Mumbai Court October 2016 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.
Panna Surendra Mehta Vs. Purnima Latik Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS A. PARTIES AND THE LITIGATION HISTORY..................... 3 B. THE WILL DATED 10TH AUGUST 2002 ........................... 5 C. THE CAVEAT and AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT........................ 6 D. ISSUES ................................................................................... 7 E. THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD............................................ 8 F. RE: ISSUES NOS. 1 AND 2.................................................. 10 G. RE: ISSUE NO. 3 ...................................................................17 H. RE: ISSUE NO. 3A................................................................ 23 I. CONCLUSION and ORDER................................................... 28 A. PARTIES AND THE LITIGATION HISTORY 1. Jaswantbhai Natwarlal Jolia ( Jaswantbhai ) died on 26th January 2004 (Ex. A in evidence, Vol. D, p. 224).He left a Will dated 10th August 2002 (Copy at Ex. B in evidence, Vol. D, pp. 225-226. Original deposited in Court).The Plaintiff, Panna S. Me...
Ashok Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-14-2016
Oral Judgment: (S.S. Shinde, J.) 1. This Appeal has been filed by the original accused No.1 who has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon in Sessions Case No.32 of 2012 on 1st April 2013 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( I.P.C. in short) and has been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The Appellant has also been convicted under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is as under A). Accused No.1 Ashok is the husband, accused No.2 Dadarao is the father-in-law and accused No.3 Sau. Shahubai is the mother-in-law of the deceased Anita. The accused are residents of village Hivra, Tq-Majalgaon, Dist-...
Harsha Pradeep Patil Vs. Sayankabai Ragho Patil and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-13-2016
1. The petition is filed to challenge the order made on Exhibit 43 from Regular Civil Suit No.181/2012 which is pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon. The said suit is filed by the present petitioner for relief of partition of joint Hindu family property against brother-in-law and others. Husband of the petitioner is dead and so she has claimed the share of her husband from the joint Hindu family property. The application at Exhibit 43 was filed by the defendants for rejection of plaint on the ground that present petitioner, plaintiff has not paid requisite court fees on the claim. The petitioner has not paid court fees as she is claiming that she is exempted from the payment of Court fees in view of the Government Notifications issued in this regard. The trial Court has held that the subject matter of the suit, the relief of partition, is not covered by the said Government Notifications and so the application is allowed and the petitioner is directed to pay...
Shaikh Mustafa Yasin Vs. Sharad Ganesh Tisgaonkar and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2016
1. By this appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant (original defendant) has impugned the judgment and decree dated 9th January, 2013 passed by the learned District Judge 5, Pune, allowing the appeal (Civil Appeal No.102 of 2007) filed by the respondents (original plaintiffs) and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in Special Civil Suit No.113 of 1994 dated 20th November, 2006 and partly allowing the said suit. 2. The learned District Judge 5, Pune directed the appellant (original defendant) to deliver possession of 4 Khan premises situated at second floor, CTS No.212, Nana Peth, Pune to the original plaintiffs on or before 15th April, 2015 and directed the defendant to deliver the symbolic possession of the share of Godubai to the extent of half share. 3. The first appellate Court also declared that the plaintiffs had acquired the right, title and interest in the suit prop...
Dr. Alvaro Alberto Mousinho de Noronha Ferreira Vs. State of Goa, thro ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-13-2016
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Mrs. A. Agni, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Petition, inter alia, prays for a direction to quash and set aside the communication dated 19.09.2013 of the Deputy Collector directing the petitioner to pay conversation fees in terms of the Goa Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act 2013 and accordingly direct the Respondents to recalculate the fees payable by the Petitioner on the basis of the area of conversion at the rates applicable on the date of making of the application dated 08.03.2013 with further direction that the excess fees recovered from the Petitioner towards conversion fees be refunded with interest at the rate of 12% per annum thereof. 3. Briefly, it is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner along with the other co-owners of the property, had applied for permission under Section 32 of the Goa Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code 1968 to con...
State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Mahendra Bhaskar Pavre and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-13-2016
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Accused Mahendra Bhaskar Pavre has been sentenced to death by Additional Sessions Judge (Link Court), Mehkar vide judgment dated 16.05.2016 in Sessions Trial No.42/2014. Prosecution case in brief is P.W.5 Chhaya is his wife. Deceased Ku. Kalyani (5 years) and deceased Ku. Shital (2 years) were their daughters. They have a son by name Yuvraj, who was then 7 years old. On 24.01.2014, father of Chhaya by name Tejrao Vithoba Thorve (P.W.6) came to her residence at village Jaulka at about 3 p.m. Accused returned back to home at about 5 p.m. in an inebriated condition. He asked Chhaya why her father had arrived, quarreled with her, beat her up by fists and slaps. He also slapped Tejrao when latter tried to save his daughter. Chhaya then cooked food and after dinner family went to sleep. Chhaya and her two daughters slept inside the room, while Tejrao and Yuvraj slept in verandah of house of Bhaskar, who happens to be father of accused. Accused slept in front of the ...
Bombay Suburban Electric Supply Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Bo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2016
S.C. Gupte, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( Tribunal ) has referred the following question of law for our consideration: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not entitled to claim weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Act ? 2. The Assessment Year is 1979-80. 3. For the subject assessment year, the assessee claimed weighted deduction on expenditure amounting to Rs.5,36,77,345/- incurred by it on items enumerated in Section 35B of the Act. Section 35B provides for export markets development allowance, allowing weighted deduction in a sum equal to one and one-third times the amount of expenditure incurred for various export related activities enumerated in clause (1)(a) of Section 35B during the previous year by a domestic company. 4. The case of the assessee is that by an agreement dated 18 June 1977, entered...
Selva Raju Nadar and Others Vs. Mariano Mesquita and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-13-2016
1. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners herein are the original defendant nos. 2 to 6, while the respondent nos. 1 to 13 are the original plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in their original capacity. The plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No. 16/2013, against petitioners and others for permanent and mandatory injunction. The subject matter of dispute is 16,168 square metres of land out of survey no. 60/2 (old matriz no. 786) of the property known as Um Terreno Oiteral Aforado situated at Sancoale. 3. The case made out in the plaint is that the larger area bearing matriz no. 786 situated at Sancoale, Dabolim Village, Mormugao, was belonging to Shri Marcal alias Joao Paulo Mesquita, who died intestate leaving behind his moiety holder, Smt. Joaquina Mesquita (defendant no. 1). Marcal Mesquita sold 3,932 square metres of land to Shri Domingos Dia...
Cavelossim Villagers Forum Vs. The State of Goa, Through its Chief Sec ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-13-2016
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. D. Lawande, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the Respondent nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5, Mr. Palekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 2 and Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 6 and 7. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents waives service. 3. The above Public Interest Litigation filed by the Petitioners, inter alia, prays for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent nos. 2 to 5 to act and take necessary action against the Respondent nos. 6 and 7 with regard to the illegal development of the construction activity in the property surveyed under no. 90/1, 90/5, 90/6, 91/1, 91/3 to 91/10 of Village Cavelossim and also for a direction to the Respondent nos. 6 and 7 to stop all such activity in the property surveyed under no. 90/1, 90/5, 90/6, 91/1, 91/3 to 91/10 of Village Cavelossim. 4. Briefly, it is ...
Rajendra Bakhle Vs. Kishore Nadkarni
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-13-2016
1. This is an appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 22.10.2008 passed by the learned District Judge at Margao in Arbitration Application No. 1/2007. By the impugned judgment, the learned District Judge has dismissed the application, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act, for short), filed by the appellant thereby confirming the award dated 31.03.2006 passed by the learned Arbitrator. 2. The brief facts are that there was an agreement between the parties dated 08.02.2003/18.02.2003, under which the respondent had undertaken the repair works of a barge owned by the appellant on no cure, no pay basis , which is the usual practice in marine salvage operations. As per the material terms of the agreement, the contract was to be executed in two phases. The relevant clauses regarding the time period are clause nos. 7 and 10, which read thus: 7. Time period [cl.1(a)]: The first phase of work will be in seven days after starting the work on receiving t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »