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.
Shankarrao Bhagwantrao Patil and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra T ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
1. Two Appeals are filed by the original claimants and remaining two Appeals are filed by the State Govt. to challenge the Judgments and Awards of L.A.R. No. 1243/2002 and 1244/2002, which were pending in the Court of the Civil Judge [Sr.Division], Osmanabad. As the compensation is enhanced u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act [for short, 'Act'], State Govt. has challenged the decision and as the compensation is not given as per some sale instances proved by the claimants, they have filed the Appeals. Both sides are heard. 2. The lands of both the claimants are acquired for the construction of residential quarters for the servants of State Govt. 40 R. land of claimant from Reference No. 1243/2002 is acquired from S.No. 220/4/b. 20 R. portion from the same land of the claimant from Reference No. 1244/2002 is acquired for the same purpose and for the purpose of construction of road and for aforesaid purpose one more land of 30 R. portion from S.No. 212/2/6 of the claimant from Reference No...
ICICI Bank Limited and Another Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greate ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
1. The challenge in this petition is to the notices (Exhibits A-1 to A-7) and the order dated 24 October 2007 (Exhibit I) requiring the petitioners to obtain permission and pay fees for the purposes of displaying illuminated signboards upon the petitioners bank premises, ATM centres, extension counters. The petitioners basically contend that such display does not constitute 'advertisement' for the purposes of section 328-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (said Act) and therefore, the insistence on the part of the municipal authorities (respondents) to even regulate the same, is ultra vires. 2. The petitioners had initially instituted writ petition no. 2377 of 2002 when when confronted with the notices issued by the respondents in the purported exercise of powers conferred by sections 328 and 328-A of the said Act. This court, by judgment and order dated 8 October 2002, mainly relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Municipal Corporat...
Mohd. Imran Ali Rizwan Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
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 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Assault Act in C.R. No.I-258 of 2015 registered with Nalasopara police station, Dist. Palghar. The offence is registered at the instance of Kum. Humera Shaikh on 6th September, 2015. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that at the time of the incident which is taken place in December, 2014, the prosecutrix was 16 years of old. She had friendly relations with applicant/accused. The acquaintance between them turned into love and therefore the applicant/accused took the prosecutrix to his house and promised her to marry. Then the applicant/accused have forcible sexual intercourse with her. It is the case of the prosecutrix that thereafter on February, 2015 and in July, 2015 again the applicant called her to his house at Nalasopara and threatened h...
Shivaram and Others Vs. Vrundavani and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner no.1 is original defendant no.1 whereas the petitioner nos.2 to 4 are original defendant nos.9 to 11. The Regular Civil Suit No.155/2009 is filed by respondent nos.1 and 2, who are plaintiffs, in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Paranda, for declaration of ownership, partition and separate possession of their ancestral and joint family properties. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 18.2.2013 delivered by the trial Court by which application (Exhibit 110) in Regular Civil Suit No. 155/2009 seeking amendment to the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 has been allowed. While issuing notice, this Court has stayed the suit by order dated 13.3.2013 and since then the suit has not progressed. 4. Shri Devkate, learned Advocate for the petitioners, has strenuously criticized the impugned order. His submissions can be summarized as follows: a] The suit pr...
State Bank of India and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, through the S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the following declarations and reliefs : (a) that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction and declare that the Maharashtra Tax Laws(Levy and Amendment)Act, 2013 insofar as it enacts the Stamp Act Amendment (Exhibit A) is ultra vires and void on account of being viiolative of Article 14 of the Constitution and being beyond the legislative competence and power of the Stte Legislature and also for being vague, arbitrary and irrational and be pleased to quash the same. (b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction to declare that the Maharashtra Act No. X of 2012 insofar as it enacts Registration Act Amendments (Exhibit B) is ultra vires and void on account of not only be...
Shashikant B. Bhagat Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Goa and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
K.L. Wadane, J. 1. Heard Ms. A. Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. M. Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. 3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice on behalf of the respondents. 4. The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to grant sanction to prosecute the respondent No.6 for the offence punishable under Sections 427 and 447 of I.P.C. 5. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- The petitioner is a co-owner of the property surveyed under No.103/2 situated at Nagarcem, Palolem Village Canacona-Goa. In the aforesaid property the father of the petitioner had constructed residential house. The petitioner along with his family members were residing in the said house. 6. On 18.8.2009, when the petitioner was inside the house, the Chief Officer of the Canacona...
Kazi Mohamad Issac and Others Vs. Nagesh Babusso Gaudo and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Ryan Menezes, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondents. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the original plaintiffs/appellants are challenging the order dated 01.06.2015 passed by the learned District Judge-2, Panaji in Regular Civil Appeal No. 36/2010. By the impugned order, the application (Exhibit-24) for production of additional document i.e. the certificate dated 13.07.2012 issued by Mr. Umesh Phaldesai, Civil Engineer and Surveyor and the application (Exhibit-25) for amendment of the plaint, at the appellate stage, have been dismissed. 3. The brief facts are that the plaintiffs claim to be the owners of the property better known as 'Jawalychi Rai' or 'Tolvottem' situated at Bethora, Ponda, Goa, which is registered under no. 5838. According to the petitioners, the said property is registered under matriz nos. 1077 and 1078 and it is having old cadastral survey no. 70 and under the new survey...
Prashant Rajaram Naik and Others Vs. The State of Goa, Through its Chi ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents no.1 to 6, Mr. S.S. Kantak, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondents no.7(i) to 7(v) and Mr. S. Karpe holding for Mr. V. Pangam, Advocate for respondent no.9. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. 3. Upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, the above petition can be disposed of on a short point raised by the petitioners that inspite of objections raised by the petitioners with regard to the development activity carried out by the respondent no.7 in the subject property, no action was taken by the concerned authority. 4. Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that according to the petitioners the subject pro...
Director of Income-tax(IT)-I, Mumbai Vs. Credit Lyonnais
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
1. This Appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 (Act) challenges the order dated 22nd May 2013 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The impugned order relates to AY 2001-02. 2. Mr Tejveer Singh, learned counsel for the Revenue, urges following questions for our consideration:- "(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Tribunal has erred in holding that interest earned on NOSTRO a/c is taxable when in fact assessee withdrew its challenge due to the Revenue's additional ground of consequential disallowance u/s 14A ?" "(2) Without prejudice, if this Court decides that the interest earned on NOSTRO A/c is not taxable, then, consequential disallowance u/s 14A may be directed ?" "(3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the provisions of section 40(a)(i) were not applicable as the assessee was not obliged to withhold taxes u/s 195 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ?" "(4) Whether on the f...
Kshetra Mahableshwar Devasthan Trust, Through its Trustees and Others ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-2016
1. By this second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants (original plaintiffs) have impugned the order and judgment dated 22nd September 2011 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Satara dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants and confirming the decree passed by the learned trial Judge in a suit filed by the appellants against the respondents (original defendants) praying for submission of the accounts of the profits earned from the suit properties from 24th August 1943 till the date of the suit and for an order and decree against the defendants to pay 50% of the amount of profits earned and realised by the defendants from 24th August 1943 till the date of filing the suit with a minimum of Rs.45,000/- and for various other reliefs. 2. By an order dated 29th September 2014 passed by this Court, it was directed that this second appeal deserves to be heard finally at the admission stage. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »