Mumbai Court December 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-18 Vs. Sambhaji Nagar Co-op. Hsg. Society L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2014
1. This Income Tax Appeal challenges the order passed on 30th March, 2012 in Income Tax Appeal No. 431/Mum/2012. The Assessment year is 2007-08. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was dealing with the Appeal of the Respondent Assessee. That Appeal was directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 30th November, 2011, where-under, he upheld the validity of the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act. He confirmed the addition of Rs.2,23,25,157/- made by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the Assessee under the head "long term capital gains". 2. Mr. Malhotra appearing on behalf of the Revenue, in support of this Appeal, submits that this Appeal raises substantial question of law. That is formulated at page 7 of the Appeal paper book. Mr. Malhotra would submit that the gains are derived from the sale of Transferable Development Right (TDR) of the Co-operative Housing Society wh...
Vilas Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-11-2014
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Both these petitions challenge the rejection of offers submitted by respective petitioners to the respondents / Oil Company, in pursuance of the public invitation in various newspapers in September 2013. This advertisement was published in 'Daily Lokmat' on 29th September 2013, and last date for submitting the application was 29-10-2013. As the petitioners have found not eligible and the grounds are common, we have heard both the matters together, by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith with consent of parties. 2. The learned Senior Adv. Mr. R.N. Dhorde with Adv. Mr. P.S. Dighe argued the matter for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.9467 of 2014, while Adv. Mr. A.V. Patil Indrale advanced the arguments on behalf of other petitioner. Adv. Smt. Anjali Dube (Vajpayee) appeared for the concerned Oil Company in both the matters. The learned ASGI Mr. S.B. Deshpande has filed appearance for respondent no.1 - Union of India, in Writ Petition No.9511 of 201...
Milind Kashinath Mahadik Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2014
Oral Order: 1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. By consent, heard finally forthwith. 3. The petitioner had filed a complaint against the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 herein, alleging commission of various offences, including the offences punishable under section 406 IPC, 409 IPC, 420 IPC, 448 IPC, 504 IPC read with section 34 of the IPC, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Pune. The learned Magistrate after examining the petitioner on oath, postponed the issue of process, and ordered investigation into the matter by the police, as contemplated under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'). After receipt of the report of investigation, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that there were not sufficient grounds for proceeding, and therefore, by an order dated 3rd October 2011, dismissed the complaint, as contemplated under section 203 of the Code. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal of the complaint by fil...
Dr. Avinash Ramkrishna Kashiwar and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Dec-10-2014
B.R. Gavai, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The present public interest litigation has been filed by the residents of Sadak-Arjuni, praying for quashing and setting the Notification dated 26.07.2013 issued by respondent no.1 in respect of location of Sub Division at Morgaon-Arjuni. 3. The petitioners are the residents of Sadak-Arjuni in Gondia district. In the year 2000, Gondia district was carved out from the erstwhile Bhandara district, After carving out Gondia district from Bhandara, it has 8 talukas. It had only two Sub-Divisions viz. Gondia and Deori. Gondia Sub-Division was consisting of four Talukas i.e. Tiroda, Morgaon-Arjuni, Goregaon and Gondia, whereas Deori Sub Division was consisting of Deori, Sadak-Arjuni, Amgaon and Sakekasa talukas. There was demand from various quarters for having more Sub-Divisions. In response to the said demand, the State Government published a Notification on 26/28th ...
Commissioner of Income-tax-13 Vs. Shyam R. Pawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2014
1. We have heard Mr.Sureshkumar appearing on behalf o the Revenue in all these Appeals. Mr.Sureshkumar submits that the Tribunal's order and impugned in these Appeals dated 4 May 2012 for the Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2006-07 raises the following substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is correct in deleting the addition confirmed by the CIT (A) under section 68 of the IT Act 1961? (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the finding recorded by the Tribunal contrary to the record and thus perverse? Additional question in Income Tax Appeal No.1568 of 2012 (3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal is correct in law in deleting the disallowance of claim of loss of Rs.5,95,720/- incurred on the sale of share capital market Ltd.?" 2. Mr.Sureshkumar would submit that the Tribunal seriously erred and in law in reversing the finding of fact by the Commissi...
Venkatesh Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-10-2014
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant, aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad on 27th January, 2012, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer further S.I. for one month. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: (i) On 01.02.2011 P.W. 2 Hanumant Ramrao Kolangade Police Head Constable was on duty in Police Chowki located in Civil Hospital, Osmanabad. P.W. 1 Dr. Sushilkumar Shivajirao Sarade was a duty Medical Officer present in the hospital on 01.02.2011. At about 12.20 p.m. Radha Venkatesh Kaulge was admitted in Civil Hospital, Osmanabad in burn condition. P.W.1 Dr. Sarda after examining her, informed the duty Police constable P.W.2 Hanumant Kolangade. P.W.2 Hanumant Kolangade came to the hospital for recording the statement of Radha. P.W. 1 Dr. Sarade ...
Om Drishian International Ltd. Vs. Dir. of Revenue Intelligence
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2014
1. The petitioner has approached this Court impugning a notice to show cause dated 23 June, 2014. The Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before us that the show cause notice has been issued to about 35 persons. The same refers to several acts of omission and commission at different places namely within the Commissionerate of Nhava Sheva Port, Mumbai, at Kandla Port in the State of Gujarat, at Tuglakabad, New Delhi and at Kolkata. He submits that the show cause notice which ropes in about 35 entities and whose business connection or commercial dealings or nexus have not been stated to be linked nor a business link established. Issuance of this show cause notice and to 35 persons together would itself vitiate it and on several grounds. Further, a chart or tabulation at page 110 of the Paper Book would show that the notice though styled as notice to show cause is not as such. It refers to a determination already made. Thus, the issues in the show cause notice are already adjud...
Shankar Masu Dokare Vs. Shobha Subhash Dokare and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The writ jurisdiction of this court is invoked against the order dated 23/4/2013 passed by the learned Ad hoc District Judge2 Solapur by which order the Application (Exhibit 15) for amendment of the Appeal being Civil Appeal No.325 of 2012 came to be allowed and resultantly, the Respondents herein were held entitled to amend the Appeal in terms of the amendment sought vide the said Application (Exhibit 15). 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, a few facts can be stated thus: The Petitioner herein is the original Plaintiff who had filed the suit in question being Special Civil Suit No.110 of 2005 for a declaration that the Petitioner is the owner of the entire suit property, and for cancellation of the sale deed executed by the Defendant No.2 i.e. the Respondent No.1 herein who is his daughter in favour of the Defendant No.4. i.e. the Respondent No.2 herein. In the said su...
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Shivaji B ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Dec-10-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. Rule. 3. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent. 4. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides and having gone through the petition paper book, the answer to the controversy raised in both these petitions lies in the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Maharashtra State Roadways Transport Corporation, Beed Vs. Syed Saheblal 2014 (4) Mah.L.J. 687). 5. In both the cases before me, though the domestic enquiry was questioned on the grounds of non-adherence to the principles of natural justice and the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Industrial Court was expected to frame two preliminary issues and which are required to be decided peremptorily in the light of the crystallized position in law. No such issue was framed. 6. While deciding the complaints by the impugned judgments dated 22.12.2011, the Industrial Court has arrived at it's conclusion in paragraph Nos.16 a...
Sanjay Kumar K. Shinde Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2014
1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. By consent, heard finally forthwith. 3. The petitioner is one of the accused Accused no.3 in Sessions Case No.47 of 2012, pending before the Court of Sessions at Nashik. There are totally five accused in the said case, including the applicant. The allegation against the applicant, and the other accused is that they have committed an offence punishable under section 306 of the IPC read with section 34 of the IPC. The petitioner and the other accused had applied for discharge, as contemplated under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), but the discharge application was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge before whom the trial of the case is pending. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking its constitutional jurisdiction and inherent powers. According to the petitioner, there is no case at all for proceeding against him, and that the proceedings against him,...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »