Mumbai Court August 2010 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.
Messrs. B. Himmatlal Agrawal, a Partnership Firm, Vs. Western Coalfiel ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the rival parties. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the communications dated 05.05.2010 Annexure-E, 14/17.05.2010 Annexure-H by which the representations made by the petitioner in the matter of compliance of the condition as to furnishing bank solvency certificate in terms of Clause-3.2 (e) of Instructions To Bidders in the tender document stood rejected.3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties the only point that arises for our determination is whether in terms of Clause-3.2 (e) of the tender document, the petitioner having submitted bank solvency which had expired by four days and wanted to rectify the defect should have been allowed to do so and whether the said term of furnishing the bank solvency was merely ancillary or subsidiary .4. It is not in dispute that as per Clause 3.2- (e) the petitioner was required to submit bank solvency which should be of t...
Samir N. Bhojwani. Vs. M/S.Sunshine Projects Pvt.Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
1.The suit is for specific performance of the agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 dated 10.11.2003 and for the alternate relief of the return of the amount of consideration paid by the Plaintiff thereunder with interest thereon aggregating to Rs.4.19 Crores and for damages of Rs.46 Crores.2.The Notice of Motion is for the appointment of Court Receiver and the usual injunctions.3.The Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 initially entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 21.10.2002 followed by the agreement for development on 10.11.2003, Defendant No.2 being the owner of the suit property and the Plaintiff obtaining the right to develop it.4.Under the said agreement marked Exhibit-B to the Plaint, the Plaintiff was to pay consideration of Rs. 2.25 Crores and develop the property under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS) of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA). The suit property is an open land entirely encroached upon and having as many as 141 structures, out of whi...
Sandip Devidas Thorat, Age 31 Years, Vs. the Principal Secretary (Appe ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsel for respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing, at the stage of admission.3. By the present Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prayed that the impugned order dated 23 April, 2010 passed by the respondent No.1 i.e. Principal Secretary (Appeals & Hearing), Home Department, State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai in Appeal No.EXT2010/39/VS5, thereby confirming the order dated 24th December, 2009 passed by the Respondent No.2 i.e. SubDivisional Magistrate, Sangamner Division, Sangamner, Dist.Ahmednagar vide externment order No. EX/SR/2/2009 be quashed and set aside.FACTUAL MATRIX :4. It is the contention of petitioner that he is resident of Kopargaon, Tq.Kopargaon, Dist.Ahmednagar and was issued notice dated 15th April, 2009 by the SubDivisional Police Officer, Kopargaon, Camp Shirdi, to remove himself from the boundar...
Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Vs. the State Information Commissioner,hri B ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the rival parties. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the notification issued by respondent No.3 - Joint Director of Education dated 12.9.2008, Annexure I, by which Principals and office bearers of Non-Government Colleges receiving grants-in-aid were directed to appoint Public Information Officers in order to comply with the Right to Information Act, 2005.3. In support of the writ petition, learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are a Education Society registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and it does not receive any grant-in-aid from the Government nor it is funded by the State Government. Therefore, the case of the petitioners is fully covered by the decision of a Single Judge of this Court in the case of Nagar Yuwak Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur and another...Versus...Maharashtra State information Commission, Vida...
Airports Authority of India, Vs. Indian Airport Kamgar Union and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
1. The Petitioner is the Airport Authority of India. The Respondent No.1 is its Union. There has been a protractive lis between the parties. A circular was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi deciding not to prohibit the contract labour under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (C.L. Act) on 16th November 1999. This led to its challenge by the Respondent No.1.2. In an earlier Writ Petition an order came to be passed by consent of the parties that Central Government was the appropriate Government with regard to any reference for labour disputes between the parties. The relevant part of the order of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.78/2000 runs thus:" We are satisfied that following order shall meet the ends of justice:1. The appropriate Government, i.e., the Central Government (as agreed to by both the learned counsel) is directed to make a Reference of the following demands to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication...
Hindustan Copper Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
1. This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.11,35,053.82 with interest on the principal sum of Rs.8,09,928.96 thereon and further interest from the date of the suit until payment being the value of the material lost in transit by the Plaintiff which was insured by the Plaintiff with the Defendant. The Plaintiff claims the loss in transit under a written contract between the parties contained in the Plaintiff s offer to take an insurance policy of the Defendant dated 20.10.1986, Exhibit-A to the Plaint and the Defendant s acceptance under its letter dated 13.12.1986, Exhibit-B to the Plaint, as per the terms, conditions and warranties and also the exceptions in the insurance policy issued by the Defendant, Exhibit-C to the Plaint.2. The policy of insurance, which is a marine policy (cargo), is the written contract between the parties and the rights and entitlement of the parties are governed thereby.3. It is the Plaintiff s case that the offer of the Plaintiff was accepted by the Defendant...
M/S. Madhav Steel, a Partnership Firm, R.J. Virwadia Partner of M/S. M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
1.By this Petition, the Petitioners have prayed for setting aside the Order dated 29th May 2006 passed by the Respondent No.2 in Revision under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The said Revision was preferred against the Order allowing the Appeal filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Respondent No.3) and consequently, rejecting the Petitioners' rebate claim for Rs.9,87,777/.FACTS :2. The Petitioner No.1 is a partnership firm of which the Petitioner No.2 is the partner. The Petitioners (dealer) are engaged in the business of trading in ferrous/ nonferrous metals. The Petitioners had purchased SS Sheets in Coil Form (Hot Rolled) (200) SC1 Grade, of various thickness (the said goods) involving 162.405 MTs under 11 invoices (Exhibits B1 to B11 of the Petition) from M/s. Shah Alloys Limited (the manufacturer). The Petitioners thereafter under 7 invoices (Exhibits C1 to C7 of the Petition) sold 151.500 MTs of the said goods to M/s. H.M. Traders, Mumbai ...
Om Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Exports) ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal The CHA has filed this appeal against the impugned order confirming the penalty of Rs.50,000/- for violation of provisions of Section 40 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants filed the shipping bill on behalf of M/s. Indo Euro Exports on 01.05.2007 and the LEO was granted on 03.05.2007 but the container was loaded on the vessel on 02.05.2007 and on the same day the vessel was sailed out. 3. The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants submitted that it was not in the knowledge of the appellants that the goods have already been sailed on 02.05.2007. He further contended that after the goods have been gated into the port area, the CHA does not have any control over the goods. It is only the shipping line and the proper officers are having control over the goods and the shipping line has loaded the container on their own without informing the CHA. The LEO could not be obtained on 02.05.2007 being Sunday. He also relied on the d...
M/S. Siddhi Forge Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurang ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-2010
Per : Ashok Jindal This matter was listed for hearing today when none appeared for the applicant nor there is any request for adjournment inspite of notice of hearing having been sent well in advance. From the records, I also find that the matter came on board a number of occasions when the applicant unrepresented. As such I dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution....
Narayan S/O Arjunji Vighne, Ashok S/O Purshottam Tathe, and ors. Vs. S ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-09-2010
1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.2. The petitioners, who are 83 in number are raising exception to the order passed by the Joint Director (Administration), Handloom, Powerloom & Textiles, Maharashtra State, Nagpur in various applications tendered by them seeking permission to initiate proceedings by impleadment of liquidator of Amravati Cotton Growers Ltd. as respondent. The permission is sought for by the applicants as contemplated by Section 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. It is contended in the application by the petitioners that they were formerly engaged by respondent No. 3 in various capacities like Supervisors, Clerks, Peons, Workers, etc. till the end of 1998 when the mill was in terms of agreement arrived at during the liquidation proceedings agreed to be sold in favour of respondent No.4. The services of the employees are stated to have been terminated by respondent No.3society without ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »