Mumbai Court July 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 -2 Vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2014
1. When these matters were called out, one of us (Justice B. P. Colabawalla), indicated to both the Assessee and Revenue that he holds shares of Assessee M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd, but both the sides fairly stated that the matter may not be removed from our Board. There is no need for Justice B. P. Colabawalla to recuse himself from this matter. It is on that agreed understanding and basis that we have heard both sides. 2. Having heard Mr. Suresh Kumar at some length and perusing with his assistance the orders passed in these Appeals by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the Revenue appeal is liable to be dismissed. 3. Imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act has been set aside by the Tribunal in all these matters on the findings of fact that merely because the Assessee raised a claim which was eventually disallowed, does not mean that ingredients of clause(c) are satisfied or fulfilled so as to justify imposition of penalty. 4. In doing so, the Tribunal me...
Sikandar Hussen Pathan Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-10-2014
1. The Appellant (hereinafter referred as accused) has been convicted by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No.8 of 2000, for offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.) and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. In default, he has to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, this Appeal has been filed. 2. The complainant Khalil Dilawarkhan Pathan filed the complaint registered at Crime No.215 of 1998 with Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar. It related to assault by the Appellant-accused. The Appellant-accused also filed a counter case against the complainant Khalil and his sister Naushadbee regarding assault by knife, leading to filing of Sessions Case No.182 of 1998 under Section 307 of I.P.C. Consequently, both the cases were tried by the Court of Sessions and in both the matters the Sessions Court convicted resp...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Babasaheb Maruti Kamble
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2014
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. The Confirmation Case No.8 of 2013 arises out of the Reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dindoshi in Sessions Case No.87 of 2012 for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the accused Babsaheb Maruti Kamble. By judgment and order dated 27.9.2013 in Sessions Case No.87 of 2012, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to capital punishment of death. By the very same judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge also convicted the accused under Sections 376(2)(f) and 342 of IPC. For the offence under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC, the accused was sentenced to life imprisonment and for the offence under Section 342 of IPC, the accused was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. As the sentence of death was imposed on the accused, the learned Sessions Judge made a reference to this Court for confirmation of death sentence. The a...
Abdul Rehman Sheikh Hussein Vs. Ravindra Vassant Quencro and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2014
1. Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1. 2. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 02/08/2007 passed by the learned District Judge-I, North Goa Panaji (First Appellate Court, for short) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2006, thereby confirming the Judgment and decree dated 31/12/2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ponda, Goa (Trial Court, for short) in Regular Civil Suit No. 43/2004/D. 3. Respondent no.1 was the plaintiff whereas the appellants and the respondents no. 2 and 3 were the defendants. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said suit. 4. The plaintiff had filed the said suit for permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and demolition of the illegal construction. Originally, the suit was filed only against one Sheikh Lukruddin Sheikh Mohammed as sole defendant to restrain h...
Dr. Kavita Pravin Tilwani Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2014
P.C. 1. Heard the petitioner appearing in person and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3, as also the learned APP for the State. 2. By this petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ, order and direction declaring that the Maharashtra Act No.64 of 1977, insofar as it includes medical practitioner within the definition of the expression "commercial establishment" under Section 2(4) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 is unconstitutional. By the said amendment, a medical practitioner who is duly registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Medical Council has been included in the definition of the said expression. It is submitted by the petitioner that prior to the amendment, medical practitioners were not included in the definition of the said expression. However, subsequently by the said amendment, all professionals have been included in the definition of the said...
Urmila Chandrakant Gaikwad Vs. Chairman and Managing Director and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2014
Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. 1. Heard the learned advocates for the respective sides at length. 2. Rule. 3. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 4. The petitioner is the widow of the deceased Chandrakant Gaikwad (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), who was an employee of the Respondent Bank namely bank of Baroda. He was appointed in the service of the Respondent Bank on 7 October 1970. It is undisputed that he was a permanent employee of the bank. His last posting was as MMII Manager in the Sadashiv Peth Branch at Pune. His last drawn gross salary was Rs. 21,240 per month. 5. The Respondent Bank vide circular dated 14th of December 2000, declared a voluntary retirement scheme which was termed as the Bank of Baroda Employees (Voluntary Retirement) Scheme- 2001, (hereinafter referred to as the scheme). As per the eligibility criteria of the said scheme, the deceased was eligible to apply for seeking benefits flowing therefrom. The respondents do ...
Hiralal Karbhari Sable Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. It is necessary to mention that the Single Judge of this Court by its order dated 26th April, 2012 has expedited the appeal. The appeal is pending on the file since 2002 and the incident has taken place in 10th February, 1992. On 28th April, 2014 the appellant was present in the Court when the matter appeared on the board of final hearing and he informed the Court that he is unrepresented by any advocate. Therefore, Advocate Swapnil Wagh was appointed as amicus curiae and the matter was fixed for final hearing on 13th June, 2014. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 20th June, 2014. Advocate Swapnil Wagh was directed to remain present on 27th June, 2014. On 27th June, 2014, leave was granted to the counsel for the appellant to produce compilation of documents. Thereafter the matter is fixed on 10th July, 2014 i.e. today. The appellant is not present today. 2. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7th May, 2002 passed by the Additional Sessions...
Shaikh Asif Ismail Vs. The State of Maharashtra, (Notice to be served ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-10-2014
1. This appeal is by original accused (hereinafter referred to as accused), who has been convicted by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, on 19.5.2000 in Sessions Case No.80/1999, for offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. The case of prosecution in brief is that:- (a) A.S.I. Laxman Kusalkar (P.W.7) of Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar, on 22.1.1995, received phone call from Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar that one Shabana Hamji Shaikh (hereinafter referred to as victim) with burns was admitted to the hospital. This A.S.I. went to the hospital and after completing formalities, recorded the statement of Shabana, which was recorded as her dying declaration (Exhibit 32). On the same day, yet another dying declaration of Shabana was recorded by Special Executive Magistrate (P.W.2) Ruth w/o ...
Sd. Musa Sd. Amir Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-10-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 376 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana by his order dated 29th August, 1998 in Sessions Case No.45 of 1998. 2. The appellant, along with accused Nos.2 and 3, were chargesheeted by Bramhapuri Police after investigation of F.I.R. No.0/97 of Buldana. The appellant was chargesheeted for the above stated offences and other accused were chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 323 r/w 34, 504 r/w 34, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was also chargesheeted for these offences in addition to three charges mentioned above against his name. The appellant and accused Nos.2, and 3 were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 504 r/w 34, 323 r/w 34 and 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The appellant has preferred this appeal on the ground that he has been falsely implicated by husband of the deceased by manu...
Kirti V. Ambani Vs. Union of India, (Through CBI, SCB) and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2014
1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. By this application, the applicant has impugned the order dated 30th April, 2014 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Greater Mumbai below Misc. Application-Exhibit 245. The said Application being Exhibit 245 was preferred by the respondent No.2 under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (`Cr. P.C') praying therein, for recording of his evidence as he was a material witness in the case and as the same was essential for the just decision of the case. 3. A few facts as are necessary to decide the present application are as under: On 31st July, 1989 on the basis of source information, an FIR came to be registered by the DCB, CID, Mumbai. The said information was to the effect that there was a conspiracy to kill the respondent No.2. Pursuant to the said information, C.R. No.210/1989 came to be registered with the DCB CID, Mumbai as against the applicant and others, alleging offences punishable under Section 120-B r/w 302 of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »