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.
Vinod K. Bhagat Vs. Tax Recovery Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-2015
1. At the request and instance of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 2. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenges the notices dated 25.1.2012 and 6.3.2012 attaching the petitioner's property and bank accounts in respect of tax dues payable by the petitioner's late father. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 25.9.2012 passed by the Tax Recovery Officer holding that the property belonging to the petitioner which has been attached, for the Income Tax dues payable by his late father. 3. Mr. Vipul Joshi. learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that after the property and the bank accounts of the petitioner were attached, the petitioner moved an application by letter dated 13.4.2012 to the Jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax making grievance regarding attachment of the petitioner's property and his bank accounts for recovery of income tax dues payable b...
Kashinath Balu Gaonkar Vs. Sunita Krishnajirao Dessai and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-13-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Ms. Monteiro, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1. 2. By order dated 12/02/2015, it was made clear to both the parties that the revision application shall be heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the parties waive service of notice after admission. Heard finally. 4. By this revision application, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 29/01/2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji in Criminal Appeal No. 34/2014 and the judgment and order dated 15/03/2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panaji in Criminal Case No. 800/OA/2007/A. 5. The respondent no. 1 was the complainant in the said Criminal Case, whereas the petitioner was the accused therein. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said Criminal case. 6. The complainant had filed the said case against the accused f...
Santosh Namdeo Bhukan Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-2015
Oral Judgment: (Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.) 1. The Appellant, who stands convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for six months, on first count, and R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for three months, on second count, by the Judgment dated 24th May, 2014 in Sessions Case No.105 of 2011, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, by this Appeal, challenges his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts, as are necessary, for deciding this Appeal can briefly be stated thus:- On 14th August, 2010, while PW-34 API Yashwant Nikam was on duty at Lohgaon Police Chowki under Vimantal Police Station, Pune, PW-2 Manisha Thorat came to the Police Chowki and disclosed that her sister Vaishali Vinayak Kadam was missing since 10th August, 2010. Hence, PW-34 API Nikam directed PW-32 PSI Dattatray Sasane, who was on PSO ...
Amjad Khan Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary Departme ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-12-2015
A.M. Badar, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the show cause notice dated 23.1.2014, issued by the respondent No.3, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Aurangabad, asking him to show cause why he should not be externed from limits of Aurangabad and Jalna Districts for two years. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the documents placed on record, including the annexures to the petition. The learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner is a peace loving citizen residing at Village Demani Wahegaon, Karmad, in Aurangabad District. According to learned counsel for petitioner on 23.7.2013, petitioner received a show cause notice informing initiation of proceedings under Section 110(e) (g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C. for brevity) by Special Executive Magistrate/Police Inspector of local crime branch Aurangabad (Rural). On h...
Maria Pereira and Others Vs. Dolorosa Christina Rodrigues, (now deceas ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-12-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. D'silva, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 24/11/2007 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge 2, (FTC II), Margao (Appellate Court), in Regular Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2002. 3. Regular Civil Suit No. 32 of 1992 was filed by the respondents against the petitioners, for injunction. In that suit, it was claimed that Shri. Pedro Francis Fernandes, that is the predecessor in title of the respondents herein had, by sale deed dated 01/06/1939, purchased a property known as Propriedade De Cima Lote D and the said purchased land having shape of irregular polygon was admeasuring 3409 square metres and after purchase by Pedro Francis Fernandes the said plot came to be registered under Land Registration No. 36.756 and it was inscribed in his name under Inscription No. 31199. During the survey under the Goa Land Revenue Code, the said plot was surveyed under chalta no. 2 of P. T. Sheet no. 34 of...
Prabhakar Venkobaji Manekar Vs. Surendra Dinanath Sharma
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-12-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Writ Petition at the instance of the tenant takes exception to the decree for eviction passed by the trial Court under provisions of Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short the said Act) as upheld by the first appellate Court. The premises in question is a ground floor shop that is used for running business by the petitioner. According to the petitioner said premises were let out on monthly rent of Rs. 500/- per month. According to the petitioner said amount of rent was being regularly paid till the year 2000 after which the respondent-landlord stopped accepting the same. Subsequently money orders were sent by the petitioner for the months of March, April and May 2000. On 29.04.2008 notice came to be issued by the landlord calling upon the tenant to pay arrears of rent for the period from 01.07.2000 to 30.04.2008. The arrears were demanded at the rate of Rs. 5000/- ...
Antonio Menezes @ Anthony Menezes Vs. Mahesh Phadte and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-12-2015
1. The original complainant filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 12.04.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa, in Criminal Appeal No. 10/2011. 2. Parties are referred to their original status. 3. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows: The complainant ( Antonio Menezes ) filed a complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 4. The accused is a resident of Panaji and introduced himself to the complainant that he deals in construction and selling of flats in the surrounding locality. 5. In the year 1994, the accused represented to the complainant when the complainant had been to Goa that he proposed to construct an apartment at Old Goa and the accused gave offer to purchase one single bed room flat in the said apartment. On representation of the accused, the complainant shown his willingness to purchase the flat. Accordingly, an agreement was executed between the parties. ...
M/s. Agency Real Margao Pvt. Ltd., Represented by Authorised person Sh ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-12-2015
1. All the above appeals are disposed of by this common judgment since they are filed against the same common judgment and order dated 29.08.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class C Court at Panaji (J.M.F.C., for short) in Criminal Cases No. OA/142/2006/C, OA/143/2006/C, OA/144/2006/C and OA/145/2006/C, respectively and involve common facts and law. 2. The appellant was the complainant in the said criminal cases whereas respondent no.1 was the accused therein. Parties shall be hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said cases. 3. The complainant had filed the complaint against the accused for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act for short) which gave rise to the said criminal cases. Case of the complainant, in short, was as follows:- The complainant is a company carrying on business of selling liquor in Goa and in rest of India. The accused was the employee of the complainant and had collected the payment of sal...
Shankar A. Amonkar and Others Vs. Anthony Rebello and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-12-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri I. Agha, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri C.A. Ferreira, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 16th August, 2006 on the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether the appellate Court, after accepting in para 61 of the judgment, based on judgment of the Calcutta High Court that:- "in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession all the co-owners are necessary partners and for non-joinder of necessary partners, such a suit becomes incompetent." having declined to grant the relief of declaration as prayed in prayer (A) of the counter claim, erred in granting as per para 63 the relief that sale deeds are null and void? (b) Whether the appellate Court failed to consider that as per Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Code proviso non-joinder of necessary parties is an incurable defect? (c) Whether the appellate Court erred in granting the relief for corre...
Raman and Weil (P.) Ltd. Vresus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, 1(3 ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-2015
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges: (a) notice dated 26 March 2010 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') seeking to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2005-06; (b) order dated 23 November 2010 passed by the Assessing Officer disposing of the petitioner's objections to the grounds in support of the impugned notice dated 26 March 2010; (c) the assessment order dated 30 November 2010 passed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 of the Act alongwith demand notice under Section 156 of the Act; and (d) show cause notice dated 30 November 2010, as to why penalty under Section 271 of the Act should not be imposed. 2. This petition was admitted on 20 June 2011 and the respondents were restrained from acting upon the Assessment Order, demand notice and show cause notice to impose penalty till the final disposal of the petition. 3. On 26 November 2007, an assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, in respec...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »