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.
Coca-Cola India (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Registrar representing Income ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2014
1. Rule. 2. The respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench at Pune, on 6th December, 2013 in a Misc. Application styled as M.A. No.150/PN/2010 arising out of Income Tax Appeal Nos.1258/PN/2003, 182 and 610/PN/2004, 256 and 144/PN/2007, 1103/PN/2005 and 896/PN/2008. The assessment years in question are 1998-99 to 2004-05. 4. The few facts which are referred for the purpose of this Writ Petition are that the petitioner before us is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It has its registered office at the address mentioned in the cause title of this Writ Petition. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessment years in question were as noted above. The case of the petitioners is in relation to allowance of service charges ...
Sheikh Ismail Sheikh Kalu Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-14-2014
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 17/10/2001 in Special Case No.23/1994 passed by the Special Judge, Khamgaon by which appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1988") and is awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act of 1988 and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this criminal appeal can be stated briefly as under : Complainant Onkar Satav is resident of village Sangrampur, District Bulda...
Pralhad Bhaurao Ghule and Others Vs. Government of Maharashtra and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2014
Oral Judgment: [A.S. Chandurkar, J.] 1. By this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are members of the staff serving in the Family Courts at Aurangabad and Nagpur seek extension of benefits as made available by Justice Shetty Commission to the staff of the Family Courts in the entire State. 2. The proceedings were initially filed in public interest. However, as the petitioners were seeking reliefs for their own benefits, by order dated 17.6.2014 the petitioners were permitted to convert the Public Interest Litigation into a regular Writ Petition. After the proceedings were duly converted, the Writ Petition has been heard finally with consent of the parties. Hence, Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 3. The petitioners were initially appointed after following the due process of recruitment at the District Court in Aurangabad and Nagpur. Under the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, the said Act), Family Courts were ...
Sambhaji Achchutrao Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2014
P.C. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Respondents waive notice through their respective Counsel. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the petitioner on instructions states that he does not press for quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 24th July, 2014 passed below Exhibit 668 by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.180/2009. It appears that the present petitioner was examined as prosecution witness No.55 i.e. Exhibit 650. It appears that during the examination-in-chief of the present petitioner, certain questions were put to him with regard to the investigation carried out after 14th February, 2009, which the present petitioner declined to answer. Mr. Joshi, contended, that the petitioner had declined to answer the said questions, as they were incriminating in nature, and more particularly, as the present petitioner was facing a prosecution for the alleged offences puni...
Dajisaheb Sakrerao Prabhudessai, (Deceased) and Others Vs. Manikrao Am ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-14-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. A. D. Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. A. Kansar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. 4. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Bicholim, in Regular Civil Suit No. 52/2001 whereby an application for leave to produce the survey report, plan to incorporate such averments in the written statement came to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Bhobe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that the respondents filed a suit on the basis that the petitioners and the respondents are co-owners of the property surveyed under no. 50/14 of Maulinguem Village and prayed for a permanent injunction. In the said suit, it is the case of the petitioners that a part of the said survey number belongs exclusively to the petitioners herein. It is further con...
Mukesh and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Hom ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-14-2014
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Basic challenge in all these Petitions is to raid on or stoppage of vehicles transporting liquor by police personal functioning under Bombay Police Act (hereinafter referred to as the Police Act for short), as it is the commodity regulated by Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Prohibition Act for short). According to petitioners, only Prohibition Officer or the staff of State Excise Department functioning under the Prohibition Act, in terms thereof, can undertake any such exercise. In view of this submission, prayer made in all the writ petitions is to quash and set aside the F.I.R. registered by police authorities. Home Department of State of Maharashtra, Superintendent of Police, concerned Police Station are joined as respondents. Similarly, Commissioner of State Excise is also impleaded as party respondent. 2. As a question of law is placed for consideration, individual facts are not very material and it will be apt to deal with th...
Vijay Dinkarrao Patil and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2014
A.S. Chandurkar, J. 1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of parties. 2) The challenge in both these writ petitions is to orders dated 3rd April, 2014 issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Satara directing the petitioners to deposit their licenced weapons with the concerned police station in view of then ensuing elections to the Loksabha in May,2014. Since similar issue arises in both these writ petitions they are being decided by this common judgment. 3) In Writ Petition No. 4171 of 2014 both the petitioners were issued licence under the Arms Act, 1959. The licences of both the petitioners were subsisting. According to the petitioners, in the first week of April,2014 they were informed by the police authorities that there was a directive from the office of the Collector for depositing their weapons with the concerned police station. On 3rd April, 2014 a communication was issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Satara respondent No.2 c...
Union of India through the Director and Others Vs. Mohan P. Gore
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2014
1. The Union of India questions Part-I award dated 11 October 2006 made by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai (CGIT) holding that All India Institute of Physical Medicines and Rehabilitation is an industry in terms of Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (said Act). 2. Mr. Rui Rodrigues, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the Tribunal, in passing the impugned award, 'has contradicted its own order in Reference No.CGIT 2/58-1998' in respect of Aliyavar Jung National Institute for Hearing Handicapped, Mumbai, which is a similar institute. In the order made on 18 February 1999, the Tribunal has ruled that the Aliyavar Jung National Institute is not an industry within the meaning assigned to this term under Section 2(j) of the said Act. Such contradiction in terms, according to Mr. Rodrigues constitutes both, an error apparent on face of record as well as non application of mind. On this ground, Mr. Rodrigues submits that the impugned award o...
Shahid Javed Maniyar and Others Vs. Dr. Sagir Munirkhan Sarguroh and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-2014
Oral Judgment: 1) Insofar as Writ Petition No. 7424 of 2014 is concerned, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners Shri. Patil seeks deletion of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 23 as they are formal parties and the main contesting Respondent is the Respondent No. 1. The said Respondents are accordingly allowed to be deleted at the risk of the Petitioners. Insofar as Writ Petition No. 7451 of 2014 is concerned, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeks leave to amend so as to correct the cause title insofar as the description of the Petitioner is concerned. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2) Rule, considering the nature of the controversy involved in the above Petitions, made returnable forthwith by the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and heard. 3) The short question which arises for consideration in the above Petitions is whether the learned Joint Charity Commissioner could have issued the direction as contained in the claus...
Anjani Ghanasham Dessai Vs. Digamber Dattu Dessai and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-13-2014
1. Heard rival arguments at length on this First Appeal preferred by original defendant no.1 challenging the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.303/2004 dated 30/08/2008. Said suit was filed by present respondents no.1 and 2, original plaintiffs. In the original suit, the present appellant was defendant no.1 and Assistant Engineer Sub-division-II, PWD, Goa was defendant no.2 and State of Goa was defendant no.3. The impugned judgment and decree is against the present appellant/original defendant no.1 only and, as such, present appellant is the only aggrieved party and there is no appeal preferred by original defendants no.2 and 3, as there was no obligation placed on them by impugned judgment and decree. Prior to discussing the case of the rival contesting parties, the averments in the plaint and in the written statement and the issues framed and the answers given and the final order passed are mentioned herein below to have proper perspective of the case. 2. Present appellant ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »