Mumbai Court August 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.
Cipla Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
A.K. Menon, J. 1. The short point that arises in the present Cross Objection pertains to its maintainability in view of the fact that the Income Tax Appeal bearing Lodging No.1589 of 2010 was rejected vide order dated 9th November, 2010 for non-removal of office objections. The learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners in the Cross Objection submits that the Cross Objection maintainable notwithstanding the rejection of the appeal in view of the fact that the applicant had notice of the hearing of appeal and it is pursuant to said notice that the Cross Objection came to be filed and within time prescribed by law. It is an admitted position that the applicant did not file its own Income Tax Appeal within the time prescribed by law. 2. In order to help focus on the issue to be decided, it will be necessary to make note of a few dates: (i) The impugned Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the assessment year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 was passed on 17th February, 2010...
Balu Baburao Kadam Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
1. The appellant herein is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default S.I. for one year by the Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.186 of 1993 vide judgment and order dated 31.8.1996. Hence, this appeal. 2. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows :- The victim was working as an agricultural labourer. She was a minor in the year 1993. She was residing at Phaltan with her parents and an elder brother Shivaji. She has an elder sister Baby, who was married in the year 1991. Her brother Shivaji was working as a cleaner on a truck. The victim had studied in School upto 5th Standard and thereafter she was a dropout. In November 1992, her elder sister Baby had been to the maternal house for the purpose of maternity. On 18.11.1992, she had delivered a baby girl in Mahila Mandal Maternity Home at Phaltan. She was admitted in the ...
Ramsarup Industries Limited and Others Vs. Tata Capital Financial Serv ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. These two Appeals arise out of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge both dated 9 June 2016. Appeal (Lodg) No.276 of 2016 arises out of an order on Chamber Summons No.1609 of 2015 taken out by the Appellants wherein the Appellants inter alia prayed that the Respondents be directed to maintain status quo on disposal of the subject mortgaged property, sale of which was undertaken under earlier orders and finally in pursuance of the order dated 17 February 2014 passed by the Division Bench in Appeal No.41 of 2014. Today the stage of sale is that a deed of conveyance remains to be executed. The other appeal being Appeal (Lodg) No.275 of 2016 arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge on a Chamber Summons filed by the Respondents, wherein the Respondents had prayed that Appellant Nos.3 to 5 (original Respondents nos.3 to 5) be directed to execute a deed of conveyance jointly in respect of the properties as sold to the Petitioners in pursuance of t...
Dr. Shri Balaji Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
Oral Judgment: (V.L. Achliya, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for parties. 2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the petitioner herein seeks quashing of complaint bearing No.150 of 2016 filed by the respondent under Section 28(1) of Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and Amendment Act of 2003, (henceforth referred to as the "PCPNDT Act") on the grounds set out in detail in the petition. 3. Before adverting to appreciate the submissions advanced, it is necessary to consider few facts leading to filing of petition. The petitioner claims to be Doctor by profession and holds the degree as "Ayurved Visharad". He claims to be author of more than twenty books and composed twenty five healing music albums. Petitioner claims that he has played an active and significant role in promotion of Ayurved. He also claims that he has initiated the ...
Ujwala J. Patil Vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
1. This petition is purported to have been instituted as a 'public interest litigation' by the petitioner who claims to be the President of Mumbai Division of Maharashtra Machhimar Kruti Samiti. 2. As we were prima facie not satisfied that this is any genuine public interest litigation, we have heard Mr. Warunjikar and Mr. Balasaheb Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the said issue. At the hearing on 3 August 2016, Mr. Warunjikar made submissions in great details. He submitted that the petitioner undertakes social work and has raised several issues for protecting rights of fishermen. He submitted that the petitioner has obtained information under the Right to Information Act and on basis of the same, has instituted the present petition. He further submitted that from the information made available to the petitioner, it is clear that the SRA Scheme, which the petitioner impugns in public interest, has been approved without there being consent of 70% of the slum dwellers. He...
Sopan and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The facts giving rise to the present application are summarized as under: (a) The applicants are having their agriculture property bearing Survey No.17/1, situated at Mouza Talap, Tq. Manora, Dist. Washim admeasuring 1 Hectare 16 R. The said property is inherited by them from Vishwanath and it is under their cultivation. (b) Non applicant no.2-Vishnu is cultivating the adjacent agricultural field. He instituted a civil suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.47/2013 in the court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Manora and claimed restraint order against the applicant Nos.1 to 4 from entering the field survey no.17/1. The suit filed by non applicant no.2 is still pending on the file of C.J.J.D., Manora. (c) Nandkishor is the son of non applicant no.2. He was missing from 02.10.2015 and he was found dead on 03.10.2015. His dead body was found in common well...
Antonio Sergio Costa @ Tony Costa Vs. Rashi Amit Mehra and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
1. On 20/04/2016, a notice for final disposal was issued in this case. The parties are heard and the petition is being disposed off finally. 2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.132/2010 before the learned Civil Judge Junior Division at Canacona. The respondents are the defendants in the suit. The said suit was decreed ex-parte against the respondents on 15/03/2012. The petitioner filed Regular Execution Case No.11/2012 for execution of the decree. According to the respondents, they learnt about the passing of the ex-parte decree when the notice in the execution case was served on them in September, 2012 after which they filed CMA No.3/2012 before the Trial Court for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The Trial Court by order dated 9/07/2013 dismissed the application holding that the notice in the execution case was served on the respondents on the same address, as was mentioned in the Civil Suit. The Trial Court found that no affidavit was filed on beha...
Zilla Parishad Satara Through its Chief Executive Officer and Another ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-2016
P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The Civil Application is taken out by the Applicants (Original Petitioners) for being relieved from the responsibility of paying wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in terms of the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the Petition on 17 December 2013. The Division Bench was considering the Applicants' prayer for stay of execution and operation of the impugned award pending disposal of the Petition subject inter alia to an order in terms of Section 17-B requiring the Applicants to pay wages during the pendency of the Petition. It is the Applicants' case that they have duly paid full wages on the basis of the last drawn wages in terms of the Division Bench's order dated 17 December 2013 to the Respondent upto the date of his superannuation. (It is an admitted position that the Respondent has superannuated with effect from 1 June 2015.) It is not in dispute that wages payable till 31 May 2015 in acco...
Sarku Engineering Services SDN BHD Vs. Union of India, Through the Sec ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-2016
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. By this Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 4th January 2016 issued by Respondent No.2, banning the Petitioner from all future business dealings with Respondent No.2 on the ground that the Enquiry Officer, internally appointed by Respondent No.2, has come to the conclusion that the Petitioner was responsible for the delayed completion of the project for revamp of 26 Well Platforms. 3. Facts relevant for deciding this Writ Petition can be stated as follows:- Petitioner is a part of the Sapura Kencana Group, which is a Limited Company and is listed on the Stock Exchange of Malaysia. According to the Petitioner, it is the world's largest integrated pro...
Ishwar Tulsiram Wanjari and Others Vs. Kawdu Santosh Kabhe
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-03-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The lower appellate Court on 07.11.2015 has condoned the delay of 959 days (in the application, mentioned as 1000 days) caused in filing Misc. Civil Appeal No. 260 of 2015, challenging the decree passed by the trial Court granting declaration of title and possession of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. This is the subject matter of challenge in this revision application. 3. The case of the respondent-defendant before the lower appellate Court in the application for condonation of delay was that the respondent was not served in the matter and the decree passed by the trial Court was exparte. The lower appellate Court has recorded the finding in paragraph No. 9 of the impugned order, which is reproduced below. "9. On perusal of the copies of Rojnama Exh.31, it appears that NAs filed application on 2.7.2009 before learned lower Court in Spl. Civil Suit No. 1308/ 2008 vide Ex...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »