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.
Meera Sidharth Kambli and Others Vs. Viraj Ekawade, (rider of car) and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-18-2015
1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellants/original claimants against the judgment, order award dated 9.3.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Goa, Mapusa, (Presiding Officer for short) in Caim Petition No. 53/2009, by which the claim petition of the appellants is dismissed with no order as to costs. Hence, the present appeal. 2. Parties are referred to as per their original status in the claim petition. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal may be summarised as follows:- The claimants i.e widow, son and daughter of the deceased Sidharth Pandurang Kambli have filed an application under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (the Act for short) claiming compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) from the respondent nos. 1 to 3 being driver, owner and insurer of the matiz car bearing registration no.GA-01-R-1674. 4. It is contended by the claimants that on 1.6.2009 at about 13.10hours on NH17a Go...
Rohidas @ Pintya Laxman Gupte Vs. The Commissioner of Police and Other ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2015
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Gadkar, J.) 1. The Petitioner has filed the present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Habeas Corpus inter alia challenging the detention order passed by the Respondent No.1 dated 4th October, 2014 bearing No.4686/PCB/DET/2014 in exercise of its powers under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (Maha. Act No.LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996) (Amendment 2009) ('M.P.D.A. Act' for short). By the said order the Petitioner has been directed to be detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detention order was passed on 4th October, 2014 under the M.P.D.A. Act and the order of detention along with a copy of grounds of detention was furnished to the Petitioner on 4th October, 2014 itself and the Petitioner has been taken into custody for detention. The sa...
Chhaparia Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Overseas Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2015
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. This appeal arises from an order of the learned Single Judge dated 23 February 2015 on a Company Petition for winding up. By the order which is impugned in this appeal, the learned Single Judge has admitted the Company Petition and has given directions for advertising the winding up petition. 2. The respondent - Overseas Polymers Pvt.Ltd. has filed the company petition in question inter alia praying that the appellant-company be wound up under the provisions of Sections 434, 435 and 436 of the Companies Act, 1956. It is the case of the respondent in the Company Petition that the appellant had approached the respondent for supply of polymers. The respondent had made supplies to the appellant from time to time for which invoices were issued in the regular course of business. There is no dispute on the receipt of the invoices. For a period of two years there were regular dealings between the parties and that part payment was received by the respondent. However, in res...
Dr. Vijayraj R. Dessai Vs. State, Through PP, Central Bureau of Invest ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-17-2015
1. Heard Shri Bras De Sa, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. This revision application is at the instance of the original accused in Sessions Case No. 29/2014, on the file of the learned Session Judge at Margao. The revision application is directed against order dated 10.09.2014, by which the application-Exhibit-9, filed by the petitioner, for discharge from the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C., for short), has been dismissed. 4. The facts necessary for disposal of the revision application may be stated thus: That the petitioner is a Doctor by profession and is serving in the Blood Bank at Goa Medical College, Bambolim. Now deceased, Archana Dessai was the wife of the petitioner. The marriage of the petitioner and Archana Dessai was solemnized on 23.02.1996 and soon thereafter, dispute arose between the parties allegedly on account of non satisfaction of the demand of dowry. Accor...
Chhaparia Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Overseas Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2015
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. This appeal arises from an order of the learned Single Judge dated 23 February 2015 on a Company Petition for winding up. By the order which is impugned in this appeal, the learned Single Judge has admitted the Company Petition and has given directions for advertising the winding up petition. 2. The respondent - Overseas Polymers Pvt.Ltd. has filed the company petition in question inter alia praying that the appellant-company be wound up under the provisions of Sections 434, 435 and 436 of the Companies Act, 1956. It is the case of the respondent in the Company Petition that the appellant had approached the respondent for supply of polymers. The respondent had made supplies to the appellant from time to time for which invoices were issued in the regular course of business. There is no dispute on the receipt of the invoices. For a period of two years there were regular dealings between the parties and that part payment was received by the respondent. However, in res...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s. Seagull Threads (India) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-17-2015
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Ms. Susan Linhares, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. The above Appeal came to be admitted by an Order dated 27.01.2009 on the following substantial question of law: (1) Whether it is permissible in law to consider the issue afresh in a proceeding which has already been settled by the same authority by its earlier order and had attained finality for want of any appeal against the original/earlier order, as no party to the litigation has challenged in any appellate forum And, if the answer to this question is negative, the order dated 24.7.2007 passed by CESTAT is liable to be set aside ? (2) Whether the CESTAT was correct in coming in the conclusion that there was a direction in its earlier order dated 19.07.2004 for de novo consideration of the issue involved in the Show Cause Notice or mere direction to compute and communicate to the respondent, Cen...
Abdur Rahman Anjaria and Another Vs. Mohhamad Kallu Ibrahim Shah and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2015
1. The plaintiffs in the above suits have sued the defendants for declaration of validity of 2 Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) dated 7th August, 2013 and 20th October 2014 and for specific performance of those MOUs and other incidental reliefs. 2. The two plaintiffs in the two suits are the same. 3. The MOUs have been executed with defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 in the above two suits are different. The suit properties in the above two suits are adjoining properties. They are bounded on one side by the compound wall of BEST colony and on the other by the Eastern Express Highway at village Vikroli, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai. 4. The plaintiffs claim their right, title and interest through defendant No.1. The right, title and interest, if any, of defendant No.1, was agreed to be transferred to the plaintiff upon development of such plots of land. The plaintiffs would be entitled to sue and claim specific performance to develop the suit plots and land under the aforesaid MOUs only if defenda...
M/s. The Quepem Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Vs. The Assista ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-17-2015
1. These three appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenge the common order dated 26 November, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal')relating to assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2011-12. By the impugned order the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal holding that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, as it is a Primary Co-operative Bank, thus hit by the exclusion provided in Section 80P(4) of the Act. 2. All the three appeals were admitted on 25 March, 2014 on the following substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Appellant is a Co-operative Bank and hence, it is not entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) by virtue of Section 80P(4) of the Act? 3. The Appellant had taken out an application for interim relief...
Vassantram Mehta and Co.(P) Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-17-2015
M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. In this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (the Act) the challenge is to the order dated 8/08/2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) in respect of Assessment year (AY) 2001-02. 2. This appeal was admitted on 10/03/2008 on the following substantial questions of law: (A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal is right in disallowing the claim of interest payment because of the interest-free advances made to sister concern, solely impelled by commercial expediency and used by the payee company for its business only, on the ground that the advances were excessive considering the requirements of assessee's trade with that concern? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal is right in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disallowing the actual loss incurred due to fluctuation in currency rates in respect of advance received from a foreig...
M/s. Mavany Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-17-2015
M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) impugns the order dated 15/01/2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). This appeal relates to assessment year 1996-97. 2. This appeal was admitted on 26/03/2007 on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the Tribunal was right in affirming the determination of the capital gains at Rs.72,28,175-00 (or Rs.72,46,825-00) in place of the loss shown in the return of income filed under Section 148? (2) Whether having regard to the family arrangement entered into in order to put an end to civil litigation commenced against the appellant by late Tajdin and later continued by his legal heirs, no capital gains at all is liable to be assessed? (3) Whether alternatively the payment of Rs.66 lakhs should be deducted from out of the consideration for the transfer `received by the appellant' or should go to enhance the cost of acquisition of the land and only to view order, no...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »