Mumbai Court September 2016 Judgments
Somaiya Organo-Chemicals Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
S.C. Gupte, J. 1. By this Reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( Tribunal ) has referred the following questions of law for our opinion: (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the limit of Rs.40,000/- laid down in Section 37(3A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, could not be proportionately increased because the previous year relevant for the assessment year was seventeen months instead of twelve months? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs.28,983/- transferred out of Profit and Loss Account to Storage Fund for Molasses and Alcohol account to meet with the statutory requirements of Ethyl Alcohol (Price Control) Amendment Order, 1971, was not an admissible deduction in working out the business income? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Shivpad Gavane and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned APP for the first and second respondents. None appears for the third respondent. Even on 1st September 2016 and 29th September 2016, none appeared for the third respondent. 2. The prayer in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short CrPC) is for quashing the First Information Report (FIR) registered for the offence under sections 366, 452 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The third respondent is the first informant. The third respondent is the mother of the second petitioner. The maiden name of the second petitioner is Sweta. The allegation in the FIR is that on 23rd March 2011, there was SSC examination of the sister of the second petitioner. The mother of the second petitioner had been to the school for dropping the sister of the second petitioner. It is alleged that on the same date, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Rahul Uttam Suryavanshi Vs. Sunil Manikchand Kasliwal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-2016
1. By this Appeal from Order, the appellant (original defendant) has impugned the order dated 8th June, 2016 passed by the learned District Judge 3, Malegaon allowing the application filed by the respondent (original plaintiff) i.e. Ex.5 in Trade Mark Suit No. 01 of 2015 thereby restraining the defendant from manufacturing, trading, offering or dealing in his product Sanala Lime Plaster under the name of 'SUPER MOR CHHAP' which is deceptively and phonetically similar to that of the plaintiff till the decision of the suit. The learned trial judge however made it clear that the defendant would be at liberty to manufacture and sale the said product by using any other different trade mark. The parties described in this order are described as they were described in the proceedings before the learned trial judge. Some of the relevant facts for deciding this appeal are as under:- 2. The plaintiff is the owner of the and proprietor of the trade mark of 'MOR CHHAP' under the provisions of the T...
Tag this Judgment!Dipak Development Corporation Vs. Veena Vithaldas Sampat and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.10.2014 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai in an unregistered Notice of Motion in S.C. Suit No.5540 of 2007. By the said order, the Trial Court has rejected the Notice of Motion filed by the present appellant. By the said Notice of Motion, the appellant was seeking the relief of interim injunction restraining respondent Nos.3 and 25 from creating any third party interest in the suit flat bearing No.201 in Building 'C' at Khajuria House, Khajuria Nagar, Kandivali (W), Mumbai. The reasons assigned by the Trial Court for dismissal of this Notice of Motion are two fold. The first reason is that, vide the order dated 19.12.2007 passed in Notice of Motion No.3069 of 2007 by this Court, the interim relief of injunction was granted restraining original defendant Nos.1 to 9, 15 to 19 and 21 to 23 from creating third party interest or disposing of the original suit property in any event. The Trial Court observed that respon...
Tag this Judgment!Rajmal Namdeo Bhagwat and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-29-2016
1. The petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India to challenge the order made by the learned Additional District Collector, Jalgaon in Dispute Application No. 31/2016 which was filed by present respondent No. 3 under the provision of section 10-1A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). Both the sides are heard. 2. The petitioners were elected to Village Panchayat Londhri (Bk), Tahsil Jamner, District Jalgaon in general elections of Village Panchayat held in the year 2015. They had contested the elections from reserved category. Along with the nomination forms, they had filed their caste certificates, but within six months from the date of elections, they did not file the caste validity certificate and so, a person from the same village had filed aforesaid dispute for seeking disqualification of the present petitioners. Notices were given to the present petitioners. They filed their reply and they cont...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Singh Bisht Vs. Canara Bank, Head Office-112-J
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-2016
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the decision of the Respondent Canara Bank in refusing to the petitioner employment on compassionate ground and /or the benefits of the lumpsum exgratia amount under the 2005 Scheme in lieu of compassionate appointment. Therefore, if the relief of compassionate employment is granted to the petitioner then, in that case the relief of exgratia payment to be paid would not be available. 2. We may at the outset observe that the application which was made by the Petitioner for compassionate appointment was well in time, however, the manner in which the Petitioner was treated by the Respondent-Bank, as evident from the correspondence, in our opinion, lacked absolute human sensitivity. For the present, we stop at this. 3. The Petitioner's father Mohan K. Singh Bisht was working with the Respondent-Bank as Armed Guard at Currency Chest, Fort branch of the Respondent. On 14 July ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandanlal Mangalprasad Jaiswal and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-29-2016
Oral Judgment: (Common) 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. By impugned order dated 08.08.2016, CLIII license possessed by the petitioners has been cancelled in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 54 (1)(c) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. In the order impugned, certain reports have been relied upon, which undisputedly were not supplied to the petitioners. It is merely on the basis of data reflected in paragraph (3) of the order impugned about the increase in sale of country liquor within a span of one year that the inference has been drawn about the possibility of illegal sale of liquor in prohibited Chandrapur District. The existence of an alternate remedy of preferring an appeal under Section 137 of the Bombay Prohibition Act in such a case not be of much consequence. 3. The learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondents states that all the documents relied upon in the order impugned for taking action...
Tag this Judgment!Sharad and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspect ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. This Criminal Application is filed taking exception to the First Information Report bearing Crime No.I-344/2015 registered with the Pathardi Police Station, Pathardi, District Ahmednagar on 28.10.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Respondent no.2, who is the informant, filed First Information Report (for short FIR ) stating therein that her marriage was performed with applicant no.1 Sharad on 23rd February, 2015. Initially, she was treated well, however, thereafter applicant nos. 1 to 3 started ill-treating her and asked her to bring Rs.15 lacs from her parents and maternal uncle for construction of Hospital at Ahmednagar. It is further stated that the applicants, on not fulfilling the demand, started abusing and assaulting respondent no.2 and also suspecting her chastity. The other relatives i.e. appl...
Tag this Judgment!Central India AYUSH Drugs Manufacturers Association and Others Vs. Sta ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. By this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a declaration that Rule 17 of the Biological Diversity Rules, 2004 does not apply to the Indian entities or body corporates. In the alternate, it is prayed that to the extent the said Rule envisages equitable sharing of benefits by the Indian entities, it should be declared ultra vires to the provisions of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and, therefore, unconstitutional. Further declaration sought is, that the Guidelines on Access to Biological Resources and Associated Knowledge and Benefits Sharing Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations for short) apply only to transactions involving non-Indian entities and the same do not apply to the Indian entities not treading any biological resources with non-Indian entities. By amendment, a prayer to declare said regulations ultra vires to Sections 23 and 24 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (h...
Tag this Judgment!Satchit Nana Govenkar and Another Vs. Raghuvir Bhikaji Morajkar and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-28-2016
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners, who are the original defendants (appellants before the learned District Court), are challenging the order dated 24.02.2016 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Panaji in Regular Civil Appeal No. 422/2010. By the impugned order, an application filed by the petitioners for amendment of their counter claim, has been dismissed. 3. The brief facts are that the respondents had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 254/2001 for declaration and permanent injunction, claiming ownership and possession over the suit plot and alleging that the petitioners have encroached on the plot of respondents herein, to the extent of one metre towards the southern corner. The petitioners raised a counter claim claiming that they are entitled to build a stone boundary wall between the plot survey no. 65/1 (belonging to the petitioners)...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »