Mumbai Court March 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.
Suryabhan Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-03-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 31st August, 2001 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Case No.666/1998, thereby acquitting the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and convicting him for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are as under: (i) The marriage of the appellant with deceased Vijaya was solemnized in the year 1989. At that time, he was working in the Irrigation Department and posted to Ramtek. After two-three years of the marriage the behaviour of the appellant towards Vijaya changed. It is alleged that the appellant started ill-treating deceased Vijaya. The Office of the Irrigation Department transferred the services of the appellant from Ramtek to Pusad and while residing at Pusad the real ill-treatment of deceased Vijaya at the hands of appellant began. It has been alleged that the appellant used to...
Sesa Goa Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-03-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Shri R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri. C. A. Ferreira, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. It was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the parties that when the matter was admitted, there was no substantial question of law framed. Hence, by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, following substantial question of law is framed: Where and admittedly there is a nil assessment order, the assessee is entitled to claim refund without making a challenge to such assessment order? 3. Shri Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in support of the above appeal has pointed out that though provisional assessment order was passed in respect of two bills of entry dated 17/01/2007 and one bill of entry on 02/03/2007, nil assessment order were passed by the Proper Officer. Learned Counsel for appellant further points out that in respect of the first bill of entry dated 17/01/2007, the appellant has paid a sum of R...
Vishwas and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra Represented by the See ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-03-2015
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioners are challenging the summonses as accused, issued against them by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jafrabad in S.T.C. No. 192/2011. Along with the challenge to the summonses, the petitioners are also praying for quashing of S.T.C. No. 192/2011 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jafrabad filed against them u/s 19 (a) (i) read with Section 7 (b) of the Seeds Act, 1966 [hereinafter referred as the 'Act' for the sake of brevity] and Rule 2 (g), 7 and 10 of the seeds Rules, 1968 [hereinafter referred as the 'Rules' for the sake of brevity]. 3. Facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition can be stated herein under: Mr. Gaikwad Rajaratna Pralhadrao, Seed Inspector visited Shrikant Krushi Seva Kendra, Mahora, Tq. Jafrabad, Dist. Jalna. His visit to the said place is dated 29/10/2010. Petitioner No. 3 Ramdas S/o Dnyandev Kad...
The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines Vs. M/s ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-02-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard Advocate Shri Anand Parchure, for the appellant and Advocate Shri N.S. Bhattad, for the respondent. 2. The following two questions are sought to be urged by the appellant:- [1] Whether in the facts of the case and in law, the Honble ITAT was correct in holding that the entire income earned by the joint venture company is liable to be taxed in the hand of one of the members of the assessee company without appreciating the fact that the contract was awarded to the assessee company and not to the individual member of the assessee company? [2] Whether on the facts of the case and in law, the Honble ITAT was correct in not applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of C.H. Achhaiya 218 ITR 239 and Madras High Court in the case of Murugesa Naicker Mansion reported in 244 ITR 461 wherein it was held that, Assessing Officer is not precluded from taxing the right person merely on the ground that a wrong person is taxable? 3...
Ramchandra Tatyaba Ingale Vs. Mugutrao Balasaheb Ingale Since deceased ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-2015
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 19/10/2011 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Satara by which order the Application (Exhibit 73) filed by the Respondent-original Plaintiff came to be allowed and the Respondent No.1-original Plaintiff was allowed to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage by having recourse to Order LXI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details a few facts can be stated thus. The Petitioner herein is the original Defendant No.2 to the suit in question being Regular Civil suit No.274 of 2000. The Respondent No.1 is the original Plaintiff who has filed the suit in question for a declaration in respect of the suit property as also a declaration that the sale deed executed in favour of the Petitioner herein i.e. the Defendant No.2 is illegal and void and not binding on the P...
Pundalik Raghunath Mahulkar and Another Vs. The Commissioner of Gr. Mu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-2015
1. This land acquisition reference is taken out under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1882 (LAR) for enhancement of compensation. The acquisition of land is not in dispute. It has been acquired for a Municipal retail market and for municipal housing. The compensation paid has been claimed to be inadequate by the claimant. The claimant would have to prove the inadequacy. The claimant has not led evidence of any sale instance in the vicinity during the period of acquisition. The claimant has led evidence on the inadequacy of the compensation granted. He would also contend that the land acquired on CTS No. 151 admeasuring 572.50 m has been acquired of which is the owner and the entire land has not been taken into consideration for the payment of compensation. The acquiring body which is a municipality has also led evidence on the precise position of the land to show that the compensation which has been granted by the SLAO is adequate and sufficient. The case is entirely dependent u...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›