Mumbai Court August 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.
M/s Lithoferro, a partnership firm, Goa represented herein by its Part ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-13-2014
Ranjit More, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The above writ petitions pertain to renewal of mining leases. Initially, the petitioners sought directions to the State Government to decide their applications for renewal of the mining leases filed in the year 2007. Some petitions, thereafter, came to be amended, thereby seeking directions to the State Government to execute the second renewal lease deeds. Since the issues raised in these writ petitions are common, and the writ petitions have been analogously heard, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. BRIEF BACKGROUND AND FACTS OF THE CASE 2-A. On 19th December, 1961, Goa was liberated and became a part of Indian Union. On 1st October, 1963, the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter, referred to as the MMDR Act") was made applicable to the Union Territory of Goa. Prior to liberation of Goa, the Portuguese who were ruling Goa had granted mining concessions i...
Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2014
A.S. Chandurkar, J. 1. The question that arises for determination in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether the exclusion of a married daughter from the expression family for being entitled to be considered for grant of retail kerosene license under Government Resolution dated 20th February, 2004 can be said to be legal and valid. 2. The factual background which gives rise to the aforesaid question is that one Godavaribai Jairam Jadhav was holding a retail kerosene license issued to her under provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities Retail Dealers' Licensing Order, 1979 (for short, the Licensing Order of 1979). She expired on 9th April, 2003 and was survived by her son respondent No.4 and daughter the petitioner. The petitioner had initiated proceedings for inclusion of her name as legal representative and had sought issuance of license in her name. In the aforesaid proceedings, the Hon'ble Minister, Food and Civil Supplies on 26...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Central-III Vs. M/s Valiant Glass Works ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2014
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, Central-III, Mumbai challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ITAT) dated 29th July 2011. The Assessment Year in question is 2003-04. The ITAT, by the impugned order inter alia held that the amount of deemed credit of Rs.89,34,887/- under the CENVAT incentive scheme was part of the business profits of the Assessee, eligible for deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. The ITAT therefore allowed the Appeal filed by the Assessee and reversed the order of the CIT (Appeals) on this issue. 2. Mr Ahuja, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, submitted that the ITAT had gravely misdirected itself in construing the provisions of section 80HHC of the Act and correspondingly allowing the deemed credit of Rs.89,34,887/- under the CENVAT Incentive Scheme as part of business profits of the Asses...
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka (Central) Vs. V.M. Salgaonka ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-13-2014
Oral Judgment: (Ranjit More, J.) 1. The substantial questions of law as raised by the Revenue are: (1) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that unabsorbed investment allowances cannot be deducted while computing the profits of business or profession, particularly in view of special benefits claimed by the Assessee under Chapter VI-A? and (2) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Revenue is entitled to set off of unabsorbed investment allowances from the profits of the business for the purpose of computing benefits under Section 80HHC claimed by the Assessee, particularly in view of the mechanism set up in explanation (bba) to Section 80HHC for computing profits of the business? 2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of the present appeal are as follows: The respondent is engaged in the business of export of processed iron ore and, therefore, its profits derived from such activities are eligible for deduction...
Kalim @ Kallu Shakil Ansari Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The appellants herein have challenged the judgment dated 31.07.2012 in Sessions Case No.416 of 2011. By the impugned judgment the learned trial judge has held the aforesaid appellants who were the accused nos.1 and 2 before the trial court, guilty of offence under Section 379 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 9.6.2011 at about 5.30 p.m. while P.W.1 Radhabai Sharma was proceeding towards her room at Sonal House, Bhivandi, she saw a motorcycle parked in a lane of Ajanta Compound near Prem Hotel. One person was standing by the side of the said motorcycle, while the other was sitting on the said stationary motorcycle. When she reached near the motorcycle, the person who was standing near the motorcycle snatched her gold chain and sat on the motorcycle as a pillion rider and both of them fled away from the spot of the incident. 3. PW1 Radhabai lodged the re...
Ratneshwar and Others Vs. Manmathappa and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-13-2014
1. The appeal is filed to challenge the judgment and order of Misc. Civil Application No. 26/2011 which was pending in the Court of District Judge-2, Latur. The proceeding filed under section 72 of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (in short 'the Act' ) to challenge the decision of Joint Charity Commissioner (in short 'Jt.C.C.') and Assistant Charity Commissioner (in short 'A.C.C.') given in Inquiry No. 238/2004 was challenged before the District Judge. On the basis of change report given under section 22 of the Act, inquiry was made by A.C.C. and the report was rejected. This decision is set aside by the District Judge and the report is accepted. The report was given by the President and Secretary (Shri. Mallikarjunappa Bidve and Shri. Karale) in respect of the amendment to the Constitution of Shri. Mahatma Basveshwar Education Society, Latur to enable the institution to make more members. The decision of the District Judge is challenged by founder member, member of Governing Council (for...
Rhone-Poulenc (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2014
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. By this Income Tax Reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has referred the following question of law for the opinion and determination of this Court: "(A) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in approving the depreciation granted on Rs.93,14,942/- when the profits of the Indian undertaking of non-resident parent company were computed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10 of the Income Tax Rules ?" 2. The Assessment Years in question are 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79. The question to be decided in this Reference is whether the Applicant - Assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on the fixed assets taken over by it under a Scheme of Amalgamation with its Parent Company (May and Baker Ltd.), on the basis of the original cost of the said fixed assets, or on the basis of the written down value thereof, which had been arrived at by the authorities be...
Chandansingh Vs. Kokila and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-13-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Upon hearing learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner questions order passed by learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Chandrapur, in Regular Civil Suit No.46 of 2006, whereby it appears that application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure at Exh.26 was filed with a prayer for rejection of the plaint. According to defendant No.1 who filed the application for rejection of the plaint, the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Thus, in stead of rejecting the plaint, the trial Court by passing order on 23.4.2014, below Exh.1, dealt with a preliminary issue as to jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though the trial Court framed a preliminary issue as to whether it has jurisdiction to try the suit, no opportunity of hearing was granted and no evide...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Zumbar Shrirang Kedari and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-13-2014
1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and award of Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar. The Insurance Company has challenged the decision as it is made liable to pay compensation and indemnify the owner though the defence of breach of conditions of policy was taken by the Insurance Company. Both the sides are heard. 2. The challenge is only on the aforesaid point and in written statement it was contended by the Insurance Company that at the relevant time the driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. The owner also filed written statement. He did not dispute that respondent No.2 was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. No contention with regard to driving licence was made by the owner when on 10-10-1996 the Insurance Company had taken defence of aforesaid nature. The owner filed written statement on 8-8-1997. 3. The police papers show that one tempo vehicle, goods carrier, gave dash to the deceased. Number of th...
Sangli Miraj Kupwad Cities Municipal Corporation and Another Vs. Kisan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2014
A.S. Oka, J. 1. The Petitioner in the Writ Petition is the Municipal Corporation of the Cities of Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad (in short the said Corporation). The Petitioner is the successor of the erstwhile Miraj Municipal Council. The first Respondent in the Petition is one Kisan Bhau Satwekar (for short the said Kisan). The second Respondent in the Petition is Smt. Shalan Datta Salunkhe (for short the said Shalan). The third Respondent in the Petition is the Competent Authority of the Sangli Urban Agglomeration under the provisions of the Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the ULC Act). One Bhau Babu Satwekar (father of the said Kisan) was shown as the owner of the land bearing Survey No.9/2, 3, 4, 5, 4377 and 4380 admeasuring 27498.08 sq meters. Out of the said land held by the said Bhau, the land admeasuring 25498.08 has been declared as an excess land. The contention of the said Corporation is that an order under Subsection (3) of Section 10 of the ULC Act was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »