Mumbai Court January 2015 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax-17 Vs. Bombay Electric Laundry
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-2015
1. This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 13th June, 2012 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) . 2. The Assessment Year (A. Y.) involved is A. Y. 2006-07. 3. The following question of law has been formulated by the Revenue for our consideration: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the order of the CIT(A) and thereby deleting the additions made by the A. O. at Rs.2.50 Crores on account of compensation received on surrender of tenancy rights?" 4. The basic issue which arises in this Appeal is whether tenancy rights are vested in the Respondent-Assessee or in its individual partners for purposes of determining who is liable to pay tax on the compensation received on surrender of tenancy. 5. The Respondent-Assessee was carrying on business from a rental premises owned by one Mr. V. Shantaram. During the course of assessment proceeding, the ...
Dada Vs. Tarabai
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-13-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. By this petition the petitioner is challenging the order of issuance of process and a direction for framing of charge against him under Sections 420, 463 and 464 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Complaint Case No. 749 of 2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.6, Nagpur confirmed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision Application No.83 of 2013 by his order passed on 29/10/2013. 4. The sum and substance of the allegations made in the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner is that on the pretext of mutating the names of all the legal heir, the petitioner and the respondent being the real brother and sister together with two more sisters, who had inherited the agricultural property belonging to the father, had obtained signature of the respondent on some blank documents on 26/9/2001 and later on it was revealed in the year 2009...
Narayanrao and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-13-2015
Oral Judgment:(B.R. Gavai, J. ) 1. The appellants challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court dated 5.3.2004 in a bunch of Writ Petition Nos.2380/1991, 2446 of 1991 and 2449 of 1991, thereby allowing the writ petitions and remitting back the matters to the Surplus Land Distribution Tribunal, Yavatmal (hereinafter referred to as SLDT for the sake of brevity). 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeals are as under: One Madhukar Yerawar, who is the respondent no.2 in the appeals was the owner of agriculture land situated at Ghatana and Lone. Since it was noticed that he was holding the land in excess of the area permissible as provided under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holding ) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) a Revenue Case no. 188/60A(5)/7576 was filed against the said respondent. The said land owner filed a return as required under sub-section 1 of Section 20 of the said Act. On the basis of the return, the ...
Manmandir Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Adinath Raghunath Visapur and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-2015
P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Patole, the learned counsel for the applicant. Heard Mr.Chavan, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. The applicant had prosecuted the respondent No.1 on the allegation of having committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vita, Sangli after holding an inquiry found the respondent No.1 not guilty and passed an order of acquittal. The applicant - a Cooperative Bank - is aggrieved by the said order of acquittal and is, by the present application, seeking leave to appeal from the judgment as passed by the learned Magistrate. 3. With assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the impugned judgment. 4. The case of the applicant was that the respondent No.1 was a guarantor in respect of the loan disbursed to one Deepak Bajirao Shinde. The loan amount was of Rs.4,25,000/-. That, the said Deepak Shinde did not repay the loan amount and, therefore, the respondent...
Prakash @ Jaywant Vasudeo Wankhede Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-13-2015
A.M. Badar, J. 1. This is an application by appellant/accused under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for the sake of brevity) for recording of additional evidence of Sonali Manoj Deore mother of the minor girl an alleged victim of sexual abuse and Sunanda Suresh Deore paternal grandmother of alleged victim as well as for further cross-examination of PW-10 the alleged minor victim of sexual abuse. The applicant/accused is father of Sonali Deore and grandfather of the minor girl alleged to be victim of sexual abuse by him. Keeping in mind social object of preventing social victimization of the victim and the object of Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, we consider it appropriate not to give name of the victim. Rather we intend to describe her as minor victim girl. At the request of the learned counsel for the applicant/accused, the application is taken up for hearing prior to final hearing of the appeal. 2. The FIR lodged on 25.8.2009 by PW-7 Majo...
Sangita Vs. Judicial Magistrate, First Class (deleted vide order dtd. ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-13-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Leave to amend paragraph No.13, after accepting unconditional apology tendered by learned Counsel for the petitioner, is granted. He states that the contentions made therein are absolutely unintentional and without really meaning what is mentioned therein. Accordingly, the portion starting from the words, "But it is mentioned therein..... to the last line ending with the words, "....and illogical interpretation" are permitted to be deleted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3. Heard. 4. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 5. The whole crux of the issue involved in this case is about understanding of the concept of "the drawee bank". In the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (Criminal Appeal No.2287 of 2009) (Reported in 2014 (8) LJSOFT (SC) 1) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is the Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the drawee bank has dishonoured the cheque which has jurisd...
Shivaji Laxman Sahane Vs. Jaywantrao Pundalikrao Jadhav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-2015
1. Heard Mr. Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Korde, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent at length. 2. Shivaji Laxman Sahane, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, has instituted this Petition under Section 81 read with Section 100(1)(d) (iii) and (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'Act') calling in question the election of Jaywantrao Pundalikrao Jadhav, hereinafter referred to as the respondent held in the Biennial Election for the year 2012 from the Nashik Local Authorities Members Constituency for Maharashtra State Legislative Council (for short 'Election'). The facts leading to filing of this Petition, briefly stated, are as under: 3. By issuing a press note on 23.04.2012, Election Commission of India declared the Election Programme for the 6 Local Authorities Constituencies for the Maharashtra Legislative Council for the Biennial Election for the year 2012. The last date of filing nominations was 07.05.2012. The sc...
Commissioner of Income Tax-3 Vs. Videocon International Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-2015
1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 23rd December, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 1994-95. 2. The following question of law has been raised for our consideration: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2 Crores made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 69C of the Income Tax Act?" 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer placed reliance upon information received that the Respondent-Assessee had paid a sum of Rs.2 Crores to Captain Satish Sharma, the then Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas. This information was on the basis of a statement made by the Additional Private Secretary to Captain Satish Sharma before enquiry officer in JMM MPs Bribery's case. On the basis of the above statement, the amount of Rs.2 Crores was added to the Respondent-Asses...
Atul Krishnalal Bhagwati and Another Vs. Shailesh Rajnikant Parikh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-2015
P.C. 1. With the consent of the parties, rule made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for hearing. 2. This writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is against an interim order passed by the trial Court. The interim order passed is permitting the petitioners to deposit the standard rent as calculated by the petitioners towards arrears and future rent and for permitting the respondent to withdraw the same. 3. The facts of the case as it appears are atypical. The suit property is a plot of land with a ground plus 2 storied bungalow on it in an expensive area of Mumbai. The property was owned by 3 persons (1) Siddharth Ramanlal Parikh (Siddharth) (2) Shailesh Rajnikant Parikh i.e., the respondent herein (Shailesh or Respndent) and (3) Girish Chimanlal Parikh (Girish). All the three were co-owners of the property. Between the 3 owners they had agreed, in case any of them wants to sell their rights in the property, the other 2 co-owners had the first ...
Devidas Sitaram Gole and Others Vs. Purushottam Balkisanji Mantri and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-12-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J. ) 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.1719/1992 thereby allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents No.1 to 4 herein, the appellants have approached this Court. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are as under:- The suit field i.e. agricultural field Survey No.26 area 30.34 acres is owned by the writ petitioners no.1 to 4 and their father Balkisanji. One Sitaram Gole was tenant of the said field. After coming into effect of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 ( hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act), the writ petitioners/landlords filed an application for resumption of land for personal cultivation, being Revenue Case No. 49/59(10-F)/61-62 in view of the provisions of Section 38 of the Tenancy Act on 24.03.1961. During the pendency of those proceedings, the tenants executed a document thereby surrendering half of...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »