Mumbai Court February 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.
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Vidarbha, Nagpur M/s. Manganese Ore In ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-11-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at the instance of the department, following four questions have been referred to this Court: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T. was correct in holding that the payments of Rs.86,554/- made to D.S. Basu of M/s Dastur and Co., and others is a revenue expenditure? Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T. was correct in holding that the payment of Rs.81,885/- made to Mountain States Research and Development U.S.A. is a revenue expenditure ? Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T. was correct in holding that the payment of Rs.8,06,254/- made to Seltrust Engineering Co. Ltd. is a revenue expenditure? Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T. was correct in holding that an amount of Rs.29,52,638/- incurred in construction of house of labourer is a revenue ...
Mukund Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-11-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard with the consent of the parties. 3. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking directions to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider part time service of 13 Years, 11 months, and 16 days on the post of Part Time Librarian, converting into Full Time service of 7 Years and Plus actual full time service of 17 years, totalling 24 years qualifying service rendered by the petitioner in respondent No.5 School, for the purpose of grant of pension and pensionary benefits, applying the ratio laid down in the Judgment delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No.8289/2013 [Shalini Asaram Akkarbote Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others] decided on 29th April, 2014. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that, he retired as Librarian from the respondent No.5 Bhagirath English School, Jalgaon on 31st July, 2008. He was, initially, appointed as Part time Librarian on 16.08.1977. He continuously w...
Puja Prasad Patankar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2016
P.C. 1. The petitioner-wife files this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to challenge the order dtd. 6th February, 2015 passed by the Sessions Court, Kolhapur dismissing her Criminal Appeal No.38 of 2013 preferred against the order of the trial court dtd.4th June, 2012. Respondent no.2 is the mother-in-law of the petitioner and respondent no.3 is her husband. The petitioner has filed Summary Criminal Case No.57 of 2012 under Section 25 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ("The Act" for short) against respondent no.3, the husband. 2. The marriage of the petitioner and respondent no.3 took place in the year 1997. They have a daughter born from the marriage wedlock. The marriage was an inter-religion marriage and was strongly opposed by the parents of respondent no.3. The petitioner has been working in the Health Department of Zilla Parishad since prior to the marriage and as such had been re...
Janardhan Vassudev Venzi Naik Vs. Digambar Krishna Naik and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-11-2016
1. Heard Mr. J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 2 to 6. 2. Admit. 3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 4. Mr. P. S. Lotlikar, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent no.1 and Mr. V. Rodrigues, learned Government Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 6. 5. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant/original defendant no. 6 against the order dated 3.9.2014 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-I, FTC, South Goa, Margao, on the application for temporary injunction filed by the respondent no.1/plaintiff in the Civil Suit No.52/2013, by which the application of the respondent no.1/plaintiff for temporary injunction has been allowed. Therefore, the present appeal. 6. Parties are referred to as per the...
Krishna Gopinath Mali Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2016
V.K. Tahilramani Acting C.J. (Oral) 1.This appeal is preferred by the appellant-original accused against the judgment and order dated 17.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 311 of 2013. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 506 of IPC. For the offence under Section 302 of IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- i/d R.I. for three months. For the offence under Section 506 of IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to R.I. for two years. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under: (i) Deceased Shankar was the father of PW 1 Deepak. Deepak is the first informant in the present case. Deepak was residing at Chunabhatti, Mumbai along with his wife, father and mother. The house of the appellant was situated opposite the house of Deepak. Vidya was the wife of Deepak. Vidya was earlier married to the appellant. Thereafter V...
Jaikumar Kailas Gedam Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2016
Oral Judgment: (Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.) 1. This appeal is preferred by original accused challenging his conviction and sentence, as recorded by the judgment and order dated 13.1.2014, in Sessions Case No.179 of 2012, by the Sessions Judge, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 377 of Indian Penal Code for committing rape on his own daughter and further having unnatural carnal intercourse with her. He has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on the first count; and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six month on the second count. By the impugned judgment the appellant is further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 377 of Indian Penal Code, for committing carnal intercourse with his own son and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years an...
Balu Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-10-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard both sides. 2. The present appellants were convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon for the offences punishable under section 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment and order dated 26/04/2000 passed in Sessions Case No.21 of 1999. They were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.7000/- each. They alongwith other accused nos.3 to 5 were acquitted of the offences punishable under section 420, 109 r/w. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The other accused were also acquitted of the offences punishable under section 395 r/w. 397 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentences, these two separate appeals are preferred by the present appellants. 3. Appellant - Balu in Criminal Appeal No.361 of 2000 was arrayed as accused no.1 while appellant - Jalindar in Criminal Appeal No.69 of 2001, was arrayed as accused no.2 in the said Sessions Case. 4. The prosecution case, in short is as unde...
Shivaji Tippanna Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2016
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, A.C.J.) 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant - original accused against the judgment and order dated 13.01.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaysingpur in Sessions Case No.5 of 2012. By the said judgment and order, the learned Session Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default R.I. for one year. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (a) The appellant along with wife Anita (deceased) and sons Pramod and Vinod (PW 5) were residing together at Village Arjunwad, District Kolhapur. The appellant used to always quarrel with his wife Anita. The appellant also used to assault his wife Anita, however, she used to keep quiet and not react. (b) The incident occurred on 14.12.2011. At about 12.45 p.m., PW 1 Sachin whose house was situated near the house of the appellant heard the noise of one lad...
Kamal Construction Company Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2016
1. This appeal challenges an order passed by District Court, Nashik in a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. By the impugned order, the learned District Judge rejected the petition filed by the Appellant herein challenging the impugned award passed by a sole arbitrator in the matter of reference of disputes between the parties. 2. The disputes between the parties arise out of a contract for the work of construction of CTC-III for CRPF at Mutkhed, District Nanded S/H : external water supply line awarded by the Respondents, who were originally claimants before the sole arbitrator, to the Appellant, who was the Respondent in the arbitration reference. It is the case of the Respondent employer that the Appellant contractor having been unable to secure completion of the work by the stipulated date and thereby having rendered himself liable for action under Clause 3 of the General Conditions of Contract applicable to the subject contract, the Engineer-in-...
Aditya Developers Vs. Nirmal Anand Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2016
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of Court Receiver in respect of the property as described in Exhibit-A with power to take possession of flats from respondent nos.2 to 7 or their family members or any person found in possession thereof and hand over the same to the petitioner for demolition and re-development in accordance with the re-development agreement dated 25.9.2013. (Hereinafter referred to as 'said property') 3. In the present proceeding, respondent no.1 Society entered into a Re-development Agreement with the petitioner on 25.9.2013 for re-development of their property as described in Exhibit-A (hereinafter referred to as 'said Agreement'. The said agreement was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar of Assurance, Mumbai Suburban District, Bandra. As per the said agreement, the Society agreed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the peti...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »