Mumbai Court August 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.
The Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Anusayabai and ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-19-2015
1. This First Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dt.13.3.2003 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 518 of 1997 whereby the Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was partly allowed with proportionate costs. The learned Member, M.A.C.T. held the truck owner and truck insurer and the jeep owner and jeep insurer jointly and severally responsible to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,10,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 7.7.1997 till realization of payment. The said Judgment and Order is under challenge in this appeal by the appellant/Insurance Company. 2. It is the case of the appellant that there was a motor vehicle accident on 22-3-1997 at 5.00 p.m. at village Dongargaon, near Orange processing factory, within the limits of Katol Police Station when jeep bearing registration No.MH-31-H-1825 owned by Vikas Fuke and insured by the United India Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as...
Sandeep Padmakar Joshi and Others Vs. Muralidhar Prabhakar Dixit and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2015
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) 1. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. He states that the Advocate on record will file Vakalatnama for all the respondents within a period of two weeks from today. Considering the nature of the controversy, the appeal is forthwith taken up for final disposal. 2. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. By the impugned Judgment and Decree, the plaint has been rejected by the learned 5th Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Nashik in exercise of powers under Rule 11(d) of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the said Code') read with section 9-A of the said Code. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellants is that though the power under clause (d) of Rule 11 is purportedly exercised, there is no specific finding recorded as to how the bar of suit is attracted. His contention is that the impugned Judgment shows non-application of mind. The learned counsel ...
Director of Income-tax (IT) -I Vs. American Express Bank Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2015
1. This appeal by revenue challenges the order dated 10 August 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal'). The appeal relates to Assessment Year 1998-99. 2. Following questions of law have been urged for our consideration: (A) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenses incurred at Head Office on behalf of the Indian Branch of the assessee are deductible u/s.37(1) of the Act without any restrictions contained in Section 44C? (B) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance made by AO Rs. 75,03,911/- keeping in view provisions of Section 14A? (C) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest income earned on funds by HO, in Indian Branch be termed as interest to self? (D) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and ...
Naresh Kanayalal Rajwani and Others Vs. M/s. Citi Financial Consumer F ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2015
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioners have impugned the arbitral award dated 30th January, 2013 rendered by the learned arbitrator declaring that the petitioner no.1 had created an equitable mortgage in respect of the property being Flat No.82, on 8th Floor in the Building known as the Chembur Venus Co-op.Hsg.Soc.Ltd. situate at Plot No.564A, Golf Links, Off A Sores Road, Chembur, Mumbai “ 400 071 popularly known as Flat No.82, 8th Floor, Chembur Co-op.Hsg.Soc.,Plot No.564A, Off A Soares Road, Golf Links, Chembur, Mumbai “ 400 071 (hereinafter referred to as the said mortgage property) and directing the petitioner to pay various amounts to the respondent no.1. 2. The petitioners were the original respondents whereas the respondent no.1 herein was the original claimant in the arbitral proceedings. None appeared for the respondents though served. Respondent no.2 is the arbitrator who was appointed by the resp...
Ramchandra Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-17-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, in Sessions Case No. 51 of 2011 on 02.5.2012, thereby convicting the present appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 Part II of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years together with rigorous imprisonment of two months in default of fine amount. 2. The prosecution case, in nut shell, is as under: In the month of January, 2011, Panjabrao Pardhane (P.W.9) was in-charge P.S.O. of police station Dhanora. On 27.1.2011 Gurudeo Shedmake (P.W.2) came in the police station and filed a written complaint. The said written complaint is at Ex.14. Necessary entry in that behalf was taken in the station diary. The complaint was in respect of physical atrocity on the victim. Therefore, after taking the entry ...
Sarala Dnyaneshwar Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2015
P.C. 1. This Application is moved for pre-arrest bail, as the applicant/accused is apprehending arrest for the offences punishable under sections 302, 323, 498A, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal code in C.R. No.I-215 of 2015 registered with Panchavati Police Station, Nashik. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that principal accused is a husband of deceased Aruna and the applicant/accused is her sister-in-law. The principal accused Jitendra was having illicit relations with her sister-in-law, i.e., applicant/accused and therefore, he used to torture his wife Aruna. On 14th June, 2015 Jitendra dropped applicant/accused to some other village and returned home on the same day at night. He picked up quarrel on trivial ground with deceased Aruna and poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. He locked the door from outside, took his son and went out. Aruna started shouting, so her landlord came there, opened the door and extinguished the fire. Aruna gave statement. Her dying declarati...
Dr. Ranjeet Ghatge Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2015
P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions, the learned additional public prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. 2. The petitioners in both the petitions are facing trial for the offence punishable under section 25 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for alleged violation of the Rule 9(4) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") made under the said Act. 3. Briefly stated, the Nursing Home using diagnostic techniques are supposed to maintain the record, as prescribed. One of the records maintained by the Nursing Home is Form "F". The word 'prescribed' is defined under section 2(l) of the Act. 'Prescribed' means prescribed by rules made under the Act. Rule 9 of the Rules is regarding maintenance ...
Narsing Dhondiba Pol Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2015
Oral Judgment: (Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.) 1. The appellant, who stands convicted by Additional Session Judge, Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.705 of 2004, vide judge dated 11.09.2008, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year, by this appeal, challenges his conviction and sentence. 2. Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows:- Deceased Aruna was the wife of the appellant. She had a daughter by name Swarupa and a son by name Pawankar (P.W.5) Alongwith them, she was residing in room No.216 in PCL Colony, Chembur. The appellant was working as Welder and Fitter and in relation to his job he used to go abroad. P.W.1 Madhavi is a social worker and residing in the same locality where the appellant and deceased were residing. 3. On 10.4.2004, the appellant had returned from abroad and he met P.W.1 Madhavi on 12.4.2004 in ...
Commissioner of Income-tax -3 Vs. Reliance Industrial Infrastructure L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2015
1. This appeal challenges the impugned order dated 12 March 2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal'). The appeal relates to the Assessment Year 1999-00. 2. The following questions of law are raised for our consideration: "(A) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was engaged in the business of letting out assets on hire and upholding CIT(A)'s order allowing higher rate of depreciation @ 40%? (B) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in dismissing Revenue's ground of appeal no.2 holding that the lease equalization credited to PandL Account over and above the lease rental cannot be considered as income and thereby upholding reducing of assessee's total income by lease equalization of Rs. 2,06,21,580/-, credited to PandL Account? (C) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in allowing entire expen...
Naman Hotels Private Ltd. and Others Vs. The Union of India through th ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-2015
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. These Petitions were argued together and though there is some difference in the factual position but, essentially the controversy is identical. Common submissions were canvassed and therefore, the Petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment 2. We admit each of these Petitions and proceed to dispose them of finally, by consent of the parties, by this judgment and order. Mr.Jetley and other Advocates waive service for respondents. 3. For the sake of convenience, we take facts in Writ Petition No.1755 of 2015. The Petitioner herein is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1956 and has its Registered office at the address mentioned in the cause title. The Petitioner claims that it was incorporated in India in December 1977 and has been recognized as a export house for the last 14 years. The petitioner is engaged in the provision of wide range of engineering, procurement, construction and management services as well as lump su...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »