girgaon. The First Information Report was registered in respect of offences punishable under sections 406 of the IPC, 409 of the IPC and 420 of the IPC read with section 34 of the IPC against three persons, namely, Rajesh @ Bunty Gothi (accused No.4), Ankit Gothi (accused No.3), and Tejas Parikh (accused No.1). In the course of investigation, the applicant came to be arrested, and is being prosecuted along with the other accused, on the allegation that he has committed an offence punishable u/s 411 of the IPC. 5. The petitioner had made an application for discharge as contemplated under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, contending that there was no material to support the allegation against him. The learned Magistrate, by an order dated 21/12/2013, however, r...
Kantidevi Vs. Executive Engineer, M.S.E.B. Kannad and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-14-2014
Oral Judgment: (A.V. Nirgude, J.) 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner, seeking relief to direct the respondent No.2/L.I.C. of India to pay the policy amount in respect of three life insurance policies, which the deceased husband of the petitioner secured in the year 1990 i.e. few months prior to his death under the salary saving scheme, in which the authority was given to the employer i.e. respondent No.1 to deduct the premium amount and credit the same with respondent No.2. It is contention of the petitioner that though the amount was deducted from the salary of her husband and paid to respondent No.2 by respondent No.1, respondent No.1 refused to release the payment on account of said three policies. The efforts made on the part of the petitioner resulted in-vain and therefore she was constrained to file the present petition. 2. In response to the facts pleaded in the petition, respondent No.1 filed affidavit. In nutshell it is stated that the premium amount for the period of...
Commissioner of Income Tax-5 Vs. Cadbury India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-2014
1. Heard Mr. Sureshkumar appearing for the Revenue in support of this Appeal and Mr.Irani appearing for the Assessee. The order passed on 25 May 2012 in Income Tax Appeal No. 975/Mum/2005 is subject matter of this Appeal. 2. According to Mr. Sureshkumar, four questions at paras 4(a) to (d) are substantial questions of law. He submits that the amount being meager or small should not prevent this Court from considering the questions, because they are indeed the substantial questions of law. He submits that on each one of them there were reasons assigned by the Assessing Officer and by the Commissioner. The Tribunal does not refer or deal with them. It comes to the conclusion and in relation to the question at page 4, which did not either approve or modify the view of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner. It is this approach of the Tribunal, which raises the substantial questions of law. 3. For instance, our attention is invited by Mr. Sureshkumar to the claims covered by these grou...
Sunflag Iron and Steelcompany Ltd. Vs. State Information Commission
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-2014
Z.A. Haq, J. 1. Heard Ms R.P. Jog advocate holding for Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari the learned advocate for the petitioner, Shri A.B. Patil, the learned advocate for the respondent no.1, Ms Tajwar Khan, the learned A.G.P. for the respondents 2 and 3 and Shri Shamal Kadu, the learned advocate for the respondent no.4. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The petition takes exception to the order passed by the State Information Commission directing the Public Information Officer to provide the information sought by the respondent no.4 regarding Item Nos.4 and 5 stated in his application. According to the petitioner the information sought by the respondent no.4 and ordered to be provided, is concerned with the petitioner and as per the provisions of Section 19(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, (for short "Act of 2005") the Commission could not have directed the Public Information Officer to provide the information without giving notice and without granting hearing to the petitioner...
Commissioner of Income tax (Central) Vs. Chandulal Sadhuram Khemani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-2014
1. In all these Appeals of the Revenue, the following is termed as a substantial question of law: "Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in deleting the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.13,00,800/- on pro-rata basis in respect of costs of sales of land made by the assessee by invoking proviso to Section 69C of the Act; especially when ITAT had accepted the case of the A.O. that lands were purchased from unexplained sources?" 2. We would for the purpose of disposal of all these Appeals take the facts in Income Tax Appeal No.1555 of 2013. 3. This Appeal arises out of the order passed on 31 October 2012 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal `B' Bench, Pune. The Assessee is in the business of construction. His premises was searched on 9-10-2003. In the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2002-03, it was found by the Assessing Officer that the Assessee had effected sale of plots and land amounting to Rs.13,02,0...
Sanjeet Shukla and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-2014
CAV ORDER: (Chief Justice) This group of writ petitions/public interest litigations under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge two separate Ordinances promulgated by the Governor of Maharashtra on 9 July 2014 providing for reservation of seats for admissions in aided and unaided educational institutions in the State and reservation of appointments/posts in public services under the State as under:- (i) Separate 16% reservation for the Educationally and Socially Backward Category (ESBC) in which the Maratha community is included, (Maharashtra Ordinance No. XIII of 2014). (ii) Separate 5% reservation for a newly created Special Backward Category A (SBC A) consisting of 50 sub-castes amongst Muslim community specified in the Schedule to the Ordinance, other than the categories of Muslims to whom reservation has already been given under other categories of backward classes and other backward classes, (Maharashtra Ordinance No.XIV of 2014). Each Ordinance excludes the creamy...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »