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.
Laxman Jangu Madavi Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-23-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellant is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1)(1-B)(a) read with Section 3 of the Arms Act and Section 5(a) of the Explosive Substance Act, 1984. He has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2-1/2 years for the former offence and rigorous imprisonment for 5 years for the later offence. He was arrested on 9th December, 2008, and since then he is in custody. As such, in fact, he has already undergone the sentence imposed on him, as both the sentences were to run concurrently. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and he wants to contest the appeal to clear himself of the stigma of conviction. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the panch witnesses who were present at the time of alleged seizure had not supported the prosecution. It is further submitted that the evidence of other witnesses is not believable. The learned counsel Mr. Lingayat has sub...
Salgaocar Mining Industries Ltd. Vs. Roguvir Rajaram Paigankar and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant is the original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 8/1991/A. The said suit was filed seeking following reliefs: (A) (i) That this Court be pleased to declare that the purported termination of the agreement dated 6th June, 1977 as modified by the Consent Decree dated 26th November, 1984 is invalid and bad in law and that the said Agreement as modified by the said Consent Decree is valid and subsisting and that it presently stands renewed for three years from 6th June, 1990. (ii) Consequent upon the declaration that the Agreement dated 6th June 1977 as modified by the Consent Decree dated 26th Nov. 1984 is valid and subsisting, the Court be pleased to declare that the said Agreement as modified by the said Consent Decree stands renewed further for period of every three year from 6th June 1990 till end of such period of three years during which the Court passes its judgment and order or till any such period the...
Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-2014
B.P. Colabawalla J. 1. This Appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961, has been filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-2 challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ITAT) dated 29th June 2011. By the impugned order, the ITAT dismissed the Appeal filed by the Revenue in relation to Assessment Years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. 2. Mr Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, submitted that the impugned order passed by the ITAT requires interference and gives rise to substantial questions of law that need to be answered by this Court and read as under:- (A) Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in holding that the investment in tax free securities/investments are represented by assessee's own funds in the shape of share capital and reserves, ignoring the fact that the assessee is a bank involved in transactions of money in various forms and treasur...
Manish Manohar Bang and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-23-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. 2. Petitioners claim that they are purchasers of suit property survey number 20, area 6.41 HR situated at mouza Pipla under registered sale deed dated 31.10.2005. Land was sold out by respondent No.14 Public Trust after obtaining due permission from the Joint Charity Commissioner under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 to respondents No.7 to 13. Petitioners, in turn, purchased the suit land from respondents No.7 to 13. It is alleged that one Rodba Ramchandra Mali, owner of adjacent land, manipulated revenue record and claimed to be tenant over the suit field. There were proceedings before the Revenue Authorities and outcome thereof was that, name of Rodba Ramchandra Mali as a tenant came to be deleted. After deletion of his name, Trustees of respondent No.14 entered into two agreements for sale with Rodba. However, before execution of sale deed, Rodba Mali died and his legal heirs also did not obtain sale deed. Moreover, t...
Rajaram Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied by the Judgment and order passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar dated 3rd February, 1999 in Cri. Revn. Appln.No. 415/1994, the petitioner has filed present Writ Petition. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge was pleased to partly allowed the Cri.Application and awarded monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.150/- to Respondent No.2, from the date of the Application. 2. This matter is pending for its final disposal since the year 2001. I have heard Mr. S.L. Bhapkar,learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.S. Shinde, learned A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra. Though Respondent No.2 was served long back, his counsel chose not to remain present in the court, when the matter was taken up for its final hearing today. 3. On 29th August, 1992 Ahilyabai filed an application U/Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Ahmednagar. Said application was registered as Cri.M.A.No....
Yasir Sayyed Anis Sayyed @ Hujefa Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-2014
Oral Order: 1. Heard Mr.Mubin Solkar, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard Mrs.V.S.Mhaispurkar, learned APP for the State. I have carefully gone through the application, and the annexures thereto. 2. The applicant is the Accused no.13 in MCOC Special Case No.4 of 2009, pending before the Special Court under the MCOC Act, at Mumbai. There are totally 23 accused in the said case. 3. The applicant is in custody since 4 th October 2008. Though charge has been framed on 10th December, 2013, the recording of evidence has not yet commenced. Admittedly, the trial has not commenced. Even the charge has not yet been framed. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the case of the present applicant is on par with that of Accused no.9 Mohd Atik Mohd.Iqbal and Accused no.19 Afroze Firoz Mujawar @ Dastagir who were released on bail by this Court (Criminal Bail Application No.1047/11 decided on 24th September 2012 and Criminal Bail Application No.1608/12 decided on 4th December 2012,...
Ramesh Babulal Shah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-2014
1. This Reference has been made by the Tribunal to this Court seeking an answer or opinion on the following question: "Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that receipt of Rs.35 lakhs by the assessee in pursuance of the Consent Decree of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court was liable to tax as business income in view of the finding of the Tribunal that the transaction of purchase of land was in the nature of an adventure in trade and not as income in the nature of capital gains?" 2. It is apparent from the order of reference that the Tribunal was approached requesting that six questions stated to be of law require opinion of this Court. The Tribunal, further confined the reference to only one question which we have reproduced above. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the Assessee, at whose instance, the question has been referred for opinion of this Court. The learned counsel submits that the Tribunal was justified in making a reference to this Court as a question of law squarely ...
Rajaram Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-23-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied by the Judgment and order passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar dated 3rd February, 1999 in Cri. Revn. Appln.No. 415/1994, the petitioner has filed present Writ Petition. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge was pleased to partly allowed the Cri.Application and awarded monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.150/- to Respondent No.2, from the date of the Application. 2. This matter is pending for its final disposal since the year 2001. I have heard Mr. S.L. Bhapkar,learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.S. Shinde, learned A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra. Though Respondent No.2 was served long back, his counsel chose not to remain present in the court, when the matter was taken up for its final hearing today. 3. On 29th August, 1992 Ahilyabai filed an application U/Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Ahmednagar. Said application was registered as Cri.M.A.No....
Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Vs. Net 4 India Limited and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-2014
1. By this petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the petitioner seeks appointment of court receiver or some other fit and proper person as receiver of the equipments described in the schedule at Ex.W with all powers under Order 40 Rule 1 including power to take forcible physical possession and to sell the same and for various other reliefs. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. On 29th February, 2012, the respondent no.1 entered into a Master Rental Agreement with Connect Residuary Private Limited, formerly known as Connect Financial Services India Private Limited for the purpose of renting equipments on the terms and conditions recorded therein. On 28th March, 2012 the respondent no.1 executed the Rental Schedule No. Nil01 detailing the equipments to be rented out to the respondent no.1 by the said M/s.Connect Residuary Private Limited and undertook to pay the applicable rental and other amounts in...
Vinod Vithal Ruke Vs. Vithal Bhaguram Ruke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-2014
P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this Appeal from Order appellant original defendant challenges the order dated 05.08.2013 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Goregaon(E), Mumbai in Notice of Motion No.1391 of 2011 in S.C. Suit No.1180 of 2011 directing appellant, his wife and children to remove themselves from the suit premises i.e. Room No.401, Kushinara Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Chuim Village, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Khar (West) Mumbai 400 052, admeasuring area of 225 sq. ft (carpet area). 3. This is an unfortunate case, where the respondent original plaintiff-father wants that the appellant original defendant-son should be removed from the family house as he has become nuisance to him. 4. For the sake of convenience hereinafter the appellant referred as defendant and respondent as plaintiff as per their nomenclature appears in the suit before the trial court. 5. A few facts of the matter are as under : i) The plaintiff has been allotted room premises b...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »