Mumbai Court November 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.
M/s R. B. Shreeram Durgaprasad, Tumsar Vs. The Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-24-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Following two questions are referred to this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act- (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reassessment order for assessment year 1959-60 dated 18.3.1970 was barred by the period of limitation? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the form, content and language of the show-cause notices received by the assessee, the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposing the penalty on the assessee was illegal and without jurisdiction? 2. We have heard Official Liquidator as the assessee is already ordered to be wound up. Official Liquidator has taken assistance of panel Chartered Accountant M/s A. G. Pimperkhede and Company. We have heard Mr A. G. Pimperkhede, Chartered Accountant and perused brief note submitted by him along with photo copies of precedents. 3. Mr Anand Parchure, learned co...
Rashmi Hemant Bhave and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, through it's ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-24-2015
Oral Judgment:(B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The clever husband and wife, who are petitioners herein, have approached this Court seeking a declaration that the acquisition of their lands bearing plot nos.4, 5 and 6 situated in a layout developed in Survey No.145/2, Patwari Halka No.42, Mouza Khapri Railway, Tq. Nagpur Rural, District Nagpur has lapsed in view of provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the New Act) (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2013?). 3. Since the facts as well as the question of law involved in both the petitions are identical, both are heard and decided together by this common Judgment. 4. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present petitions are as under: A notification u/s.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Old Act?) came to be published on 11.1.1999 by the State Government in resp...
Reena Sanjay Minz and Another Vs. Jigna Jay Kantawala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-2015
V.M. Kanade, J. 1. The appellants are aggrieved by an order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 9th June, 2015. By the said order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to recall order dated 3rd April, 2013 after condoning the delay caused in filing the Notice of Motion by the respondent and directed that the name of the respondent may also be shown as a joint executor of the Will dated 28th June, 2004. 2. Brief facts are that one Nitinkumar Madhavji Rangwala executed a Will dated 28th June, 2004 in which four persons were shown as executors. The respondent Jigna Jay Kantawala was one of the four executors. The appellants were other executors of the Will. There is a chequered history to this litigation. Initially, a probate petition was filed by the appellants including the name of the respondent herein. However, his name was deleted. After order dated 21st June, 2012 was passed, it was directed that the notice be issued to the respondent herein. A notice was served with a citation...
Suhas D. Anvekar Vs. Durgadas Lotlikar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Nov-23-2015
1. Heard D. Shirodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. L. Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Ms. L. Naik, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondent. 4. This Writ Petition is filed by the original defendants seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 26.2.2015 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao on an application for amendment of the pleadings at Exh.48. 5. The parties shall be referred to as per their original status before the trial Court. 6. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery of the certain amount from the defendant/petitioner and there was some typing mistake/error in paragraphs 6 and 7 in relation to the figure of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,60,000/- So the plaintiff wants to correct the figures in paragraph 4 as Rs.3,00,000/- instead...
Maharashtra Krishna Vally Development Corporation Vs. M/s. S.D. Shinde ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2015
1. The appeal and revision are filed to challenge the judgment and order of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar in Arbitration Application No. 1/1997 and Regular Civil Suit No. 5/1997. Both the proceedings are decided at the same time by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division. In the suit, decision is given, by which decree is given on the basis of award of Arbitral Tribunal. The application filed by employer, present appellant for setting aside the award is dismissed. Both the sides are heard. It appears that some of the partners of the contractor got separated and so, different advocates appeared for the partners in the present proceedings and all of them were allowed to argue the matter. However, they argued in support of the decision of the Civil Court and in support of the award delivered by so called arbitrator. 2. Krishna Vally Development Corporation is a State Corporation and it had given the work of construction of canal to respondent M/s. S.D. Shinde and Compa...
Digamber (dead) Legal representatives. and Others Vs. Gajanan Maharaj ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-23-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. The appeal takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.516 of 1992 dated 13th of January, 2005, thereby allowing the petition filed by the respondent and upholding the order passed by Tahsildar dated 9th of March, 1988 while setting aside the order passed by the first appellate authority i.e. Sub Divisional Officer dated 27th of June, 1988 and revisional authority i.e. learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur dated 19th of November, 1991. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are as under: The respondent is a Public Trust having registration No.A-250 (Bul) and the owner of land admeasuring 28 Acres 27 gunthas at mauza Lamkani, tahsil Akot, which is subject matter of the present proceedings. The respondent “ Trust has got exemption under the provisions of Section 129(b) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Land (Vidarbha Region) Act. On 15th of June, 1...
7 Star Distilleries (Formerly known as V.L.R. And Co. Vs. Kopargaon Sa ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Nov-21-2015
1. The Respondent-plaintiff filed RCS No.3/2004, making a grievance about infringement of the Copy Right of its label at Annexure A to the plaint by the defendants by reproducing the same in material form and/or printing publishing or using the disputed labels. The plaintiff sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from committing the acts of infringement. The plaintiff also prayed for damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) each against the defendants Nos.1 and 2, so also sought mandatory injunction directing the defendants to deliver to the plaintiff for destruction the infringed labels. The plaintiff also complained about passing of infringement of trade-mark. However, subsequently restricted its case to the extent of infringement of copyright. The trial Court initially dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed First Appeal bearing No.734/2012 before this Court. This Court vide judgment and order dated 10.1.2014, set aside the decree ...
Pimpri Chinchwad new Town Development Authority, Nigadi and Others Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-2015
A.S. Oka, J. FACTUAL MATRIXWrit Petition No.9525 of 2004 1. In Writ Petition No.9525 of 2004, the challenge is to the order dated 21st September 2004 passed by the Second Respondent who was the then Hon'ble Minister of State of the Revenue Department of the State Government. The subject matter of the said Writ Petition is the land bearing Survey No.17/6,25 and 31 (Part) at Village Rahatani, Taluka Haveli, District-Pune (for short the said land?). By the impugned order passed in exercise of the powers under Sub-Section (1) of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Land Acquisition Act?), the Second Respondent directed release of the said land from the acquisition. The acquisition was for the benefit of the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner is a New Town Development Authority constituted under Sub-Section (2) of Section 113 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short the MRTP Act?). 3. In the year 1962, the State Government decided to develop an in...
Central India Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Union of India, throug ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-21-2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Petitioner, a Society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, and a Public Charitable Trust, registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Public Charitable Trust Act, 1950, has questioned the rejection by respondents of its prayer to grant it approval under Section 35[1][ii] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act? for short), by order dated 23.12.2013. This order is passed by respondent no.1 “ Government of India through its Deputy Secretary, and respondent no.2 is Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for Vidarbha Region. 2. Perusal of the impugned order shows that petitioner was earlier granted approval after holding that it qualifies as an other institution? as employed in that section. Rejection in impugned order is after holding that the petitioner “ organization is mainly involved in running hospital and no education is imparted by it. It does not itself award/confer Ph.D. Degree upon anybody,...
Ganesh Kisandas Lashkare Vs. Mahabirprasad Chaurasia (Dead)
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Nov-21-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the adjudication of standard rent in proceedings initiated under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short 'the said Act'). 2. The respondent herein is the owner and landlord of house admeasuring 1056 sq.ft., which is occupied by the petitioner as a tenant. The tenancy was created in the year 1961 on monthly rent of Rs.20/-. According to the respondent, as the rent was inadequate, he sought determination of standard rent and accordingly on 28/09/2000 initiated proceedings under Section 8 of the said Act. The proceedings were opposed by the petitioner by filing reply. The proceedings were titled as Regular Civil Suit No.98/2000 and after the parties led evidence, the trial court fixed the standard rent at Rs.1,200/- per month from the date of filing of the proceedings. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 34 of the said Act and the appellate court confirmed the findings of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »