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.
Gajanan Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-09-2016
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Chandurkar, J.) 1. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment dated 21/08/2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kelapur in Sessions Trial No.23/2011 whereby the appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the Penal Code) and has been sentenced for imprisonment for life. He has also been sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default thereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. 2. The facts as can be gathered from the case of the prosecution are that the appellant was married to one Laxmi. As the appellant was having illicit relations with some other lady, he disliked his wife. The appellant used to harass her and used to sent her to her parental home. On 22/04/2011, at about 01:00 p.m., the appellant had beaten his wife-Laxmi and had asked her to leave her house. He thereafter poured kerosene upon her and set her on fire. The parents of the appel...
Commissioner of Income-tax-3, Mumbai Vs. General Atlantic (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
1. This Appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the "Act") takes exception to the order dated 31st January, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("Tribunal"). The impugned order dated 31st January, 2013 relates to Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Appellant-Revenue has re-framed the following question of law for our consideration: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in law holding that the assessee's activity of providing services is similar to the nature of services and activity of Carlyle India Advisors Pvt. Ltd. ignoring the fact that activities of the assessee's are comparable to merchant banking/investment banking activities?" 3. The respondent-assessee is a company registered in India and is a part of the General Atlantic Group (GA). The respondent-assessee provides private Equity Investment Advisory Services to its Associated Enterprise(AE) i.e. to General Atlantic Service ...
Jawansingh Ramsingh Gaud and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
1. The appellants were prosecuted on the allegation of having committed offences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the P.C. Act') The appellant no.1, at the material time, was a Sub-Inspector of Police. The appellant no.2 was not a public servant. The learned Special Judge for Greater Mumbai (appointed under section 3 of the P.C. Act) after holding a trial, convicted the appellant no.1 of offences punishable under section 7 and section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 1(one) year, and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- on each of the said two counts. The learned Special Judge convicted the appellant no.2 of an offence punishable under section 12 of the P.C. Act read with section 7 thereof, and sentenced him to suffer RI for 1(one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Being aggrieved by their conviction and the sentences imposed upon them by the learned Special Judge, the appellan...
Harvestdeal Securities Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
Oral Judgment: (M.S. Sonak, J.) 1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 19 February 2015 made by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). 2. In this case, the respondent Punjab National Bank (PNB) has instituted Original Application No. 100 of 2005 under section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDB) with the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Mumbai seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.94,36,041/- on basis of certain transactions, with which, we are not presently concerned. 3. On 7 March 2006, the petitioner filed detailed written statement, urging inter alia that the claim of PNB is barred by limitation, untenable on merits and in any case settled. After setting out their entire defence on merits, in paragraph 30 of the written statement, the petitioner also pleaded that the claim of PNB is not maintainable owing to the arbitration clause between the petitioner a...
M/s. Ashwatha Developers and Others Vs. Shree Vardhaman Stanakvasi Jai ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
1. By three separate appeals bearing nos.496 of 2015, 1210 of 2015 and 487 of 2015, the appellants (original defendants nos.1, 2, 3 and 4) have impugned the order passed by the learned trial Judge allowing the Notice of Motion No.1396 of 2010 filed by the respondent no.1 herein (original plaintiff) for interim relief. The order dated 30th January 2015 passed by the learned trial Judge dismissing the Notice of Motion No.3339 of 2013 filed by the original defendant nos.4 inter alia praying for vacating the order dated 16th June 2010 read with order dated 19th October 2010 and for staying the effect and implementation of order dated 16th June 2010 read with order dated 19th October 2010 has been impugned by the defendant no.4 in Appeal from Order No.495 of 2015. By consent of parties, all four appeals were heard together and are being disposed of finally. 2. Appeal from Order Nos.495 of 2015 and 496 of 2015 are filed by the original defendant nos.4. Appeal from Order No.487 of 2015 is fil...
Mahavir Prasad Jangid Vs. ECGC Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta J.) 1. Called out from final hearing board. Heard learned counsel for parties finally. 2. This is an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short Arbitration Act ) against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 7th July 2011 whereby the Section 34 Petition filed by the appellant (contractor) was dismissed, rejecting all claims on the ground of limitation. 3. The disputes arise out of an agreement between parties for carrying out renovation work at the Respondent's office premises. The Appellant (claimant - contractor) completed the work and was issued a certificate of completion on 29 June 2001. On 22 January 2001 the Appellant submitted his final bill. The Respondent made part payments on 6 June 2001 and 12 September 2001. As there arose disputes for non-payment of the balance amount, the Appellant invoked the arbitration agreement forming part of the contract on 2 September 2003 for balance payment of Rs.1,48,7...
Cecil Fernandes and Another Vs. Derrick Barnes
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this Writ petition, a roznama order dated 18/11/2014 purportedly passed on the application filed under Order 21 Rule 38 of C.P.C. for issuance of warrant of arrest to the judgment debtor(Exhibit D-14) has been challenged. 3. When an application under Order 21 Rule 38, C.P.C. praying for issuance of warrant of arrest of the Judgment Debtor is passed, without issuing a show cause notice, it would be necessary for the Executing Court to record its satisfaction as to why such notice is not necessary. Order 21 Rule 37 clearly lays down that a notice need not be issued to the judgment debtor only when the Court is satisfied, by affidavit or otherwise, that, the judgment debtor, with the object or effect of delaying the execution of the decree, is likely to abscond or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. Such satisfaction must be reflected in a specific order passe...
Mahabanoo Navroz Kotwal Vs. Piloo Fali Bomanji and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
A. Introduction 1. This probate action is unusual in many respects. For one thing, its size: the trial record alone is nearly 2000 pages, not counting the files of miscellaneous papers, interim applications and so on. There is the evidence of as many as eight witnesses, three for the Plaintiff and five for the Defendants. But beyond sheer volume, this case is decidedly more colourful than most. One of the Defendants witnesses is the co-executor of the Will of which probate is sought; he gave evidence against his spouse, and there is a record of their own separate divorce action, even now pending. Multiple narratives weave in and out of these papers. They tell us of a moneyed Parsi widow, gnarled, infirm, with significant loss of physical faculties at the time she supposedly made her Will; in competing accounts, a lady who, in a more halcyon time, was either vivacious and au courant or a subdued, lonely, nearly illiterate shadow much given to playing the piano. There are accounts of att...
Rehmaniya Urdu Education Society Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard Advocate Mr.Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4 and Mr.Akshay Naik, learned counsel for respondent no.5 by ssuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. 2. The question to be looked into is whether change in placement of petitioner and respondent no.5, respectively, on 4th of June, 2015 by the District Level Committed headed by respondent no.3 for grant of a School is in accordance with law or not. It is not in dispute that both, petitioner and respondent no.5, applied and in first consideration on 3rd of February, 2015, petitioner has been placed at Sr.No.1 while respondent no.5 has been placed at Sr.No.2 for grant of an unaided school at village Dhotra Shinde. 3. As required by the provisions of Section 6 of the Maharashtra Self-Financed Schools (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2012 (hereinafter to referred as 2012 Act') this provisional placement was published and objections were invit...
Rajesh Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-08-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. The present appeal is by accused against the judgment of conviction delivered by the Designated Court under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, thereby convicting the present appellant, a public servant working as a Constable at the relevant time with the traffic department of State Police. The appellant is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable under Sections 13(i)(d) read with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act of (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and was sentenced under Section 7 of the Act to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and for an offence punishable under Section 13(i)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. 3. The few facts, as are necessary for deciding the present ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »