Mumbai Nagpur Court January 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.
Ramkrishna Bajaj (HUF), Wardha and Others Vs. The Commissioner of Weal ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This reference under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 is arising out of total eight reference applications moved by different assessees after adjudication of their grievances by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench (hereinafter referred to as ˜the ITAT™ for short) in eight wealth tax appeals. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1981-82. The questions referred are identical in all matters and, therefore, only one/common reference has been made, which governs the eight wealth tax matters. 2. The questions referred to by the ITAT vide its order dated 18th June, 1990, are as under : (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the value of the interest of the partners in the firms on the basis of the value of the shares as quoted in the market as on 31/03/1981 notwithstanding the fact that the firms' previous year ended on 30/06/1981 ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circ...
Ashok Govindrao Sardar Vs. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilha Parishad ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is an employee of Gram Panchayat Pimpalkhuta, Panchayat Samiti, Amravati takes exception to the order dated 21-1-2015 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati whereby the appeal filed by Gram Panchayat, Pimpalkhuta under Section 61(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short, the said Act) has been allowed and the order dismissing the petitioner from service has been upheld. 2. The facts relevant are that the petitioner came to be appointed as a Water Supply employee of Gram Panchayat Pimpalkhuta on 3-10-1986. According to the petitioner, services rendered by him were satisfactory and without any complaints. On 12-12-2012, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to furnish explanation with regard to an allegation of indecent behaviour with a lady computer apprentice. The petitione...
M/s. Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd. Vs. M/s. Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. In this appeal, the appellant/petitioner in an Application under Section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 challenges order dated 15.10.2015, passed by the learned Company Court in Company Petition No.11/2015. The petitioner has sought winding up of respondent Company on the ground that the respondent Company, is unable to pay its debt of Rs.102,26,78,728/- to it. Learned Company Court has by an order dated 15.10.2015, postponed consideration of the matter to 27.01.2016, on the ground that some Arbitration proceedings are pending and the same amount is also subject matter of claim before the Arbitrator. 2. This Court has admitted the matter on 02.12.2015, and kept it on 12.01.2016, as the matter before the Company Court is scheduled to come up on 27.01.2016. Shri Balbir Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/appellant has pointed out that the arbitration proceedings are now coming up on 16.01.2016. 3. In this situation, we have heard ...
Ramkrishna Bajaj (HUF), Wardha and Others Vs. The Commissioner of Weal ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This reference under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 is arising out of total eight reference applications moved by different assessees after adjudication of their grievances by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench (hereinafter referred to as the ITAT for short) in eight wealth tax appeals. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1981-82. The questions referred are identical in all matters and, therefore, only one/common reference has been made, which governs the eight wealth tax matters. 2. The questions referred to by the ITAT vide its order dated 18th June, 1990, are as under : (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the value of the interest of the partners in the firms on the basis of the value of the shares as quoted in the market as on 31/03/1981 notwithstanding the fact that the firms' previous year ended on 30/06/1981 ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of t...
Ashok Govindrao Sardar Vs. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilha Parishad ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is an employee of Gram Panchayat Pimpalkhuta, Panchayat Samiti, Amravati takes exception to the order dated 21-1-2015 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati whereby the appeal filed by Gram Panchayat, Pimpalkhuta under Section 61(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short, the said Act) has been allowed and the order dismissing the petitioner from service has been upheld. 2. The facts relevant are that the petitioner came to be appointed as a Water Supply employee of Gram Panchayat Pimpalkhuta on 3-10-1986. According to the petitioner, services rendered by him were satisfactory and without any complaints. On 12-12-2012, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to furnish explanation with regard to an allegation of indecent behaviour with a lady computer apprentice. The petitione...
M/s. Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd. Vs. M/s. Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. In this appeal, the appellant/petitioner in an Application under Section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 challenges order dated 15.10.2015, passed by the learned Company Court in Company Petition No.11/2015. The petitioner has sought winding up of respondent Company on the ground that the respondent Company, is unable to pay its debt of Rs.102,26,78,728/- to it. Learned Company Court has by an order dated 15.10.2015, postponed consideration of the matter to 27.01.2016, on the ground that some Arbitration proceedings are pending and the same amount is also subject matter of claim before the Arbitrator. 2. This Court has admitted the matter on 02.12.2015, and kept it on 12.01.2016, as the matter before the Company Court is scheduled to come up on 27.01.2016. Shri Balbir Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/appellant has pointed out that the arbitration proceedings are now coming up on 16.01.2016. 3. In this situation, we have heard ...
Sachee Agro Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
P.C. 1. Heard. 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for calling of the records of public notice No.PS-7/ 2015 from File No.XVI/13/13/N/PS/CC/2015 dated 14/9/2015 issued by respondent No.4 and after perusing the same quashed and set aside the same as it has been issued contrary to the public policy and constitutional guarantee of equality. 3. The petitioner deals in the business of poppy seeds. The petitioner imports the poppy seeds for its business from various countries including Turkey. Since the business of import of poppy seeds is controlled by respondent No.4- The Narcotics Commissioner, respondent No.4, in exercise of his powers, has issued a public notice dated 14/9/2015. The said public notice, which concerns the import from Turkey, provides that the applicants, who are in category 'A' and have imported poppy seeds from Turkey to India at least for three financial years during the last five financial years, will be allotted a quantity from the provisiona...
Amita and Others Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-28-2016
Oral Judgment : 1. By this appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the said Act) the appellants-original claimants have challenged judgment dated 22/01/2015 passed by the learned Commissioner under Employees Compensation Act by which the application preferred by them under Section 22 of the said Act has been dismissed. 2. The appellants are the dependents of one Prakash who was employed as a driver with the respondent No.2. On 31/05/2011 when said Prakash was driving a car, the same met with an accident resulting in said car turning turtle resulting in death of said Prakash. According to the appellants, the accident occurred during the course of and out of employment with respondent No.2. Said Prakash was getting salary of Rs.5500/- per month and was aged about 24 years when the accident took place. Hence claim for compensation came to be filed. 3. The respondent No.1Insurance Company took the stand that the accident occurred on account of a vo...
Umadevi and Others Vs. Union of India, through the General Manager
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-28-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. The learned counsel for the respondent waives service of notice. Heard the matter finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The Railway Claims Tribunal Bench at Nagpur has dismissed the Claim Application No. OA (IIu)/NGP/2010/0149 for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of death of one Kiran s/o Somaiya Yennam, who alleged to have died in an untoward incident. The claimants who are the dependents of the deceased filed Claim Petition under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act), which was dismissed on 14.11.2013, against which this appeal under Section 23 of the said Act, has been preferred. 3. Before the Tribunal, the following issues were framed as under: [1] Whether the applicants prove that they are the dependents of deceased Kiran s/o Somaiya Yennam? [2] Whether the respondent railway proves that deceased Kiran s/o Somaiya Yennam was not a bona fide passenger on 04....
Pralhad @ Pratap Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-27-2016
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties, at length. 2. In Crime No. 160/2015 registered at Police Station, Bhandara, for offence punishable under Sections 408, 409, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant is seeking grant of anticipatory bail. 3. The State Government established 'Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe Vikas Mahamandal' for upliftment of "Matang" community, which falls in Scheduled Caste in the State of Maharashtra. It is known fact that though notified as Scheduled Caste, "Matang" community could not take advantage of a plethora of facilities, reservation, financial aids etc. meant for Scheduled Caste. This community is still mired in appalling poverty, too backward and a large number of its members have still been engaged in their traditional profession i.e. blowing trumpet or bugle for earning their livelihood. 4. One of the members of the Legislative Assembly, by name, Shri Ramesh Kadam, a political appointee-who was made Chairman of the Corporation, in connivance ...