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.
Vikar Ahmad Khan Gyasuddin Khan and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-18-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard Shri Nagman Ali, learned counsel for the applicants and Mrs. Jachak, learned APP for respondent No.1. Nobody appears for respondent No.2. 2. This Court has issued notice for final hearing on 30.03.2014 and restrained the respondents from taking coercive steps against the applicants until further orders. 3. Though, Respondent No.2 is served, he has chosen not to appear. On 27.06.2014, this Court gave him one more opportunity to appear and contest. Today again he is absent. 4. Shri Nagman Ali, learned counsel submits that the Change Report proceedings filed by the competent person informing the office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Yavatmal, about the change vide Change Report Enquiry No.316 of 2007 are still pending. The documents alleged to have been fabricated are presented in that matter and are being looked into by said authority. He contends that the applicants before this Court are shown as accused only with story that they ...
SBICAP Trustee Company Limited and Others Vs. United Spirits Limited a ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-18-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. F. Devitre, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1, Mr. S. Malyekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 and Mr. Vineet Naik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.3. 2. Admit. Heard forthwith. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents waive service as the notice was given for final disposal at the stage of admission. 4. The above appeal challenges an order dated 01.11.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa, whereby an application filed by the respondent no.1 for urgent interim relief came to be allowed and the reliefs as mentioned in the impugned order came to be granted. 5. Before I proceed to examine the rival contentions advanced by the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the appellants and the respondents, I will briefly record the relevant facts of the case. The respondent no.1 filed a suit inter-alia con...
Ulhas Narayan Naik Vs. State Through P.P. and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-18-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. 2. Heard rival submissions on this Criminal Writ Petition preferred purported to be under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. What is challenged is the order passed by the Sessions Court dated 9/2/2010 in Criminal Revision Application No.165/2008. Said Criminal Revision was filed by the State challenging the order passed by the J.M.F.C discharging the present petitioner on 21/8/2008 in the police case for the offence punishable under sections 406, 420 of I.P.C. The said police case was filed on the initiation of the F.I.R lodged by the original complainant. Said F.I.R was lodged on 16/9/2005 for taking action against the present petitioner for offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C. On completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed on 27/12/2007. However, the accused was discharged by the J.M.F.C vide order dated 21/8/2008. 3. Again another factual position is required to be...
Manohar N. Rajput and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2014
Oral Judgment: (S.J. Vazifdar, J.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable and heard finally. 2. The interpretation of paragraph 12 of a Government decision dated 16.08.2010 falls for consideration in this writ petition. The interpretation in turn relates to the question of the area that a person is entitled to in a scheme for redevelopment under DCR 33(7), where the user is residential-cum-non-residential. 3A. DCR 33(7) assists in the interpretation of paragraph 12 of the Government decision. DCR 33(7) was amended by a notification dated 21.05.2011. The schedule to the notification contains the sanctioned modification to DCR 33(7). Clause 2 of the sanctioned modification reads as under:- "Each occupant shall be rehabilitated and given the carpet area occupied by him for residential purpose in the old building subject to minimum fixed carpet area of 27.88 sq. mt. (300 sq. ft.) and maximum carpet area upto 70 sq.mt. (753 sq. ft.) as provided in the MHADA Act, 1976. In case of non-residential o...
Farida Abubakar Memon and Others Vs. The Collector of Stamps (Enforcem ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2014
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners question the following: (i) Order dated 26 October 2007, issued by the Collector Stamps Duty (Enforcement-II), Mumbai requiring the predecessor in title of the petitioners to pay stamp duty of Rs.5,59,500/- and fine of Rs.11,19,000/-; (ii) The judgment and order dated 31 March 2008 passed by the Additional Controller of Stamps, Mumbai, in appeal against the aforesaid order dated 26 October 2007, which requires the predecessor in title of the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.5,90,500/- which includes deficit stamp duty and penalty; 2. As noted above, the Additional Controller of Stamps, Mumbai, in appeal under section 32-B of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (said Act), has in fact set aside the order dated 26 October 2007 passed by the Collector Stamp Duty (EnforcementII), Mumbai and reduced the deficit stamp duty and penalty to Rs.5,90,500/-, after taking into consideration the stamp duty already paid...
Rita Leena D'Souza Vs. State Through CBI/ACB/GOA
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-18-2014
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/original accused no.2. Also heard learned Prosecutor for the State. 2. This criminal revision is filed by original accused no.2 challenging the order dated 12/03/2014 passed by Special Judge, CBI Court at Mapusa in Special Case No.2/13/D. The said impugned order was passed by the Special Judge, CBI Court on the arguments advanced on behalf of present petitioner/accused no.2. The said arguments were advanced before framing of charge. Certain factual position leading to the filing of the present criminal revision is narrated as under: Present petitioner/accused no.2 along with her husband accused no.1 were charge sheeted before the Special Court under Prevention of Corruption Act for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 109 of Indian Penal Code. So far as p...
Vatsala and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-18-2014
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. The appellants/original accused were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No.88/1998 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur. By a judgment and order dated 1.2.1999, the appellants came to be convicted for the offences as charged. For the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, they have been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in-default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. For the offence punishable under Section 304-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, they have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-in-default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months and lastly for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, they have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and t...
Ram and Another Vs. Municipal Council, Ramtek, District Nagpur, throug ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-17-2014
Common Judgment: 1. The petitioners have questioned their termination order dated 31st March, 1995 served on them on 3.4.1995 by the respondent/Municipal Council, Ramtek. According to the petitioners it was in breach of the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946. 2. Three complaints bearing Complaints (ULPA) Nos. 431 of 1995, 432 of 1995 and 433 of 1995 were lodged under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of the Trade unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as MRTU and PULP Act) before the Industrial Court, Nagpur Bench which were disposed of by common order dated 29th June, 2004. It was alleged that the respondent/employer were engaged in unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item Nos. 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act and complainants prayed for setting aside their termination of service and reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. 3. The facts...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Fatambi Noor Mohammed Pathan and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2014
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. The appellant-State of Maharashtra has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 8.4.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, Nashik in Sessions Case No.57 of 1991. By the said judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents-accused of the offence under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "N.D.P.S. Act") and under Section 37(1) of the Bombay Police Act. 2. Prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under: PW-2 PSI Pathan was attached to Malegaon City Police Station. At the relevant time, he was working as Reader in the office of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Malegaon (SDPO). On 8.4.1991 he was in the office of the SDPO Shri. Sahay. At that time, PW-8 Police Inspector Rathod of Malegaon City Police Station was also present there. At that time, secret information was received that respondent no.1 residing in Room...
The Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1 Vs. M/s Safmarin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2014
B.P. Colabawalla J. 1. This Appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 has been filed by the Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) I challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ITAT) dated 5th August 2011. The A. Y. in question is 2006-2007. The ITAT dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Revenue challenging the order of the CIT(Appeals) dated 29th October 2009 under which the CIT(Appeals) held that Inland Haulage Charges earned by the Assessee were only a part of the income derived from the operation of ships, and therefore, were covered under Article 8 of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) entered into between India and Belgium and consequently not taxable as business profits in India. 2. Mr Tejveer Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submitted that the dispute in the present Appeal is in relation to collection of Inland Haulage Charges by the Assessee from its customers in resp...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »