Mumbai Court September 2014 Judgments
Jivaji Framroze Tarachand (since deceased) through his Lrs. and Others ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2014
1. By the testamentary petition bearing No.604 of 2005 filed by Mr.Jivaji Framroze Tarachand and Khurshed Naval Wadia, they applied for probate of the alleged last Will and Testament dated 27th December, 2004 of Mr. Jimmy Keki Tarachand (hereinafter referred to as the said deceased). During the pendency of the testamentary petition, Mr. Jivaji Framroze Tarachand expired. The original caveator Mr. Minoo S. Mistry also expired. Legal heirs of the said original caveator were brought on record in place of the original caveator. In view of the caveat filed by the original caveator, the testamentary petition has been converted into testamentary suit (85 of 2005). Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this suit are as under :- 2. Mr. Jivaji F. Tarachand was paternal uncle of Mr. Jimmy Keki Tarachand. Mr. Dinshaw S. Mistry and Mr. Minoo S.Mistry were maternal uncle of the said deceased Mr. Jimmy Keki Tarachand. Mr. Khurshed N. Wadia was son of the predeceased paternal uncle of...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Babulal Makwana and Others Vs. Narottam V. Sheth and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2014
RevatiMohite Dere, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, allowing the respondents' notice of motion, by condoning the delay and restoring the suit, which was dismissed for default. 2. The principal grievance raised by the appellant is that the learned Single Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the notice of motion and pass the impugned order thereon. According to the appellant, the respondent ought to have filed the Notice of Motion in the Bombay City Civil Court in view of the Section 4A of the Bombay City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 2012 and the Notification dated 5th September, 2012. The appellants have also challenged the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Judge in restoring the suit which had been dismissed for default. 3. The suit was filed by Smt. Rasikmani Narottam Sheth original plaintiff seeking damages and other consequential reliefs of injunction in the year 1996. The original plaintiff died on 11th September, 2012. On 25th J...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax-9, Mumbai Vs. Teletronics Dealing Systems ( ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2014
1. We have heard Mr. Tejveer Singh appearing for the revenue in support of this appeal. He challenges the order of the tribunal dated 21st March, 2012 in Income Tax Appeal No.2588/Mum/2011 and 3440/Mum/2011. 2. Mr. Tejveer Singh submits that there are five substantial questions of law and which emerge from this order. 3. In relation to question (d) and which is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 81/194 Taxman 203 Mr. Tejveer Singh would submit that disallowance made and restricted to 5% of the dividend received was improper. This Court in the Division Bench's judgment, namely, Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. (supra) held that disallowance should be reasonable estimation of the expenditure. In such circumstances assumption by the tribunal is improper. 4. Paragraph 13 and 14 of the tribunal's order refers to issue to disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. That was in relation to expenditure incurred...
Tag this Judgment!Nilesh Daulatrao Lakhani Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2014
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent of the parties. The petitioner herein questions the correctness and validity of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Shirala in R.C.C. No.100/2011 dated 20.10.2011, thereby issuing the process against the accused under Sections 406, 420, 422, 403 and 464 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts of the case are as follows :- The complainant Yashwant Sahkari Glucose Karkhana Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Shirala against the present petitioner on 26.2.2009. The case was registered as Criminal Case No.15/2009. Upon perusal of the complaint, on 26.2.2009, the learned Magistrate passed the following order :- "ORDER The complainant to give his statement on oath and statement of any other witness"." 3. On the next scheduled date i.e. 22.7.2010, the learned Magistrate passed the following order:- "ORDER Considering the nature of offence detai...
Tag this Judgment!Amitabh Upadhyay Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2014
1. The applicant herein is seeking the relief of quashing of the complaint on the basis of which he is being prosecuted under the provisions of Sections 12, 18, 21 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in Complaint No.524 of 2013 pending before the Judicial Magistrate (2nd Court) at Thane. 2. The applicant herein is working as a Maintenance Engineer with Emirates Airways. The applicant was married to the respondent No.2 on 11.5.1995. The couple is blessed with a daughter on 15.4.1999. The name of the daughter is Tania. 3. The applicant was transferred to Andhra Pradesh and shifted to Secunderabad along with his wife and daughter. In fact, right from the initial period after marriage, there was temperamental incompatibility between the couple, but the couple had made efforts to adjust themselves to lead a happy married life. Finally, the respondent No.2 had voluntarily abandoned her matrimonial home and had left Secunderabad as if never to return again. 4. T...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Tribal Welfare Department, Mumbai ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2014
Oral Judgment: A.S. Oka, J. 1. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard on 17th September, 2014 and today, the Petition is listed on Board for the dictation of the judgment. 2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has taken an exception to the Judgment and order dated 22nd October, 2008 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nasik. By the impugned Judgment and order, the claim of the Petitioner that he belongs to 'Thakur a notified Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated. 3. With a view to appreciate the factual controversy, a brief reference to the facts of the case would be necessary: 4. Initially, on the basis of the caste certificate obtained by the Petitioner, an inquiry was held by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The caste certificate was issued to the Petitioner on 7th August, 1978 by the Tahsildar, Baglan. By an order dated 21st April, 2001 the Caste Scrutiny Committee validated the cast...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Vs. Ramkumar Sagarmal (HUF) through Karta, Sureshkumar Sagarmal ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-25-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08/6/2001 passed in Summary Criminal Case No.14408 of 1998 by 9th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola, thereby acquitting the respondents-accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988 (the N.I. Act, for short). The criminal proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the respondents related to a cheque bearing No.656523 dated 23/2/1998 for Rs.25,000/- It was issued by respondent No.1 being the HUF of which respondent No.2 was the manager at the relevant time. It was signed by respondent No.2 as the manager of respondent No.1-HUF. According to the appellant, the cheque was issued towards the satisfaction of legally enforceable liability. It was the case of the appellant that the appellant had given an amount of Rs.25,000/- by way of a hand loan and the repayment thereof was to be made by a cheque. Therefore, a post-dated cheque came to be i...
Tag this Judgment!Indira Devdra Patkar Vs. Bhagirathibai Bharat Jondhale and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-2014
1. Heard Mr. Thorat, learned Counsel for petitioner and Mr. Dani, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 at length. 2. By this Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'C.P.C.'), the original defendant No.1 has challenged the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2005 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior division, Kalyan in Regular Civil Suit No.416 of 1997 as also the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2013 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-3, Kalyan in Civil Appeal No.5 of 2006. By these orders, the Courts below decreed the Suit instituted by the respondent No.1 for recovery of possession of block No.5 admeasuring 450 sq.ft. comprising two rooms, kitchen on the first floor of Raigad Building bearing municipal property No.F-2 at Dombivali, Taluka - Kalyan, District - Thane (for short 'suit premises') on the grounds that- a. the tenant, after coming into operation of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short 'Act...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Satish Purushottam Aushal and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-24-2014
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal against acquittal is to a judgment and order dated 10.05.2000, delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana in Sessions Case No.80/1993, acquitting the respondents/ accused of offence punishable under Sections 498-A read with Section 34, 302 read with 34 and 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. Deceased Renuka happened to be wife of respondent no.1/accused no.1 Satish. Respondent no.2 - accused no.2 Vilas is elder brother of Satish, while respondent no.3 - accused no.4 Sou. Sadhana is wife of Vilas. One more brother of Satish namely Rajesh was accused no.2, but, he came to be discharged by the trial Court and he is not party respondent in the present appeal under Section 378(3) of Criminal Procedure Code filed by the appellant- State Government. 2. Incident has taken place on 07.04.1993, while marriage between Satish and deceased Renuka was solemnized on 08.05.1990. Couple has a son by name Om, nick named Salman. 3. Case of p...
Tag this Judgment!Goldmines Telefilms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Reliance Big Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-2014
Mohit S. Shah,CJ. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15 July 2014 (impugned order) made by the learned Trial Judge of this Court dismissing the Notice of Motion taken out by the appellant/plaintiff seeking temporary injunction against the respondents/defendants from exploiting Hindi dubbing rights, subtitling rights, satellite rights and cable television broadcast rights in respect of Telugu Feature Film BHAI ('the said film or 'BHAI'). 2. The facts leading to filing of this appeal, broadly stated, are as under: (For sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal shall be referred to by their status in the Suit No.194 of 2014, i.e., the appellant shall be referred to as plaintiff and the respondents as defendants). (a) The plaintiff and defendant No.1 (Reliance Big Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.) entered into an agreement dated 3 August 2012, by which defendant No.1, assigned several rights in six Telugu films, including the said film to the plaintiff for a total...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »