Mumbai Court January 2015 Judgments
M/s. Prasun Developers Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2015
1. Rule. With the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is disposed of finally. 2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India , the petitioner challenges the legality, validity and propriety of the orders dated 26 June 2014 made by the Joint District Registrar Class I and Collector of Stamps, Pune City, Pune, order dated 5 September 2014 passed by Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Deputy Controller of Stamps Pune (Appellate Authority) and consequential orders of attachment and notice for auction of the petitioner's property, in satisfaction of the claim for deficit stamp duty and penalty (collectively referred to as impugned orders). 3. The brief facts relevant for deciding the issues raised in this petition are that on 18 October 2005 Smt. Kantabai G. Bodake and some others executed a 'development agreement' in respect of property bearing Survey No. 41, Hissa No.1B admeasuring 4400 sq. Meters situated within mun...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Vithal Parkar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2015
Oral Judgment: (P.V. Hardas, J.) 1. The appellant, who stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of which to under go further RI for 15 days, by the Sessions Judge, Thane, by judgment dated 25/9/2014, in Sessions Case No.143 of 2013, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. This appeal was admitted by us on 19/12/2014 and while dealing with Criminal Application No.1613 of 2014, which was filed by the appellant, praying for his release on bail, this court by its order dated 16/1/2015, upon considering the nature of evidence against the appellant, directed that the appeal be listed for hearing out of turn. This court further dispensed with the preparation of a formal paper book in the light of the fact that the appellant had submitted the copies of the deposition of the witnesses. This court, therefore, by the aforesaid order direct...
Tag this Judgment!Sumitra Dwarkanath Sirsat and Others Vs. Shivanand Hanumantappa Bisiro ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-30-2015
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 15th June, 2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mapusa, (Presiding Officer for short) by which the learned Presiding Officer has partly allowed the petition and granted compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with 8% interest to the claimants. 2. Parties are referred to as per their original status in the claim petition. 3. The claimants have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and it was their case that husband of the claimant no.1 and father of claimants no. 2 to 4 namely Dwarkanth Sirsat was walking on the road on the day of the accident i.e 28.11.2004 and at the relevant time of accident i.e at about 6.10.p.m the offending truck bearing No.KA-22-C-8292 driven by the respondent no.1 came towards wrong side and gave dash to the husband of the claimant no.1 namely Dwarkanth Sirsat. 4. According to the claimants the accident occurred ...
Tag this Judgment!Altaf Hussain Allauddin Shaikh and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP for the respondent State. 2. This revision application arises out of the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Solapur in Criminal Appeal No.49 of 1996. The applicants, Altaf and Nasir along with three others were prosecuted for the offence punishable u/s 498A r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. The learned trial Magistrate while delivering the judgment, after conclusion of trial, found accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 guilty of the offence punishable u/s 498A r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. The accused No.4 was acquitted. The learned trial Magistrate sentenced all the accused to suffer RI for one year and to pay fine. The accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 appealed to the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge maintained the conviction of all the appellants and reduced the sentences imposed on accused Nos.1 and 5 and made it till rising of Court, instead of one year. The sentences imposed on the applicants (accused Nos.2 and...
Tag this Judgment!Raju and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary Urban ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-30-2015
Common Judgment: 1. These writ petitions can be conveniently decided by this common judgment in view of similarity of issues raised therein. 2. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. The challenge in these writ petitions is to the order passed by the State Election Commission, Maharashtra-respondent No.2 thereby setting aside the order of disqualification of the returned candidates under the provisions of Section 10(1E) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short 'the said Act'). Besides aforesaid challenge, the petitioner in all these writ petitions, is also seeking a declaration that after holding the respondent No.5 to be disqualified, the respondent No.6 be declared to be elected as a Councillor. 4. General elections to elect the Councillors at the Amravati Municipal Corporation were held in the month of February 2012. The results of said elections were declared on 17/02/2012. It was incumbent upon the candidates to submit the...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2015
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. These two references under the then Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the BST Act) seek an answer and opinion of this Court on the following questions of law, which have been formulated by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal. 2. In Sales Tax Reference No. 16 of 2003, on 12th September, 2003, the Tribunal has referred the questions set out herein below: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the amount of Rs.8,34,781/- as per hire purchase agreement dated 7.2.1996 hire financed in favour of Shri. Ajit Singh Bhimrao was liable to tax under Section 8 of the B.S.T. Act, 1959? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that an amount of Rs.3,27,601/- out of Rs.8,34,781/- which were option money, insurance charges for 3 years and hire premium recovered from Shri. Ajit Singh Bhimrao formed part of the Sale Pri...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Sevantilal and Sons and Another Vs. The Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2015
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. By these Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are praying for striking down Notification No.2(RE-2013)/ 2009-14 dated 18th April, 2013 (Annexure' A') issued for retrospective amendment of Foreign Trade Policy and corresponding amendment to Customs Notification No.98/2009-Cus dated 11th September, 2009 by way of Notification No.24/2013-Cus dated 18th April, 2013 (Annexure - 'B') and Notification No.45/2013-Cus dated 17th September, 2013 (Annexure' C'), OR to read them down so as to applicable only in respect of Duty Free Import Authorization (for short DFIA) issued on or after 18th April, 2013. They are also seeking a direction to Respondent No.4 to assess the Petitioner's Bill of Entry No.3504275 dated 10th October, 2013 (Annexure 'H') with exemption from levy of any Antidumping Duty on imports made under Transferable DFIA No.0810119989 dated 3rd April, 2013(Annexure - 'G'). 2. The reliefs are claimed in the following ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Prem Shah and Others Vs. K. Raheja Universal Pvt. Ltd. and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2015
Per Court : 1. By order dated 3rd March, 2014, the learned Judge of the City Civil Court decided preliminary issue of jurisdiction against the plaintiffs i.e. present appellants and ordered that the plaint be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation before appropriate Court. Against the said order, present Appeal from Order is filed. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent objected the maintainability of Appeal against the said order and contended that though by the said order plaint is returned, it not to be construed as order passed under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short called as, Code), but it is in fact an order of rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code or alternatively under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code and hence the First Appeal lies against this order and not an Appeal from Order. 3. The order of return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code, if passed then not a First Appeal under Order XLI, but an Appeal against Orde...
Tag this Judgment!Amol Maruti Karande Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2015
1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 12th January, 2012 passed by the learned Judge of the Special Court under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act in Sessions Case (NDPS) No. 3 of 2011 convicting the appellant, who was the sole accused therein, of an offence punishable under section 20(b) and (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Hereinafter, for brevity, 'NDPS Act') and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months. 2.. The prosecution case as put forth before the trial Court was as follows: On 14th February, 2011, Avinash Shilimkar (PW7) Assistant Police Inspector attached to Lonand Police Station received information that a person by name Amol Maruti Karande, the appellant who is a Resident of Kalaj, had stored ganja in his house and was selling it unauthorizedly. API-Shilimkar made an entry in respect of the ...
Tag this Judgment!SKR BPO Services (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer-8(3)(2)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2015
1. At the request of the Counsel, the Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges a notice dated 31st March, 2014 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) passed by the Assessing Officer. The impugned notice seeks to re-open the assessment for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 3. For the Assessment Year 2009-10, the Petitioner filed its Return of Income declaring a loss of Rs.15.12 lakhs. During the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2009-01, the Petitioner had issued equity shares inter alia to its non-resident holding company at a premium. However, the Petitioner has not filed Form 3-CEB with its return of income as according to Petitioner, the transaction was not covered by Chapter X of the Act. The Assessing Officer by order dated 28th October, 2011 completed the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act determining the Petitioner's income at Rs.2 lakhs. 4. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »