Mumbai Court February 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.
Pratiksha Pravin Raut Vs. Additional Collector, District Raigad and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-2015
Oral Judgment:1. Rule was issued in this petition on 26 August 2014 and the same was made returnable in the last week of September 2014. The matter has today come up for final disposal.2. The challenge in this petition is to the order made by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division allowing the appeal instituted by the respondent no. 4, in the matter of her election as a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Chaul, Alibag.3. The facts in brief, in which the aforesaid challenge arises are as follows:(A) The elections to the post of of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch were held on 5 March 2014, under the supervision of the respondent no. 3;(B) At the election, there was demand for conduct of election by ballot. Accordingly, the respondent no. 3, prepared a necessary ballots and the same were furnished to the 17 members of the Panchayat;(C) From the ballot, it is seen that there was a contest between the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 for the post of Sarpanch;(D) At the election, eights votes ...
Commissioner of Income-tax-8 Vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-2015
1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 31.7.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The Assessment Year involves is AY 2006-07. 2. The Revenue has raised the following questions of law for our consideration: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in quashing the order under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as undoubtedly, the expenditure of Rs. 2.94 crores was incurred to create the brand "Nirvana" - an intangible asset ? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in taking the view that the expenditure incurred by the assessee did not result in any kind of addition or augmentation of any profit making asset, when the assessee company itself has admitted that the expenditure was incurred for the creation of a brand 'Nirvana' that is an intangible asset ? (3) Whether on the facts and i...
Bandra Owners Court Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. The Divis ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Called out from the final hearing board. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner-Society has challenged orders dated 15 December 2009 passed by Respondent No.1-the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai whereby, their Revision Application under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, the MCS Act) was dismissed and thereby, order dated 13 April 2009 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, H-West Ward, Mumbai under Section 23(2) of the MCS Act, is confirmed. 3. The Petitioner-Society is a Tenant Co-operative Society, as contemplated under Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 (for short, the MCS Rules). Respondent No.5 applied for the transfer of suit shares and suit flat from the name of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4-the members of the Petitioner Society on 24 January 2004. Respondent No.3 was the Director of Respondent No.5 and also the Secretary of Petition...
Ashok Ambo Sangade and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-2015
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. 1. These Appeals unfold the case of rivalry in the two factions of the village, which ultimately resulted into the death of one person, prosecution and arrest of 18 persons of the rival group and conviction and sentence to life imprisonment of 11 persons out of them, by the Judgment dated 17th November, 1994, passed in Sessions Case No.59 of 1992, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag. By preferring these two Appeals, the Original Accused have challenged their conviction and sentence. 2. As both these Appeals are arising out of one and the same Judgment, they are being decided by this common Judgment. 3. Facts, as are necessary, for the decision of these Appeals may briefly be stated thus: PW-3 Bhau Tukaram Bhopi was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Nitlas, Tal. Panvel. Dist. Thane since 1986 till 1991. There ere nine members of Gram Panchayat. Four members were of his party and five members were of the party of Accused No.4 Shivram. The village wa...
Govind @ Dwarkadas Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-03-2015
1. The present Revision is directed against the judgment and order of conviction, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sailu, dated 3.7.1999 in Summary Criminal Case No. 210 of 1997, by which the applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 45 days, together with the judgment and order, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, dated 2.3.2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1999, whereby the learned lower appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant and thereby confirmed the judgment and order of conviction.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as under:On 29.11.1997 the applicant was found to be driving a tempo trax bearing registration no. MH-22/8207. According to the prosecution, the applicant was driving the said jeep negligently and gav...
Nayana S. Gobbur Vs. Sudhir S. Gobbur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-2015
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The Appellant-wife has questioned the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 2nd September 2013 passed by the Family Court No.3, Mumbai in Petition No.A-115 of 2007 and Petition No.B-1 of 2008 to the extent of quantum of maintenance awarded to her minor daughter namely Revati on the ground that the same is inadequate and not in consonance with the earnings of the Respondent-husband. The Appellant-wife had filed a petition before the Family Court at Bandra bearing M.J.Petition No.A-115 of 2007 against the Respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, for maintenance for herself and her daughter Revati and for future expenses of the Appellant and towards education and marriage expenses of their daughter. The Respondent-husband has also preferred a petition bearing No.B-1 of 2008 against the Appellant/Petitioner for declaration of ownership in two properties and also claimed injunction o...
Sinhagad Technical Education Society, through its duly Authorized Pres ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-2015
A.S. Oka, J. 1. A notice for final disposal was issued in this Petition. Accordingly, the Petition is taken up for final hearing. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE CHALLENGE IN THE PETITION 2. This Petition concerns lands bearing Gat Nos.310 and 311 situated at village Kusgaon Budruk, Taluka Maval, District Pune (hereinafter referred to as the said lands). The Petitioner Trust is claiming to be the owner of the said lands on the basis of separate registered Sale Deeds executed by one Mr. Gajanan Krushnaji Bapaye and others. 3. The Petitioner Trust has constructed an educational campus on the adjacent land bearing Gat No.309. The Petitioner Trust proposes to undertake a project of setting up a Golf course on the said lands. No activities could be started on the land bearing Gat No.310 out of the said lands as there is an ad-interim order of this Court. However, the work of internal access road was started on the land bearing Gat No. 311. The said work was objected by the officers of the For...
Kiran Shankar Prasad Pande Vs. Parmanand Koche and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-02-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. The respondent nos.1 to 55 are served by way of paper publication with the notice of final disposal of the matter. However, none of them has appeared before this Court. Heard Shri Rohit Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Agnihotri, the learned counsel for Respondent No. 56. 2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 55 were employed initially by the Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Railway, Nagpur, who is the respondent No. 56. They were working from 01.12.1978, 06.08.1980, 12.06.1985 and 07.06.1986. Thereafter, they were engaged to carry out the same work by the contractor, who is the petitioner herein. The said complainants worked with the contractor upto 31.08.1993 when the contract of the petitioner was terminated by respondent no. 56. As a result of this, the complainants were retrenched from service. 3. Application CGIDA Case No. 02 of 1994 was filed by the complainants under Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act. Th...
Pramod Vs. Savita and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-02-2015
1. Both the applications are filed under sections 439 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' for short) for setting aside the orders made of interim nature and the final orders in Criminal Application Nos. 206/2013 and 203/2013 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. The prayer is made for cancellation of temporary bail and bail granted under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in favour of both the respondents No. 1 from the two proceedings. During argument, submission was made that after granting relief by Sessions Court, the chargesheet came to be filed against both the respondents No. 1 from both the proceedings for offence punishable under sections 306 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short). Both the sides are heard. The leaned APP supported the applications which are filed by the original complainant. 2. The deceased was brother of present applicant. There are allegations that respondent No. 1 of the second proceeding had illicit relations with the ...
Pushpaben Vishwambarlal Khetan and Others Vs. Heena Narendra Patel and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-2015
1. The Plaintiffs are members of the co-operative society in which Defendant No.1 is also a member. Defendant No.2 is an advocate practicing in this Court. Defendant No.3 is joined as a formal party and no relief has been claimed against him. 2. Certain disputes arose between plaintiffs and Defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 as an advocate of Defendant No.1, on instructions from Defendant No.1, addressed a complaint to the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Housing Society, KWest Ward, Mumbai making various allegations against the plaintiffs. In view thereof, the plaintiffs state that the plaintiffs received various phone calls from friends and relatives expressing surprise and shock and the plaintiff's claim that their reputation among their friends and relatives was affected. The relief sought in the plaint is as under:- (a) that the Defendants be ordered and decreed to pay jointly and severally to the Plaintiffs the said sum of Rs.8,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crores Only) together with inter...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »