Mumbai Court April 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. Vijay Udhyog, Akola Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Vidarbha ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-09-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. This Reference on an application under Section 256[1] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at the instance of assess refers following two questions: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Assessee is entitled to a deduction under Section 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and construction of provision of Section 80-I and 263 the Tribunal is right in sustaining the action of the C.I.T. U/s. 263? 2. According to Shri Dewani, learned Counsel for the assessee, question no.2 must be first looked into and answered. He urges that if question no.2 is answered in favour of the assessee, answer to question no.1 may not be very relevant. 3. Shri Parchure, learned counsel for Revenue, however, submits that as both the questions are referred, both need to be appreciated and answered independently. According to him, effort of assessee to have answer to only question no.2 is errone...
Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Since both these appeals arise out of the same accident and are based on identical facts, they are being decided together by this common judgment. 2. The respondent in F.A. No.594/2002 and the respondent in F.A. No.595/2002 are brothers who were riding on their Luna from Kanhan to Nagpur on 25-5-1992. According to said respondents, between 8 p.m. and 8.30 p.m., they were hit by a Military vehicle. The respondent in First Appeal No.595/2002 was riding the Luna while the respondent in First Appeal No.594/2002 was the pillion rider. According to said respondents, the offending vehicle had dashed a cycle, an autorickshaw and a scooter besides dashing the Luna. Both the respondents, therefore, filed Claim Petition No.480/1992 seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. During pendency of the said proceedings, it was directed that there being two claimants, two separate petitions be registered and accordingly, Claim Petition No.738/1997 was regist...
Sunil Somnath Suryawanshi Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 18.3.2010 passed by the learned District Judge 2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati in Sessions Case No.2 of 2009, thereby convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under section 376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-, i/d to suffer R.I. for six months. Criminal Application No.31 of 2015 is received through jail from the applicant Sunil Somnath Suryawanshi, original accused No.1, on 8.12.2014, praying that he has not preferred the appeal due to his poor financial condition and he has served the sentence and, therefore, the applicant has no income to pay the fine amount of Rs.50,000/-. It is impossible for him to pay the huge amount and, therefore, the fine amount be reduced to enable him to pay from his wages earned by him in prison. He has made the application that the appeal be admitted, h...
Rajendra @ Raju Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-09-2015
1. The petition is filed to challenge the judgment and order of Original Application No. 220/2013, which was pending before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (Bench at Aurangabad) (hereinafter referred to as 'MAT' for short). The proceeding was filed by present respondent No. 5 to challenge the appointment of petitioner made by Sub Divisional Officer, Ahmednagar on the post of Police-patil of village Dedgaon, Tahsil Newasa. MAT allowed the proceeding and quashed and set aside the appointment of petitioner. Both the sides are heard. The learned AGP supported the decision of MAT. 2. It is the case of respondent No. 5 that when the application was made for the post, present petitioner was having two wives and two children from each wife. He contended that if second wife was not legally wedded wife, her status can be considered as concubine and in that case, it needs to be presumed that the present petitioner was not having of good moral character and so, he was not fit to get ap...
Padgilwar Agro Industries Vs. The Director, Directorate of Sericulture ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-09-2015
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks a writ to set aside acceptance of bid of respondent no.3 by the respondent nos.1 and 2 on the ground that said respondent no.3 does not fulfill essential conditions of the tender invitation with further prayer to direct respondent nos. 1 and 2 to issue work order to the petitioner. The E-tenders were invited for Engine oriented Mulberry Pruner/ shoot/Brush cutting machine. On 13,02.2015, while issuing notice to the respondents, this Court prohibited issuance of work order. Matter has been heard finally on 27.03.2015, and considering the fact that the pruners are meant for farmers and approaching financial year end, we have passed suitable interim orders to see that the grants do not lapse. 2. Considering the nature of controversy and with consent of all the parties, we have heard the matter finally by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. We have heard Shri R.S. Pa...
The Commissioner of Income Tax-12 Vs. M/s. Sane and Doshi Enterprises
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-2015
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. These appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. That is because common questions and submissions are raised by parties. 2. Both sides agree that for the sake of convenience, the facts in Income Tax Appeal No.5313 of 2010 can be referred to. The respondent-assessee before us is common to all appeals and it is engaged in the real estate business and constructed a commercial complex viz. May Fair Tower. It is stated to be a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. It filed its return of income for the assessment year 2000-01 dated 25th October, 2000, declaring total income at Rs.5,51,81,680/- including rental income of Rs.45,57,272/- and claimed deduction under section 24(a) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the IT Act) of Rs.11,39,318/-. This claim of the assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer treated the rental income as business in...
UCO Bank Vs. Sulbha Mangesh Naik and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-08-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri Timble, learned Counsel for the appellant-Bank and Shri Bhobe, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1. 2. The original complainant is before this Court challenging the judgment and order dated 11.11.2011, by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margao in Criminal Case No. 83/NI/2007/F. By impugned order, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act, for short), on the ground that the complaint was not filed by a duly authorised representative. 3. The brief facts are that the appellant is a Banking Company. The appellant had advanced a loan to the respondent no. 1 and towards repayment of the outstanding dues, the respondent no. 1 issued a cheque, which was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. The appellant therefore, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the learned Magistrate. It appears that the complaint was signed by one Ram...
Vankatesh Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Department ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-08-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith heard with the consent of the parties. 3. This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India taking exception to the impugned order dated 15.11.2014 passed by the Respondent No.3, with further prayer to direct the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to release monthly salary of the petitioner since October, 2014 onwards. It is further prayed that, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 be directed to restore, maintain and regard the order of approval dated 28.08.2012 and confirmation order dated 06.08.2013 granted to the appointment of the petitioner as Shikshan Sevak as well as Assistant Teacher and grant seniority, pay scale and all other advantages / benefits as per Rules to the petitioner on the basis of orders of approval. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that, petitioner belongs to Open Category and he is working on the School, which is receiving 100% grant in aid since long back. Due to promotion of senior most teach...
Akramkhan and Another Vs. The Collector, Latur Collector Office, Latur ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-08-2015
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. I have heard Shri V.J. Dixit and Shri R.N. Dhorde, learned Senior Advocates on behalf of the petitioners and respondent No. 2, respectively and also the learned AGP, on 04-02-2015, 11-02-2015, 17-02-2015, 25-02-2015, 03-03-2015 and 04-03-2015. 3. The petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 29-11-2014 passed by respondent No.1-District Collector, Latur thereby disqualifying the petitioners on an application filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1986. 4. The litigating parties to this petition, were earlier before this Court since the petitioners had filed Writ Petition No. 1451 of 2014. The request made by the petitioners before respondent No. 1 - District Collector in the disqualification application case No. 2013/NAPA/KAVI-661, for referring certain documents to the hand writing expert, had been rejected. By order...
Mahadevi Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Social Welfare Departme ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-08-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith heard with the consent of the parties. 3. This Petition is filed with following prayers: C] By issuing appropriate writ, directions or order in the like nature, the impugned judgment and order dated 7/4/2010 passed by Scheduled Caste, Vimukta Jati, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward and Special Backward Class Caste Certificate Scrutiny and Verification Committee No.1, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad invalidating cast claim of petitioner for Jangam [58] [Other backward Class] may kindly be quashed and set aside. D] By issuing appropriate writ, directions or order in the like nature the caste claim of petitioner for Jangam-[58] [Other Backward Class] may kindly be allowed and the caste claim of petitioner may kindly be held as valid and respondent be directed to issue certificate of validity of Jangam [58] OBC Caste in favour of petitioner for that purpose issue necessary orders. Relevant facts disclosed in the Memo of the P...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »