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.
Arif Patel, sole proprietor of M/s Axis Realty Vs. Sudha Krishna Salia ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition questions the decision making process leading to making of an order dated 20 September 2014 by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai (Tribunal). 2. Respondent No.1, sometime in the month of May 2014 preferred an Appeal No. 17 of 2014 before the Tribunal impugning the order dated 19 April, 2014 made by the Superintendent of Land Records. This appeal was accompanied by an application for stay/interim relief. The matter was taken up by the Tribunal, inter alia, on 16 June 2014, 17 June 2014 and 16 July, 2014 and on all these dates, except on 17 June 2014, the petitioner was represented by Mr Y.E. Mooman. The roznama dated 16 July 2014 records that an issue of jurisdiction had arisen and a reference needs to be made to this Court under Section 113 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The roznama further records that such reference is under preparation and since the Steno is on sick leave, the matter has to be posted for 20 September, 2014. 3. On 20 September...
Clariant Chemicals (India) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2015
1. This Appeal challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, copy of which is "Annexure-O" to the Memo of Appeal dated 18th May, 2012. 2. The assessment year in question is 2003-04. 3. The Assessee Appellant challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), namely, the First Appellate Authority dated 31st May, 2010 before the Tribunal and raised the issue of disallowance of capital expenditure of Research and Development of Rs.48,76,810/- and essentially the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) after such disallowance. 4. Mr. Sanjiv Shah, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the Assessee in support of this Appeal submits that it raises substantial questions of law. He submits that the substantial question of law is; whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the imposition of penalty pertaining to addition of Research and Development expenditure? In the submission of the counsel, none of the ingredients of section 271(1)(c) re...
Nilima Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Higher and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-07-2015
Oral Judgment (Per Anoop V. Mohta, J.). 1. Called out from final hearing Board. Heard finally by consent. 2. The petitioner who is stated to be belonging to Rajput Bhamta as per the caste certificate, has challenged order dated 18.2.2005 passed by respondent no.2, the Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division, Amravati, whereby her caste certificate is invalidated. That resulted into termination of her service in the year 2006 by orders dated 23.12.2005 w.e.f. 9.1.2006. Therefore, Writ Petition. The respondents resisted the same by filing reply dated 4.10.2006. 3. Both the Counsel read and referred the documents and the impugned order, apart from the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jati) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification) of Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (the Act) and the Rules made thereunder (the Rules). The petitioner prayed to quash and set aside the imp...
Syed Noman Hussaini Kausar and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra an ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2015
S.S. Shinde, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.2. By this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant is praying for quashing and setting aside impugned order dated 07.10.2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Parbhani in Case No. 2013/BPA/Exten.3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant confined her arguments to only one ground that, without recording subjective satisfaction and reasons in the externment order, the applicant is externed from five districts i.e. Parbhani, Hingoli, Nanded, Jalna and Latur. It is submitted that, offences which are registered against the applicant are in Nanalpeth Police Station located at Parbhani. It is submitted that, even the alleged prejudicial activities of the applicant, as stated in the show-cause notice, are in the vicinity of Nanalpeth area at Parbhani. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that,...
C.B.I Vs. B. Raghubir Acharya and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2015
1. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 (A1 and A2) are the General Manager and Fund Manager of Canara Bank Mutual Fund Mumbai (CBMF Mumbai) which is a wholly owned subsidiary company of Canara Bank, a nationalized bank. Accused Nos. 5,6 and 7 (A5, A6 and A7) are the Executive Vice President and Assistant Vice Presidents of one Canbank Financial Services Ltd., Bangalore (Canfina, Bangalore), which is also a wholly owned subsidiary of Canara Bank. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 (A3 and A4)are independent brokers. 2. The essential prosecution case is of conspiracy between the accused to siphon off and misappropriate funds of CBMF, Mumbai and Canfina under their dominion, commit criminal breach of trust, and fabricate documents to camouflage their transaction by falsifying accounts, preparing false documents, committing forgery and using as genuine such forged documents by recording false transactions in the books of accounts of CBMF and Canfina. Consequently these charges are under Section 120B, r.w. Sections 409...
Rupali Shailendra Dubey Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2015
P.C. 1. A criminal complaint bearing FIR No.416 of 2011 was registered against Respondent No.2 herein - Shailendra S. Dubey and six others for the offences punishable under section 498-A of the IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The investigation of the said FIR has been completed and the chargesheet has been filed only against two accused i.e. Respondent No.2 - Shailendra and his mother. I am informed that the Division Bench of this court has stayed further investigation with regard to some of the accused and therefore, chargesheet has been filed only against the said two accused. 2. This application mainly involves the issue as to who is entitled to possess the Toyoto Fortuner Vehical/Car bearing No.MH-04-ET-1780. The applicant claims that said vehicle /car was given to her by her father as an article of dowry at the time of her marriage with respondent no.2. It is submitted that a cash amount of Rs.51 lakhs was given to respondent no.2 and his family members, which in...
ICICI Bank Limited (Debenture Trustee) and Others Vs. Unimers India Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2015
P.C. : 1. This is a cluster of matters where the issue that requires to be decided is whether this Court has jurisdiction to receive, try and dispose of the suit? For the sake of convenience, I am taking the brief facts from suit No.771 of 2002. 2. The plaintiff is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (VII of 1913) and a Financial Institution within the meaning of Section 4-A of the Companies Act, 1956. Defendant no.1, is a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) and inter-alia carrying on business of manufacturing, producing, distributing, importing, exporting, buying, selling and dealing in all types of goods and products based on rubber and/or plastics for domestic and industrial use and such other ancillary products. Defendant nos.2 to 10 are necessary parties inasmuch as they may have interest in the properties of defendant no.1 that are charged/mortgaged to the plaintiff. 3. This suit is filed by the plaintiffs as de...
Baburao Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-06-2015
Oral Judgment:1. The applicant, who at the relevant time, was serving as a driver in the Maha. State Road Transport Corporation (In short, the M.S.R.T.C.) and was plying a bus bearing registration No.MH/20/D/0127 has taken an exception to the judgment and order dated 18th January, 1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.III, Nanded in Summary Criminal Case No. 446 Of 1994 and the Judgment and Order dated 24th May, 2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded in Cri. Appeal No.6 Of 1995.2. The learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Nanded acquitted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code however, the applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs.4000/- [Rs. Four Thousand only] and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.3. Feeling aggrieved by such findings...
Hema Gadgil Vs. Passport Officer, Passport Office, Pune and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2015
Oral Judgment: (A.K. Oka, J.) 1. Called out for final hearing. None appears for the petitioner and the respondent. 2. On 8th April, 2002 a passport was issued by the Passport Office, Pune to the petitioner. The passport was issued to the petitioner in her name (Hema Prabhakar Gadgil) after her marriage. The passport was valid till 7th April, 2012. On 6th March, 2012, the petitioner applied for renewal of the passport. Challenge in the petition is to the communication dated 22nd May, 2012 issued by the Passport Office, Pune to the petitioner. The relevant part of the communication reads as under:- "Smt.Hema Gadgil, Savitri18 Tapobhoomi Soc Dattawadi, Pune411 030. Sub : Grant of passport facilities Madam, Please refer to your application on the above subject. Since you are a divorcee and using the surname of your ex-husband, you are requested to submit No objection certificate from him to use his surname." 3. It is pointed out in the petition that in February, 2003 the marriage between t...
Vasant Shankar Walanj and Others Vs. Iris Fernandes and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by the Applicants, who are original Defendant Nos. 11 to 14, for revocation of the leave granted under Clause XII of the Letters Patent to the Plaintiff to file the present suit, and dismissal of the suit for want of jurisdiction. 2. The present suit is filed by the Plaintiff for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 2 February 1990 executed by one Dr. Ceasar M. Fernandes (predecessor-in-title of Defendant Nos.1 to 4 in the present suit), since deceased, and Defendant Nos. 1 to 4. By this agreement, late Dr. Ceasar M. Fernandes and Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 agreed to sell to the Plaintiff the suit property (consisting of land at Lonawala, District Pune along with a bungalow standing therein) for an aggregate consideration of Rs.26.50 lacs. Defendant Nos. 5 to 10 are heirs of one Dr. Michael Fernandes, brother of the said Dr. Ceasar M. Fernandes. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the agreement dated 2 February 1990 was val...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »