Mumbai Court March 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.
Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-4, Mumbai Vs. Income Ta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
1. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Revenue challenges the order dated 27.4.2015 passed under Section 245D (2C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Income-tax Settlement Commission (Commission). 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the impugned order of the Commission under Section 245D(2C) of the Act has not rendered definite findings with regard to its contention that there has been failure on part of the Respondent Nos.2 to 22 to make a full and true disclosure of (undisclosed) income. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the Commission ought to have declared the settlement applications of the Respondent Nos.2 to 22 as 'invalid' rather than allow it to proceed further. 3. Mr. Singh, the learned counsel for the Revenue submits that in an identical fact situation, this Court in the CIT v. Income-tax Settlement Commission [2014] 365 ITR 87 (Bom.) (hereinafter called ITSC No. 2) set aside the order of the Commission passed under S...
Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Others Vs. Ramesh Bhimrao Narayankar and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
Cav Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. On 30 March 2012, while dealing with Writ Petition No.126 of 2012, a learned Single Judge of this Court was confronted with two judgments, both rendered by Division Benches of this Court, on the point involved, namely whether a retired teacher can be a member of the Inquiry Committee to inquire into the misconduct of Respondent no.1 appointed as Assistant Teacher in Petitioner no.2 school? 2. The management was aggrieved and dissatisfied with the findings of the School Tribunal: firstly, that the constitution of the inquiry committee was defective; And secondly, that the inquiry and the punishment imposed on this teacher were both bad in law. The School Tribunal therefore directed the management to reinstate the School Teacher with full back wages but reserving liberty to the management to conduct a fresh inquiry against him. 3. One Division Bench sitting at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.5867 of 2008 (Leelatai d/o. Annapa Patil Vs. The State o...
Bhushan K. Borse Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
P.C. 1. Both these anticipatory bail applications are decided together as both the applicants are facing prosecution under sections 304 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code in the same FIR lodged by one Mr.Sayyed Rehman Khan with the Thane Nagar police station, Thane. Anticipatory Bail Application No.446 of 2016 is appearing on Board for the first time. However, as the Investigating Officer is present and as Anticipatory Bail Application No.347 of 2016 is also on board today, it is also taken up for hearing together. The Anticipatory Bail Application No.446 of 2016 is filed by co-accused in the same C.R. i.e., No.I-22 of 2016 with the Thane Nagar Police station on 7.2.2016, at the instance of one Sayyed Rehman Khan who is the same complainant in Anticipatory Bail Application No.347 of 2016. In Anticipatory Bail Application No.347 of 2016, this Court by order dated 26.2.2016 has granted interim anticipatory bail and also directed the applicant-accused to attend the concerned police station. ...
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Chandraprabha and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. In Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 138 of 2013 filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 5,71,800/- together with interest at the rate of 8.50% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its actual realization. This award dated 30.04.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal by the National Insurance Company Limited. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant Shri Anthony submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding 30% additional compensation on account of loss of future prospects and has also committed an error in awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of consortium, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection. He further submits that the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 8.50% per annum which should not have been more than 7.5%. He has relied upon the deci...
Subhash and Another Vs. Vinod Nivratti Kamble and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. Considering the conspectus of this matter, I had requested the learned Advocates practising Labour Laws to assist the Court. Accordingly, S/Shri T.K. Prabhakaran, V.R. Mundada, S.V. Dankh, Avishkar Shelke, P.V. Barde and Y.R. Marlapalle, learned Advocates have rendered their assistance in this matter. 3. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 13.7.2015 delivered by the Industrial Court, Latur, by which the revision petition filed by the petitioners has been allowed (in fact partly) and they have been directed to address the Labour Court in the pending Criminal Complaint No.6/2011 filed u/s 48(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, as to why process should not be issued against them. 4. By this petition and considering the contentions of the respondents, an issue has been raised ...
Sumit Siddramappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
P.C. 1. The application is moved for pre arrest bail as the applicant/accused is facing charges for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No.505 of 2015 registered with Goregaon police station, Mumbai. The offence was registered at the instance of prosecutrix on 7th October, 2015. 2. It is the case of the prosecutrix that she and the applicant/ accused were known to each other. They were in love and the applicant/accused promised to marry with her. The applicant/accused demanded sexual relation with her. They used to meet in hotel and stay there. She also helped the applicant financially. It is the contention of the prosecutrix that the applicant/accused used to keep physical relations with her even though she refuses for the same and he used to assault her. In May, 2015 she conceived out of their relationship. However, the applicant/accused told her to abort and therefore she forcibly aborted. Thereafter, she found that the appli...
Simao Oliveira and Others Vs. State of Goa, through the Chief Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Shri Rohit Bras De Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for the Respondent no. 1 and Mr. C. A. Ferreira, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 8. 2. Th above Petition, inter alia, prays for direction to remove the encroachment of an illegal house on the public nallah/bundh falling in the property surveyed under no. 69/3 belonging to the Communidade of Sernabatim. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the Petitioner are that the present Petition has been filed for the inaction on the part of the Respondents-State Authorities of not having acted upon the representation made by the Petitioners in bringing to the knowledge of the Respondents that the public nallah belonging to the Communidade of Sernabatim falling in the property surveyed under no. 69 of Sernabatim Village has come to be obstructed by the Respondent nos 10 to 12 who have illegally constructed a residential hou...
Amardeep Singh Chudha and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
Oral Judgment: (A.M. Badar, J.) 1. On oral prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No.2 is allowed to be deleted at his risk. Heard. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), petitioners are praying for quashing of the F.I.R. registered against them by Amboli police statIon, Mumbai vide C.R. No. 388/2015 for offence punishable under section 294 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the 'I.P.C.'). 3. The facts in nutshell leading to the institution of the present petition can be summarized as under:- On 12th December, 2015 informant Jagjit Girmile, a Journalist, initially informed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Andheri, Mumbai that a private party is going in Flat C-201, Evershine Cosmic, Kureshi Compound, Andheri (W), Mumbai wherein som...
Ulhas Pandharinath Chodankar and Another Vs. The Senior Civil Judge, C ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur and Others, (1999) 2 SCC 577, this being a Writ Petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge dated 30.01.2016, it is directed that the respondent-Judicial Officer be deleted forthwith. Cause title be amended accordingly forthwith. 3. After deletion of the sole respondent from the array of party-respondent in the cause title of this petition, the question relating to legality and correctness of the impugned order still remains and even in the absence of a specific person added as respondent-party, having regard to the nature of the supervisory powers of the Court, this question can be dealt with in such a situation. Accordingly, the question of legality and correctness is being considered in the li...
Kishore Kakumal Keswani Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-2016
P.C. 1. The application is moved for transit bail. The applicant/accused is facing charges for the offence punishable under Sections 328 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No.17 of 2016 registered with Anjuna police station, North Goa. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that the alleged offence of rape has taken place on 10th February, 2016 in Goa. The First Information Report was lodged on 11th February, 2016 at Anjuna police station, North Goa. The learned counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that the applicant/ accused be given transit bail to enable him to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Goa and to make necessary arrangement as he has received the notice of appearance by the investigating officer from the Anjuna police station, Goa on 6th March, 2016. She further submitted that one Anil Jaisinghani who is the business rivalry of the applicant/accused has inserted this false prosecution against him. She submits that at Exhibit B the...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »