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.
Swapnali @ Sapana Sharad Mahadik and Others Vs. The State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-2015
I.K. Jain, J. 1. These Appeals arise out of the Judgment and Order dated 20/04/2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.642 of 2007. By the said Judgment and Order, the trial Court convicted the Appellants/original accused nos.1 to 7 under Section 396 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only); in default R.I. for two years. 2. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the Respondents as accused as they were referred before the trial Court. 3. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under : (i) That Mahendra Mehta, then aged about 30 years, was residing with his parents, wife Surabhi and a year old son Amit in Flat No.309, Ravi Kiran Building, Carter Road No.3, Borivali (E), Mumbai. He was one of the partners in Riddhi Jewellers situated at 285/305, Krishna Niwas, Office No.22/A, Zaveri Bazar. PW 3 Rakesh Jain, his brother Manojkumar Jain an...
Ramakant S. Bhattad and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-2015
A.S. Oka, J. 1. These two Petitions can be conveniently disposed of together as the legal issue involved in these Petitions is identical. FACTS IN WRIT PETITION NO.8001 OF 2012 2. The Karad Municipal Council is the Planning Authority within the meaning of Clause (19) of Section 2 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short the MRTP Act). The Karad Municipal Council (for short the said Municipal Council) passed a Resolution dated 24th January 2000 declaring its intention under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 read with Section 38 of the MRTP Act of preparing a Revised Draft Development Plan for the municipal limits of the said Municipal Council. A notice of such declaration was published in the Government Gazette dated 27th April 2000. A notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the MRTP Act was published in the Government Gazette dated 8th July 2004 inviting objections and suggestions to the Revised Draft Development Plan (for short the Draft Development Plan) f...
V.M. Salgaocar and Brother Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-22-2015
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Mr. P. Pardiwalla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. A. Dessai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 16.04.2007 on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether when the Assessing Officer has himself computed the deduction allowable under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act at Rs.19,92,39,981/- was he justified in restricting the deduction that he allowed at Rs. 17,40,33,719/-? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a harmonious construction of Sections 80HHC, 80A(2), 80AB and 80B(5) could the deduction allowable under Section 80HHC be restricted to the extent of business profits and not to the extent of the gross total income as canvassed for by the appellant ? 3. Mr. Pardiwalla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in support of the above appeal points out that the question in the present appeal is whether once the Asse...
Bhimsha Gurusidha Chendke Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2015
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. This Appeal is preferred by the Appellant original Accused Bhimsha Gurusidha Chendke against the judgment and order dated 25th January, 2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge 3, Solapur, in Sessions Case No.210 of 2011. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default thereof, the Appellant is to suffer further R.I. for six months. 2. The prosecution case as stated briefly is thus - (a) The deceased Shivputra was the son of the Appellant. Shivputra had been living with his wife and children at Solapur where he used to work as coolie in a godown. He also used to cultivate his ancestral land and was earning income therefrom. The deceased Shivputra used to look after his father who used to reside in village Kalappawadi. (b) On the date of the incident viz. 16th May 2011, Shivput...
Sinhgad Dental College and Hospital and Another Vs. Maharashtra Univer ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2015
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Leave is granted to amend the prayer clause. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. Petitioner No.1 is established and run by Petitioner No.2. Petitioner No.1 started its activities from Academic year 2006-2007. Petitioner No.1 was earlier associated with Association of Management of Unaided Private Medical and Dental Colleges (for short, AMUPMDC) for admission to BDS Courses. Though it is permissible for the Petitioner College to admit the students through centralized admission process conducted by AMUPMDC, to get more meritorious students, Petitioner had dissociated from AMUPMDC and got associated with MHCET conducted by the Government of Maharashtra from academic year 2011-12 onwards. The selection of candidates was done by the Competent Authority of MHCET only. For academic year 2014-15, the admission process was duly conducted by Director of Medical Educat...
M/s. Continental Transport Organization Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Oil and Natural ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2015
1. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Arbitration Act), the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 12th October 2012 passed by the learned arbitrator rejecting the claims made by the petitioner. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 2. The petitioner herein was the original claimant whereas the respondent herein was the original respondent in the arbitral proceedings. 3. Some time in the month of February 2006, the respondent invited bids for transportation of material etc. by trailer, truck and LCV from Mumbai to outside project and vice-versa. The respondent had invited bids for 5 sectors i.e. i)Western Sector; ii) Southern Sector; iii) Northern Sector; iv) Eastern Sector; and v) other Sector in and around Mumbai. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner submitted its bid and was selected as successful bidder as far as northern sector (jobs covering outgoin...
Darryl Bruce Thorpe and Another Vs. The Union of India, through the Mi ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-21-2015
Oral Judgment: (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent returnable forthwith. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to quash: a) The communication dated 17/11/2014 issued by the Respondent no.3 - Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate, Government of India (Assistant Director) to the Manager, Bank of Baroda, Colva, Goa to freeze an Fixed Deposit of Rs.14.60 lakhs maintained by the petitioners in the bank; and (b) Show Cause notice dated 18/12/2014 issued by the Respondent no.2-Assistant Director (Adjudicating Authority) calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed and the amount of Rs.14.60 lakhs being the fixed deposit with the bank of Baroda should not be confiscated under Section 13 (1) and 13 (2) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA), respectively. 3. The petitioners are British citizens holding the status of persons of Indian origin (P.I.O) and Overseas Citizens of ...
Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth Deemed University Trust Vs. Maharashtra Univ ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2015
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. Petitioner No.1-a Trust, registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, submitted an application in the year 2011 for 100 students intake capacity to establish a Dental College at Pune-Petitioner No.2. The State Government issued essentiality certificate. The Central Government has also granted permission in favour of the Petitioners for admission of 100 students. However, the same was communicated after cut off date, i.e., 30 September 2014 for admission to the First Year BDS Course and therefore, the Petitioners could not admit the students for the said course. By various orders passed by Delhi High Court and in pursuance to those orders, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik-Respondent No. 1, granted affiliation on 31 July 2014. By an order dated 26 August 2014, Pravesh Niyantran Samiti (for short, "PNS") Respondent No.2, even permitted the College to take st...
Vasant and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2015
1. The first application is filed for relief of quashing of F.I.R. No. 10/2014 which is registered at Loha Police Station, Nanded for the offences punishable under sections 5, 32 (B) and 33 of Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and also for the offence punishable under section 420 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.' for short). The second application is filed by the applicants for permission to produce some documents. Both the sides are heard. 2. Copies of police papers were made available. The other side has filed reply affidavit to oppose the application. In the second application, the applicants have produced copies of some sale deeds executed in favour of applicants by the original complainants, debtors. 3. The crime is registered on the basis of report given by one Assistant Registrar, Officer appointed by the State Government, for implementation of provisions of the Act. The debtors had approached Police S...
Vasant and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-21-2015
1. The first application is filed for relief of quashing of F.I.R. No. 10/2014 which is registered at Loha Police Station, Nanded for the offences punishable under sections 5, 32 (B) and 33 of Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and also for the offence punishable under section 420 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.' for short). The second application is filed by the applicants for permission to produce some documents. Both the sides are heard. 2. Copies of police papers were made available. The other side has filed reply affidavit to oppose the application. In the second application, the applicants have produced copies of some sale deeds executed in favour of applicants by the original complainants, debtors. 3. The crime is registered on the basis of report given by one Assistant Registrar, Officer appointed by the State Government, for implementation of provisions of the Act. The debtors had approached Police S...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »