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.
Indrasan Co-operative Housing Society Limited, having its office Vs. T ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2014
Oral Judgment: 1) Rule, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. Shri. Ramanathan C. Sadashivan waives notice on behalf of the Respondent No. 4 and Shri. S. K. Shinde, the Government Pleader waives notice on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2) The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 15th July, 2013 passed by the State Government i.e. the Hon'ble Minister for Cooperation, by which order, the Revision Application filed by the Respondent No. 4 herein, came to be allowed and resultantly the order dated 11th March, 2013, passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, came to be set aside and the order dated 9th June, 2010 passed by the Deputy Registrar came to be confirmed. 3) It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary facts, considering the challenge raised in the above Petition. Suffice it to state that on the representation o...
State of Goa and Another Vs. Sawaivir Sadassiva Rajendra Bassavalinga ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-04-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Dhargalkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30/10/2000 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Panaji (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No.135/1997. 3. The deceased respondent No.1 and respondents No.2(i) to 2(vi) were the applicants and appellants were the respondents in the said L.A.C. No.135/1997. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status before the Reference Court. 4. The facts of the case are as follows : Vide notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act, for short), published in the Official Gazette dated 24/11/89, the Government had acquired land for construction of a Bye-pass road to Ponda Town between Kms. 121/950 to 126/200. This included land situated at Curti of Ponda Taluka ...
Pravin Navnath Mutke Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2014
1] The present Revision is filed against the judgment and order of conviction, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamkhed, dated 13.5.1998 in R.T.C. No. 36 of 1996, by which the learned Magistrate was pleased to convict the present applicant for the offence punishable under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code and he was directed to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one year. The learned Magistrate also convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code and on that count also he was directed to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/, and in default he was directed to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. The learned Magistrate directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. Being aggrieved, the applicant challenged the afore said judgment and order of conviction by filing Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1998 before the appellate court. The learned Joint District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-2014
1. In these Appeals, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in favour of the Assessee is challenged by the Revenue. 2. Insofar as the Income Tax Appeal No.128/2012 is concerned both sides agree that if we note the facts therefrom, then, they are common to the questions that have been formulated by the Revenue and termed as substantial questions of law. Therefore, the facts in every Appeal need not be adverted to. 3. Mr. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of this Appeal submits that the Assessee/ M/s Reliance Industries Limited had filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2002-2003 in this case on 31.10.2002 declaring taxable income of Rs.NIL under normal provisions and Rs.24,29,04,33,473/- under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment was completed on 28.03.2005 wherein the Assessing Officer did not allow the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while computing the income under Section 115JB. There was, according to t...
M/s Shreenath Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-V, Mumba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-2014
Oral Judgment: [B.P. Colabawalla J.] 1. These two Appeals under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are filed by the Appellant-Assessee against a common order dated 18th November, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (Mumbai I Bench), (hereinafter referred to as the ITAT) in relation to Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07. Since the common questions of facts and law arise in both the Appeals, the same have been heard together and are being disposed off by this composite order and judgment. 2. Mr Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant-Assessee, submitted that in the facts of the present case, a substantial question of law arises in both the appeals and reads as under:- (A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law the Tribunal has erred in holding that the expenditure on remuneration and training of working Director is not allowable under section 37 of...
Punjabrao and Others Vs. Himmatrao and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-03-2014
1. This Second appeal is filed by the appellant (Original Defendant) against the Judgment and Order, dated 7.4.2007 passed by the Principal District Judge, Buldana in Regular Civil Appeal No.35 of 2005, which was dismissed. The said appeal arose from the Judgment and Order, dated 23.2.2005 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Mehkar, District Buldana (the trial Court) in Regular Civil Suit No.224 of 1996. The suit was decreed restraining the defendants from obstructing possession. 2. Brief facts are :- The suit was instituted on 30.12.1996 in respect of the suit land Gat No.38, admeasuring 9 H. 99 R. situated at village Pen Takli, Taluka Mehkar, District Buldana. Written Statement was filed on 8.8.2003 at Exh.30. Regular Civil Suit No.224 of 1996 was instituted by the respondentsplaintiffs on 30.12.1996 for permanent injunction against the appellants-defendants seeking to restrain them from obstructing possession in respect of the suit land Gat No.38, admeasuring 9 H, 99 R situated at vill...
Bashir Janubhai Pathan Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-03-2014
Oral Judgment: [1] Present is the Cri.Revn.Appln. filed on behalf of the applicant since he is aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of conviction dated 23rd December, 1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar in S.T.C.No.279 Of 1995, by which the learned Magistrate was pleased to convict the applicant for the offences punishable U/Section 304(A) and 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [In short, the I.P.Code] and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- [Rs.Five Hundred only] on both counts and in default of payment of fine, it was directed that the accused shall suffer further simple imprisonment for one month; together with the Judgment and Order dated 30th August, 2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Criminal Appeal No.83 Of 1997 by which the learned lower appellate court was pleased the dismiss the Criminal Appeal and confirmed the order of conviction passed by the le...
Pralhad and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-03-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No.76/1995. The appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 and Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The deceased was wife of appellant No.1. She was married to appellant No.1 on 19-5-1995 and died within three months of her marriage. The allegations against the appellants before the trial Court were that the appellants had been demanding Rs.50,000/- from the deceased and her parents to secure a job for appellant No.1. The parents of deceased could not pay the amount and therefore, the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. First Information Report was registered on the basis of complaint lodged by father of the deceased. Dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The Medical Officer reported that the deceased had died due to chemical poisoning. S...
M/s. Shree Balaji Enterprises Vs. M/s. Bhagyashri Enterprises
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-2014
Oral Order: 1. The petitioner has challenged the Arbitral award of the Hindustan Chambers of Commerce dated 9th November, 2012. 2. The arbitration was under the initial contract between the parties under 13 invoices of the respondent herein under which Rs.14.51 lakhs were payable for the goods supplied to the petitioner herein. Interest @ 24% p.a was payable on the invoice value. The petitioner issued certain cheques. The cheques were dishonoured. The demand notice was sent on 15th August, 2010 and replied on 24th August, 2010. The parties entered into an Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) on 9th September, 2010 under which the petitioner herein admitted the entire liability of Rs.14.51 lakhs and agreed to pay the same with interest @ 24% p.a thereon. That payment was not made. The arbitration was invoked under the arbitration clause in the invoices of the respondent herein. 3. The petitioner herein, which is a partnership firm of 4 partners, was represented through one of the partners,...
Pravina Vikrant Ghotge Vs. Vinayak Ramchandra Dindorikar and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-2014
1. By the order dated 28th August, 2012 notice of the petition was issued to the respondents with a specific note that the petition would be heard and disposed off finally at the stage of admission. Accordingly, notices have been served upon the respondents. Respondent no.1 is absent despite service. The name of respondent no.2 has been deleted from the proceedings on account of his death. Respondent no.3 had appeared before the Court to contest the petition. 2. The question that arises for consideration of the Court, in this petition is whether a third party who is not a beneficiary under a Will, can be impleaded as a party respondent to a probate petition. 3. The set of facts within which the question arises is as follows :- Shri. Narayanrao Ramrao Bhave was the ruler of Ramdurg Sansthan. He died intestate on 10th April, 1996 leaving behind his daughter, the petitioner herein and his wife, Ushadevi (since deceased). Ushadevi expired on 10th April, 2000. In view of death of her parent...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »