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.
Kishor Vs. 1. The Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-20-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit on the following substantial question of law: Whether the bar under Section 149 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 applies in the present case when the notice issued under Section 53 of the said Act is challenged on the ground that the period prescribed therein falls short of the statutory period and is therefore a nullity? 2. Considering the issue involved the learned counsel for the parties have been heard on aforesaid substantial question of law. 3. The appellant is the original plaintiff who had been issued notice dated 18.11.2010 under the provisions of Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short the said Act). As per said notice certain deficiencies in the user of the land in question were pointed out and it was stated that within one month from receiving the notice corrective action should be taken. Plaintiff therefore filed suit for declaration that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 were not entit...
Deputy Collector and (L.A.) and Another Vs. Georgina Merces Jacques an ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-20-2015
Oral Judgment:1. Heard Mr. Pai, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Shet, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 04/05/2007 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, South Goa (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 215/1999.3. The respondents were applicants, whereas appellants were the respondents in the said Land Acquisition Case. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said Land Acquisition Case.4. Vide notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L. A. Act, for short) and published in the Official Gazette dated 09/04/1992, land was acquired for construction of Dongorim, Majorda, Dongorim, Kucha Gabriel Church Road, Our Lady Church to Tolleaband Guirim Road and Godinho Road in V. P. Majorda, Salcete-Goa. This included an area of 280 square metres of land from Survey No. 72/2; 600 square metres from Survey No. 7...
Harkirat Singh Vs. Rabobank International Holding B.V. Co-operative Ce ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2015
Oral Judgment: (Mohit S. Shah, CJ.) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16 October 2006, of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the appellant's arbitration petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Indian Arbitration Act"). By the said petition, the appellant challenged the Final Award dated 10 April 2006. The Award was rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal and the seat of arbitration was London. The learned single Judge has dismissed the petition on the ground that the petition under section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act was not maintainable as the impugned Award is a foreign Award and, therefore, Part-I of the Indian Arbitration Act would not apply. 2. In view of the above finding of the learned single Judge and the fact that the section 34 petition was dismissed only on the ground of maintainability, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties only on the question of maintainability of the...
Gautam Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-19-2015
Oral Judgment:1. Heard. Smt. V.P.Thakare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.K. Bangadkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1, Mr. M.A.Vaishnav, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. R.J.Mirza, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.3. Heard finally by consent.4. This petition has been filed challenging refusal of learned Magistrate to issue process for an offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, who have been made as accused Nos.1,3 and 4 respectively in the Criminal Complaint No.645/2009 filed by the petitioner against them before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Achalpur, District Amravati. This Criminal Writ Petition also challenges the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur on 19.1.2013 in the criminal revision preferred against the order dated 19.6.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, thereby confirmi...
Dr. Anil and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-19-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. M.P. Khajanchi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.M. Ekre, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. By this petition, the petitioners have sought to challenge the legality and correctness of the order dated 12.12.2013 passed below application (Exh.-83) filed by the prosecution in Criminal Case No.274/2012 initiated by the respondent against the petitioners, for an offence punishable under Section 23 read with Sections 3(1) and 19(3) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 thereby allowing the application for grant of permission to prove the documents filed on record as per the list of document dated 7.10.2013. 5. This application had been strongly opposed by the petitioners. It was their contention that there was no provision in law to give any opportunity to the prosecution to prove the content...
Amit and Others Vs. Krishna Raosaheb Pawar and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-19-2015
1. This petition is by defendants, questioning an order passed under the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6A and 6C of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby the counter claim filed by the defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 561 of 2014, which was filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act for perpetual injunction, was ordered to be excluded with liberty to file fresh suit by the defendants-petitioners. 2. The few facts giving rise for filing the writ petition are as under:- Respondent No.1 to the present petition, claims to have purchased the suit property which consists of plot and building constructed thereon admeasuring 201.78 sq. meters situated at Khdamba (Bk), Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. 3. It is claimed by respondent No.1-plaintiff that vide registered sale deed dated 25/02/2014, the suit property was purchased by him from defendant No.3 for consideration of Rs.36,00,000/- and after the same, his name came to be mutated in the revenue reco...
Sayed Mohammed Masood Vs. Nilkanth Shelke and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2015
1. The applicant is one of the accused in PMLA Special Case No.1 of 2013 pending before the Special Court constituted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, 'PMLA Act'), at Mumbai. The allegation against him is that he has committed the offence of Money Laundering as defined in section 3 of the PMLA Act, and punishable under section 4 thereof. By the present application, he seeks bail. 2. I have heard Mr.Mahesh Jethmalani with Mr.Dinesh Tiwari, the learned counsel for the applicant. I have heard Mr.S.K.Shinde, Public Prosecutor with Ms.Rebecca Gonsalves, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. I have heard Ms.S.S.Kaushik, APP for the State. 3. The complaint that has been filed before the Special Court runs into 61 pages. An affidavit in reply to the Bail Application that came to be filed by the respondent no.1 also runs into 34 pages. The applicant has also filed additional affidavit in support of the Bail Application, and again, an additional affidavit-in-repl...
Commissioner of Income-tax-8 Vs. Proctor and Gamble Home Products Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2015
1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 5th October, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). 2. The following question of law has been raised for our consideration: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in holding the expenditure of Rs.6,43,47,284/- incurred for production of T. V. films and commercials as revenue in nature, without appreciating the fact that the advertisement films are assets which are owned by the assessee and are reusable over an indefinite period of time?" 3. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 5th October, 2011 dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the ground that the issue arising in the present case is covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in CIT v. Geoffrey Manners and Co. Ltd. [2009] 315 ITR 134/180 Taxman 87 . We find that even for the earlier Assessment Years 1997-98, 2002-03 and ...
Devyani G. Patel Shah Vs. Pankaj Shah and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-2015
RevatiMohite Dere, J. 1. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the order dated 8th October, 2014, passed in Notice of .Motion (L) No.75 of 2014 in the aforesaid Testamentary Suit. 2. The appellant, who claims to be the wife of the deceased had filed the aforesaid testamentary petition in this Court in 2010, which was subsequently converted into a testamentary suit. The appellant was required in the said suit, to prove the purported will of the deceased made by him on 14th February, 1996 by leading her own evidence as well as the evidence of the attesting witnesses. After issues were framed on 8th February, 2011, the appellant filed her affidavit of evidence some time in July, 2011. Vide order dated 27th January, 2014, the Court Commissioner was appointed to record the cross examination of the appellant. It appears from the record, that the appellant delayed the progress of the case, by either changing her advocates and by not appearing before the Court Commissioner on severa...
Shridhar Bandaru and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-19-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. The petitioner No.1 has argued in-person on behalf of himself and the remaining petitioners. I have also heard Mr. A.K. Bangadkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1, who states that appropriate order may be passed in the matter and Mr. S.S. Murthy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 5. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged issuance of process by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.6, Nagpur against all the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in a complaint case being Regular Criminal Case No.1020/2013. 6. According to the petitioner No.1, no prima facie case is made out as can be seen from the allegations made in the complaint dated 22.3.2013, whereas, according to t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »