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.
Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer and Another Vs. Desideri ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. This common judgment shall dispose of all the above appeals and the cross objections filed in First Appeal No. 42/2009, since they pertain to the lands acquired for the same purpose, in the City of Margao. 3. First Appeal No. 42/2009 and Cross Objections No. 16/2009 arise out of the judgment and award dated 29/04/2008 passed by the learned Ad hoc District Judge-I, FTC-I (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 10/2007. 4. First Appeal No. 169/2009 arises out of the judgment and award dated 29/04/2008 passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 11/2007. 5. Lastly, First Appeal No. 127/2010 arises out of the judgment and award dated 28/11/2006 passed by the District Judge - (3), Margao (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 26/2002. 6. Initially, vide notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L. A. Act, for short) and publ...
Shivkamal Sahadev Rajput Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2014
P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. 3. By this application, the applicant has impugned the order dated 09.10.2013 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, below Exhibit 5 in S.C.No.269 of 2013, by which the applicant's discharge application came to be rejected. 4. A few facts as are necessary to decide the present application are as under :- According to the prosecution, the complainant Victor Francis Fernandes, who is the husband of the deceased Robertina, had gone out in the morning for purchasing medicines. When the complainant returned home, he found his wife lying in a pool of blood. At the relevant time, the complainant had seen two garbage collectors near the building. However, later on, he found them missing from the spot. Accordingly, an FIR came to be lodged with the Versova Police Station, Andheri(W), Mumbai vide C.R.No.282 of 2012 as against unknown persons all...
Manek Dara Sukhadwalla Vs. Shernaz Faroukh Lawyer and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2014
A.K. Menon, J. 1. Admit. By consent appeal taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. Counsel for parties concluded arguments on 6th May 2014 after which at the request of both parties time was granted upto 9th June 2014 to enable them to file written submissions. Written submissions were accordingly filed by both sides. The respondents have sought to rely upon two judgments in their written submissions which they have clarified were not cited during oral arguments. Since the appellants have not had the benefit of addressing the Court on these two judgments we are not taking them into consideration. More so because they are not crucial to any of the matters in issue before us. Before we deal with the merits it is appropriate that a factual background be provided. Factual Background 3. The Dramatis personae in the present appeal are persons claiming to be executors and heirs of the late Purvez Burjor Dalal, Indian, Parsi who died in Mumbai on or about 7th December 2011. A brief backgro...
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City III Vs. M/s Montedison of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2014
B.P. Colabawalla J. 1. By this Income Tax Reference, at the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this Court and reads as under:- (A) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the payments received by the assessee company from Fertilizer Corporation of India, Indian Petro Chemicals Corporation and J.K. Synthetics Ltd. under the various contracts are in the nature of technical service fees covered by the proviso to section 9(1)(vii) and are, therefore, exempt from tax? 2. At the outset, we find that this Income Tax Reference is wholly misconceived. Whether payments received by the Assessee Company from Fertilizer Corporation of India (FCI), Indian Petro Chemicals Corporation (IPCC), and J.K. Synthetics Ltd under various agreements, were in the nature of technical service fees or royalty, are questions of fact arrived at after interpreting various clauses of the ...
Aakash Anil Tambe Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-08-2014
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagar Division, Ahmednagarin Externment Proposal No. 13/2013 dated 09.04.2014. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confined his arguments to only one ground that, without recording subjective satisfaction and reasons in the externment order, the petitioner is externed from three districts i.e. Ahmednagar, Pune and Aurangabad. It is submitted that, offences which are registered against the petitioner are in Bhingar Camp Police Station, Ahmednagar. It is submitted that, even the alleged prejudicial activities of the petitioner, as stated in the show-cause notice, are in the vicinity of Panchshil Nagar, Bhim Nagar and Bhingar area at Ahmednagar. Therefore, the learned counsel a...
Goa Industrial Development Corporation and Another Vs. M/s. Sadhana Bu ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. A. D. Bhobe and Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned counsel appearing for the defendant nos. 1 and 3 respectively, Mr. N. Sardessai, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and Mr. A. Prabhudesai, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the defendant No. 2 in above appeals. Both the above appeals were taken up together for hearing with the consent of the learned counsel as they both challenge the same impugned order. The parties shall be referred to in the manner they so appear in the cause title of the impugned order. 2. Admit. 3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service. 5. Mr. A. D. Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the defendant no.1 has pointed out that the learned Judge has passed the impugned order directing a mandatory injunction to open an access to a road which is a private sub division road in the industrial estate belonging to the defendant no.1. Th...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tip Top Typography
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2014
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1] In all these appeals, we are concerned with the following substantial question of law:(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Tribunal was right in holding that the fair rental value specified in section 23(1)(a) is the municipal value or actual rent received whichever is higher and not the annual letting value on the basis of comparable instances as adopted by the Assessing Officer, though the property under consideration was not covered by the Rent Control Act? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Tribunal was right in remitting the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with direction to verify the rateable value fixed by the Municipal Authorities and if the same is less than the actual rent received, then the actual rent received should be taxed? Some of the appeals have been admitted but we shall proceed to Admit the rest of them on the above mentioned substantial questions of law. The Re...
M/s Mahadhan Real Estates Ltd. and Another Vs. M/s. Anjali Real Estate ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The above petitions challenge an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji whereby an application filed by the respondents to issue summons to the witness PW2 came to be allowed. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the suit filed by the petitioners is for specific performance of a contract and in such suit after examining PW1 the evidence of PW2 was in progress. It appears that PW2 was substantially cross examined but however on the date fixed for further cross examination PW2 remained absent and the learned Judge refused to adjourn the matter for such cross examination. The mater was thereafter posted by the learned Judge to examine as to what action is to be taken with regard to the incomplete evidence. In the meanwhile, the respondents filed an application to issue a warrant of arrest against PW2 to remain present in the Court for his further cross examination. The learned Judge by an order dated 25.11.2003 issued a warrant of arrest. P...
Pushpanjali Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Renudevi Choudhary and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2014
Oral Judgment: (S.J. Vazifdar, J.) 1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge, dismissing the notice of motion filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the transfer / confiscation of the shares which are the subject matter of the suit on the ground that the transfer was in breach of an ad-interim order dated 29.10.2013. 2(A). The ad-interim order dated 29.10.2013 was passed in an earlier notice of motion being Notice of Motion (Lodging) No.2150 of 2013, which was finally heard and dismissed by the order of the learned single Judge dated 05.02.2014. The appellant's appeal against that order was also dismissed. With the dismissal of the notice of motion, the ad-interim order automatically came to an end. The appellant however, contends that despite the dismissal of its notice of motion, it is entitled to the reliefs as respondent No.3 had committed a breach of the ad-interim order. (B). In our view there is no cont...
Arun Shivaji Chavare and Another Vs. Padmakar Rama Chavare and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-2014
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner, who is resident of Ghanegaon, Taluka Barshi, District Solapur, has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India and also the provisions of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short, the Act) and The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010 (for short, the Rules) and prayed for direction against Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 to grant permission to start VI Standard Class of Zilla Parishad Prathamik (Primary) School at Ghanegaon and also prayed to quash and set aside the Government Resolution dated 2 July 2013 whereby, Neighbourhood School principle is reinforced and prayed to allow the Zilla Parishad Prathamik (Primary) School Ghanegaon to run VI Standard Class forthwith. 3. By Civil Application No. 1636 of 2014, Applicant-Intervener, an Educational Private Trust (for short, the private trust), running secondary ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »