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.
Etisalat Mauritius Ltd. Vs. Etisalat DB Telecom Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2015
1. Company Petition No.114 of 2012 is filed by the Petitioner Etisalat Mauritius Ltd. for winding up of Respondent No. 1-Etisalat DB Telecom Pvt. Ltd. The Petitioner submitted in the Petition that it is just and equitable to wind up the Respondent No.1 Company inter alia on the following grounds: (i) Loss of substratum of the Respondent No.1 Company on account of the quashing of the 2G licenses by the Honble Supreme Court; (ii) Dysfunctional Board of Directors owing to the withdrawal of Directors nominated by Respondent No.2 Majestic Infracon Pvt. Ltd.; (iii) The Respondent No.1 Company is insolvent as its liabilities far exceed its assets and it cannot pay its dues as and when they arise. 2. The Company Petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. Briefly set out here-in-below, are the facts which have led to the filing of the above Company Petition and the orders passed by this Court thereon after the filing of the Petition. 3.1 The PetitionerEtisalat Mauritius Ltd. (EML) is a Company ...
The State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Chandrakant Vasant Ayare and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-2015
Oral Judgment: (Anuja Prabhudessai, J.) 1. The appellant herein was tried by the Court of Sessions at Vasai in Sessions Case No.13 of 2012 for offence under Section 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC). By judgment dated 03.02.2014, the learned Sessions Judge held him guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 309 of the IPC and sentenced him to death for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 309 of the IPC. 2. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred Criminal Appeal No.669 of 2014 while Confirmation Case No.1 of 2014 arises from the statutory reference under Section 366 of the Cr. P.C. for confirmation of the death sentence. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under. The accused, his wife Sanchita and their minor daughter Viashnavi were residing in Room No.13 of Hemant Patil Chawl at Bilapada, Nalasopara. PW-1 Ashish, son-in-law of Hemant Patil, the owner of the s...
Madhav Vs. The Chairman, Market Committee, through Addl. Secretary, A. ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2015
1. This group of Civil Revision Applications arises from common order passed by District Judge-1, Osmanabad, on 16.1.2013 (hereinafter referred as impugned order), in group of Misc. Civil Appeals having Nos.50/2012 to 60/2012. The common order was passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.51/2012 and the copies of the order were kept in other Misc. Civil Appeals. Counsel for both sides have submitted that, in all these appeals, the parties are common except for respondent No.9, the obstructionist in the execution proceedings. Both the counsel argued by referring to the Petition in Civil Revision Application No.49/2013 and agreed that, rest of the Revision Applications have similar facts and points of law involved. I will refer to the petition and documents from Civil Revision Application No.49/2013. 2. In a sentence, what has happened in these matters is that, in the course of execution filed by the decree holder to recover possession from the judgment debtor, various obstructionists filed appli...
Swapnil and Others Vs. Neha and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-18-2015
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By the present application, applicant no.1husband, applicant nos. 2 and 3 father and mother-in-law of non applicant no.1 have invoked the power of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure for quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Regular Criminal Case No. 0404538/2013 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur upon its transfer from Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pune to Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur, pursuant to the order dated 20.08.2014 in Criminal Application No. 1/2014 decided by this Court. 3. In support of the present application, Mrs. Anjali Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants, submitted that non applicant no.1 had lodged FIR with Police Station, Loni Kadbhor, Pune and as such upon investigation, the said Police Station had filed charge...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai City -II Vs. Sham L. Chellaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2015
M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. This appeal by revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') assails the order dated 12th July 1999 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'ITAT'). 2. The Assessment Year involved is Assessment Year 1992-93. 3. The appeal was admitted on 10th September 2001 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether on facts, the ITAT was right in holding that short-term capital gain was derived from foreign exchange asset. If so, whether on sale of bonus shares investment income within Section 115E of the Act accrued?" 4. It is an admitted position that for the purposes of this appeal, the Respondent-Assessee is a non-resident under the Act. During the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 1992-93, Respondent-Assessee sold 10,000 shares of Tata Chemicals Ltd. received by him as bonus shares. The shares were sold after obtaining permission from the Reserve Bank of India. The original shares on which the aforesaid bonus shares had ...
Naresh Ramani and Another Vs. Village Panchayat of Curca and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-18-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By order dated 26 December, 2014, the petitions were directed to be finally disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for the respondents waive service. Both the petitions raise common grounds, are argued together, and are taken for disposal together. 3. The petitioner are brothers. They made application to the respondent no.1-panchayat seeking construction licence for proposed residential bungalow and compound wall in the property situated at Curca, village of Tiswadi Taluka in Goa. The technical clearance was granted in favour of the petitioner to carry out the work. On 27 March, 2012, an application was made to the Respondent no.1-Panchayat. On 26 June, 2012 the respondent-panchayat informed the petitioners that in view of the objections raised by respondent no.2-church, a resolution has been passed by the panchayat to withhold the issuance of licence to the petitioners. The petitioners, thereafter, filed appeals under se...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s. Essel Propack Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-18-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. All the above appeals were ordered to be taken up together as the Counsel appearing for the parties had contended that common substantial questions of law arise in all the above appeals. 2. The above appeals came to be admitted by this Court by an order dated 21st July, 2008. Thereafter, at the request of and by consent of the learned Counsel, the substantial questions of law came to be modified by an order dated 29th January, 2015. The modified substantial question of law by consent, reads thus: Whether the respondent is entitled to claim CENVAT Credit prior to 16/06/2005 on the basis of TR6 Challan, in terms of Rule 9 which was introduced on 16/06/2005? 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants have pointed out that Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 clearly provides the requisite documents to be produced in order to avail of the CENVAT Credit. The learned Counsel further point out that the respondents have not produced any of such documents a...
M/s. Mukund Iron Staff Association Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Vas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 2/8/2013 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Greater Bombay by which order the Application being Notice of Motion No.2461 of 2013 filed by the Petitioner/Plaintiff for recalling of its witness and tendering additional affidavit of examination in chief, for leading evidence in terms of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 came to be rejected. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, a few facts, which are necessary for the adjudication of the above Petition, can be stated thus: The Petitioner herein is the original Plaintiff and the Respondents herein are the original Defendants in the suit which was initially filed in this Court being H C Suit No.2526 of 1988. The said suit was filed for specific performance of 4 agreements dated 13/2/1975 in respect of 4 pieces of land which wer...
Shankar Vs. Ishaq and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This is a Revision against the judgment and order of acquittal, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Omerga, dated 14.10.2002 in Regular Criminal Case No. 23 of 1999, whereby the learned Magistrate acquitted the present respondent nos. 1 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The present Revision is preferred by Shankar Shivappa Patale (PW 2), who is the first informant and Shivraj Shankar Patale, the injured (PW 3). 2. I have heard Shri Mohit Deshmukh, advocate holding for Shri S.G.Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Nilkanth Pawade, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Shri V.P.Kadam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor or respondent no.6/State. 3. Shankar Shivappa Patale, who was examined as PW 2, lodged report with police station Murum on 4.1.1999. Since, the said report (Exh.37) was disclosing commission of cognizable offence, police authorities registered the ...
The Executive Engineer Works Division VII (NH) Vs. Ravindra S. Kenkre, ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-17-2015
Oral Judgment:1. Heard Ms. Mordekar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Ramani, learned counsel for the respondent.2. By this appeal, the judgment and award dated 30/03/2010 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge, FTC, Panaji in Land Acquisition Case No. 10 of 2009, has been challenged. The appellant was the respondent in the said case whereas respondent was the applicant. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said case.3. 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 12/11/2002, land was acquired from eight different villages for Ribander bypass from kilometers 143.00 to 153.200 kilometres on National highway 4-A. This included an area of 290 square metres of land from Chalta no. 24 (Part) of P. T. Sheet no. 22 of Panaji city and an area of 450 square metres from Chalta no. 25 (Part) of same P. T. Sheet no. 22 of Panaji cit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »