Mumbai Court September 2014 Judgments
Nickunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2014
1. At the request of the counsel, this petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. This petition challenges the order dated 22 February 2012 passed under Section 142 (2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). By the impugned order, the Assessing Officer appointed a Special Auditor for the Assessment Year 2009-2010. 3. The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition (L) No.2720 of 2011 challenging the order dated 22 November 2011, directing a special audit of the petitioner's books of accounts under Section 142 (2A) of the Act. The petition bearing (L) No.2720 of 2011 was heard and disposed of along with other three petitions filed against the order dated 17 November 2011 directing the special audit for the Assessment Years 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. This Court disposed of all the four petitions by an order dated 12 January 2012 by setting aside the order dated 17 November 2011 and 22 November 2011 appointing the Special Auditor and restored the matter to the As...
Tag this Judgment!Geeta Vilas Bansod and Another Vs. Shankar Devasthan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2014
1. Heard Mr. Wakankar, learned Counsel for petitioners and Ms Vaidya, learned Counsel for respondents at length. Civil Revision Application is instituted under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'C.P.C.'). The proceedings arise out of suit instituted before the Small Causes Court, Pune established under the provisions of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. As per Section 7 of C.P.C., petitioner cannot invoke revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of C.P.C. In view thereof, leave to convert C.R.A. into Writ Petition is granted. Amendment shall be carried out forthwith. 2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the original defendants No.1 and 3 have challenged the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2011 passed by the learned 6th Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune in Civil Suit No.230 of 2006 as also the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2013 passed by the learned District Judge-11, Pune in Civil Appeal No.711 of...
Tag this Judgment!Shrikant Purshottam Paranjape and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2014
Oral Order: 1. These two writ petitions and these two revisions applications can be disposed of conveniently by this common order as the parties are the same and the challenge in all these proceedings is to two identical orders dated 5th July, 2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Criminal Revision Application Nos.535 of 2011 and 536 of 2011. 2. By consent, rule is issued in both the petitions and is made returnable forthwith. By consent, the revision applications are admitted and taken up for hearing finally forthwith. 3. The petitioners in criminal writ petition no.2827 of 2013 and 2828 of 2013 are the accused in R.C.C.No.04002464 of 2011, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Pune. The said case arises on a complaint filed by the respondent no.2 in these petitions, who is also the applicant in the revision application nos.347 and 348 of 2013. 4. For the sake of convenience and clarity the respondent no.2 in the writ petitions who is the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Goa Vs. V.S. Dempo and Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2014
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The aforesaid appeals preferred by the Revenue Department under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, involves common question of law and therefore are decided together by this common judgment. The aforesaid appeals came to be admitted by order dated 27/11/2006 on the following substantial questions of law: "(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in law in holding that interest income earned by the assessee was in the nature of business income, though assessee has not shown any nexus to prove that it was earned in the course of their Export business, in order to claim deduction u/s 80HHC? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT erred in treating the interest earned on Bank deposit, Intercorporate deposit, call money deposit, debentures and interest received from Income Tax Department, as business income for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 80HHC?" 2. The present appeals are perta...
Tag this Judgment!Nitesh Mohanlal Doshi Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Urban Deve ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2014
AnoopV. Mohta, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the parties, specifically at the instance of Petitioner, who insisted for early order/disposal of the matter. 2. The Petitioner, by this Public Interest Litigation, has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed for following reliefs: (a) ..writ in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside permission granted and plan sanctioned by respondent no.3 authority on 16th October, 2012 permitting respondent no.4 to load TDR to the tune of 11612.78 sq. mtrs along with fungible FSI granted on said TDR to the tune of 4078.40 sq. mtrs. On said plot viz. Plot bearing C.S. No. 882 admeasuring about 5888.14 sq. mtrs. popularly known as agency compound, Jupiter Mill lane, between Jaganath Bhatankar and Fitwala Road, Mumbai 400 013; (b) ...directing respondent no 2 and 3 to count FSI of excess parking on the various parking floors for the purpose of computation of FSI to the respondent no 4; (c) ......
Tag this Judgment!Premier Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Premier Automobiles Ltd. Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-2014
A.K. Menon, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. In Writ Petition No.1915 of 2013 the Petitioners challenge the recovery of sum of Rs.49.28 crores and quashing impugned certificate dated 16th December, 2012 and impugned notice of demand dated 29th October, 2012 as being ultra vires of Central Excise Act, 1944 and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India on the ground that no interest is chargeable under the provisions of the Act and the demand for interest and seeks refund of amounts collected in excess by the Respondents. The Petitioners also impugn notification No.68/63-CE dated 4th May, 1963 to the extent it makes section 142(1)(c)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applicable to the Petitioners, as illegal, without jurisdiction and ultra vires of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Petitioners also seek refund of sum of Rs.49.28 crores, a sum of Rs.2,72,73,685/- other amounts recovered by the Respondents. 3. In Wr...
Tag this Judgment!Motiwala Land Agencies Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-29-2014
A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. This Petition raises for consideration question, whether the Municipal Corporation can re-include same property in Development Plan regarding which reservation of earlier Plan lapsed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ("the Act" in brief). 2. The dispute is as follows. In 1975 Municipal Council prepared a Development Plan which was brought into force on 1st March, 1975. Site No.192 in the Plan was reserved for primary school and play ground. However the property was not acquired. Subsequently, the Municipal Council was converted into Municipal Corporation. The land Site No.192 was also included in residential zone (City Survey No.12369/104, Sheet Nos.313, 317 and 318) situated at Baijipura, Aurangabad. On 31st December 1987, notice under Section 127 of the Act was issued to Respondent No.2 Municipal Corporation. However, no proceedings were taken to acquire the land within six months as it was then required under Section 127 o...
Tag this Judgment!Farzana Ansari Vs. Abid Ali Ansari
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-29-2014
1. Heard Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Agha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Agha waived service of notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19/11/2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Margao ("Appellate Court", for short) in Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2012. The said Criminal Appeal was directed against the order dated 31/08/2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class "C" Court, Vasco-da-Gama ("J.M.F.C.", for short), in Criminal Case No.27/DVA/2010/C. The petitioner was the complainant whereas the respondent was respondent no.1 in the said Criminal Case, wherein there were five more respondents. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned J.M.F.C. 4. The complainant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Prot...
Tag this Judgment!Dhondyabai @ Laxmibai Rajaram Kale Since deceased through legal heirs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-2014
P.C. : 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14th July 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalwan, Dist. Nasik in Regular Civil Suit No.63 of 1999 and confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No.167 of 2009 by judgment and decree dated 3rd April 2013 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge, Nasik, the present appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful Plaintiff. 2. In support of the appeal, the learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that in the suit filed by the Appellants, the Trial Court held in answering the issue framed by him that the suit property is the ancestral property of the Plaintiff and she is owner thereof, the mutation entry in the name of Defendants is illegal. The suit filed by her was not within limitation and consequently the Appellants were not entitled to the relief of declaration and possession claimed by them. The counsel for the Appellants therefore contended that the Trial Court thus answered all the issues in favour of the A...
Tag this Judgment!Prithpal Singh Vs. Jagannath Bala Patil (since deceased) through Bhagi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-2014
P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Lanjekar, learned Counsel for petitioner, Mr. Warunjikar, learned Counsel for respondent No.1b and Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for respondents No.1d and 1e at length. 2. By this Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'C.P.C.'), the original defendant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 28.10.1999 passed by the learned Judge presiding over Court Room No.28 of Court of Small Causes at Bombay in L.E.andC. Suit No.593 of 1986 as also the judgment and decree dated 16.01.2014 passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Bombay in (PSCC) Appeal No.68 of 2000. By these orders, the Courts below decreed the Suit instituted by the respondent and directed the petitioner herein to handover vacant possession of room No.7, C. B. Sharma Old Chawl, near Panch Kutir (Lake View Chawl), Powai I.I.T., Bombay - 400 076 (for short 'suit premises'). The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »