Mumbai Court September 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.
Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay City-II
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-2016
M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. This Reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), seeks our opinion on the following two substantial questions of law: (A) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee company in connection with the issue of share capital with a dominant objective to dilute its foreign shareholding under Government directive to enable it to carry on business in India was in the nature of capital expenditure? (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that interest received by the assessee company on deposit of share application money cannot be adjusted against the expenditure incurred in connection with the issue of such shares? 2. The Assessment Year relates to A. Y. 1978-79. 3. Briefly, the facts leading to this Reference are as under: (a) The Applic...
Supadu @ Bapu Kautik Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Sep-08-2016
1. The Appellant original accused has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner in Sessions Case No.24 of 2008, under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("I.P.C." in brief) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. He has been convicted also for offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The conviction is also under Section 506 of the I.P.C. and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month has been imposed. There was charge also under Section 504 of I.P.C. but the accused came to be acquitted for the same. Being aggrieved, the present Appeal has been filed. CASE OF PROSECUTION: 2. To appreciate ca...
Parvatibai Tanu Shivgan and Others Vs. Dhondu Sakharam Gurav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-2016
1. By this appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants (original plaintiffs) have impugned the order and judgment dated 17th November, 2014 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ratnagiri, dismissing Regular Civil Appeal No.39 of 2009 filed by the appellants, by which the appellants have impugned the rejection of part of the relief by the learned trial Judge in the suit for perpetual injunction or in the alternate for possession of the part of the suit property filed by the appellants is concerned. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties described in this judgment are described as they were described in the proceedings before the learned trial Judge. 3. By consent of parties, the second appeal was heard finally at the admission stage by formulating substantial question of law on 30th August, 2016. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this second appeal are as under: 4. The area of 33 acres out of the suit property ...
Rayat Shikshan Sanstha, Satara Through its Secretary and Another Vs. A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-2016
1. Rule. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. By consent of parties, the petition is heard finally. 2. By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have impugned the judgment and order dated 25th February 2016 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Kolhapur allowing the appeal (49 of 2015) filed by the respondent no.1 partly thereby setting aside the termination order dated 6th October 2015 and directing the petitioners to give pensionary benefit to the respondent no.1 by treating his last pay as on 31st December 2015 without any continuity for the purpose of monetary benefit. The School Tribunal rejected the claim for back wages and rejected the claim for reinstatement in view of the respondent no.1 having retired. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 3. The respondent no.1 was appointed as a Supervisor in the school run by the petitioner no.1 on...
Citizen Forum For Equality Vs. The State of Maharashtra through its Ch ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-07-2016
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. In this Public Interest Litigation basically modification in user of a plot in Development Plan, its allotment to Respondent No. 9, illegal building construction upon it and failure of land owner Nagpur Improvement Trust (N.I.T.) or Planning Authority Nagpur Municipal Corporation to exercise rights or to discharge obligations, are the challenges which arise for consideration. The development plan was finalized under S. 31 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereafter MRTP Act) and NIT constituted under the Nagpur Improvement Trust,1936 (NIT Act hereafter) was the planning authority in respect of said plot till 27.02.2002. Thereafter, it is the NMC functioning under the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948. The Development Control Rules of 1983 and 2000 (hereinafter DCR) also need to be looked into. 2. Subject matter is a plot having House No. 1155 CTS No. 1143 at Ward No. 74, ad measuring little over 1.14 Acre. The said plot is for commerc...
Zulash Clearing and Shipping Agency Vs. Secretary, The Clearing and Fo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-2016
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. 2. The Petitioner's director/representative, being a senior citizen has obtained a certificate from the Office as per Rules for presentation and conduct of proceedings in-person by the parties , to appear in person before the Court. On request, heard finally by the consent of the parties. As the facts and the law involved are common and interlinked, therefore, based upon the written and oral submission so made by the parties, this common Judgment. 3. The Petitioner, by Writ Petition No. 2560 of 2007 (the First), is challenging exparte Judgment and order, dated 6 July 2007 passed by Respondent No.1 (The Board), directing the Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.75,48,467.25/- as arrears of wages arising out of agreement dated 1 December 2001 signed by the Petitioner with Respondent No.2 (The Union) in presence of an Officer of the Board. Another Writ Petition No. 526 of 2011 (The Second) is also filed challenging Order dated 31 July 2010, p...
Phulabai Prakash Pawar and Others Vs. SKF India Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule in all the Writ Petitions. Having regard to the nature of challenge raised heard forthwith by the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the identical orders dated 20.10.2015 passed by the Learned Member of the Industrial Court, Pune. By the said orders, the Revision Applications filed by the Petitioners above named came to be dismissed and resultantly, the orders dated 18.07.2014 passed by the Learned Judge of the Labour Court allowing the application Exh.C4 and thereby directing the Petitioners to deposit the amount which was paid to them under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme came to be confirmed. 3. Since the above Petitions involve common facts and raise the identical challenge, by consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties, Writ Petition No.1811 of 2016 is treated as the lead matter. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1811 of 2016 as...
Dhimant Mehta Vs. M/s. Ramdil Resorts P. Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-2016
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the original complainant against the judgment and order dated 8th July, 1999 in Case No. 103/ S/1993 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, IV Court, Girgaum, Mumbai thereby allowing the application filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 / original accused Nos.1 to 3 for dismissal of the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and for their acquittal. 2. As the complainant and his counsel remained absent, Mr.Yashpal Thakur, the learned counsel pleaded the case of the complainant as Amicus Curiae. 3. I have heard the learned counsel Mr. Thakur, Mr. Millwala, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned APP for the respondent State. 4. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and perused the record of the case. 5. Brief facts of the case are that in all five cheques were issued by accused in favour of the complainant...
Oveash Mohsin Kadiwala and Another Vs. A. Rahim Haroon Malkani and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondents finally at the stage of admission itself. 3. As all these appeals involved common question of facts and law and they are heard together, they are being decided by this common judgment. 4. These appeals are preferred against the order dated 28.06.2016 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai thereby rejecting the Notice of Motion, tendered by the appellant herein, seeking relief of interim injunction, restraining the respondents from dealing with, disposing of, alienating, assigning or creating third party rights or interest in respect of certain shop premises in the proposed construction of Building No.8. 5. For the purpose of convenience, facts of Appeal No. 833 of 2016 are referred by the parties and by this Court also for deciding these appeals. 6. The appellants herein are the shop purchasers in the suit building under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the promotion of construction, sale,...
Pradeep Manikrao Chikte Vs. Deputy Director Vocational Education and T ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-06-2016
Oral Order: 1. Heard Shri S. S. Ghate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Taiwade, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no. 1. 2. Though respondent no. 2 is duly served, none appears for the respondent no. 2. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 4. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Labour Court, Buldana dated 3-3-2006 in Complaint (ULP) No. 546/2004 and judgment and order dated 2-2-2015 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Akola in Revision ULP No. 39/2006. 5. The facts giving rise to the present petition can be summarized as follows. The petitioner in response to an advertisement calling applications for the post of Instructor in the Industrial Training Institute at Mehkar submitted his application as he was duly qualified. The petitioner was selected and appointed temporarily on 4-1-1998. An appointment order was issued on 2-6-2000 whereby the petitioner was appointed on the fixed scale o...