Mumbai Court November 2011 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.
Ms. Aronda Properties Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Tree Officer and Ranje Forest Offic ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
1 Rule. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith and Petitions taken up for hearing. Learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of the Respondents. 2 Heard Mr. Shah for the Petitioner in both the Petitions and learned AGP for the Respondents. 3 Both these Writ Petition challenge orders dated 10.5.2011 and 25.3.2011 respectively passed by the Dy. Tree Officer & Range Forest Officer, Sawantwadi, Dist. Sindhudurg whereby in proceedings under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Felling of Trees (Regulation) Act, 1964 (Maharashtra Act No. XXXIV of 1964) a penalty has been imposed on the Petitioners. Mr. Shah relies upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: J.N. Patel & S.T. Kharche, JJ.) in the case of Pramilabai w/o. Uttamrao Patil vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2004 (2) Bom. L.R. 736 = 2004 AIR (Bom) 125 and contends that opportunity of personal hearing was not given to the Petitioners. On the other hand the learned AGP states that a show cause notice was issued and the ...
Abha Chawla Mohanty Vs. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Charge-sheet dated 8th March, 2004 and Addendum to Charge-sheet dated 8th November, 2004, as well as the Order of Penalty dated 18th May, 2006 passed by the Competent Authority and the Order dated 28th June, 2007 passed by the Appellate Authority. In substance, the challenge is to the action taken against the petitioner on the basis of the opinion recorded in the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner, which culminated in her removal from service. As a consequential relief, the petitioner prays for issuance of writ against the respondents, directing them to reinstate her with full back-wages and continuity of service with all incidental benefits with effect from 18th May, 2006. In addition, the petitioner is praying for damages and compensation for personal loss caused to her due to unlawful dispossession of the petitioner and her family members from the official service quart...
Sakuma Exports Ltd Vs. Louis Drefus Commodities Suisse S.A.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
1. The Petitioner is a company in Mumbai carrying on the business of importing and exporting commodities including sugar. The Respondent is a company having its registered office at Switzerland. Under an Agreement/Contract dated 12th January, 2010, the Petitioner inter alia agreed to purchase from the Respondent 2700 MT of Brazilian White Sugar to be shipped in containers between 15th January, 2010 and 15th February, 2010 to the Port at Nhavasheva or Calcutta, India (the said Contract). 2. Dispute arose between the parties pertaining to the quality of sugar supplied by the Respondent to the Petitioner under the said contract. Since the contract contained an arbitration agreement, arbitration proceedings were initiated by the Respondent by filing their statement of claim vide their letter dated 31st May, 2010 before the Arbitral Tribunal constituted by the Refined Sugar Association (RSA) for settlement in accordance with the Rules relating to the arbitration. 3. The Arbitral Tribunal pa...
The Commissioner of Income Tax 9 Vs. Ms.Jyoti Plastic Works Private Li ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
1. The appeal is admitted on the following two substantial questions of law and taken up for final hearing by consent of both the parties. a) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is engaged in the activity of manufacture or producing an article or thing and, hence, eligible for deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? b) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the workers supplied by the contractor are also to be treated as workers employed by the assessee for the purposes of Section 80IB(2)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? 2. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of plastic parts, which are excisable. The assessment year involved herein is AY 1999-2000. 3. In the assessment year in question, deduction under Section 80IB of the Act was claimed and allowed in the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Thereafter, the assessing officer passed re- assessment order under Section 143(3) read...
Dhammadip Bhaurao Mankar Vs. the President, Handicapped.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
1] As the matter pertains to provisions of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, (1995), we have heard the matter finally by making "Rule" returnable forthwith. This Act is referred to as 1995 Act hereinafter. 2] This Court has on 01.07.2011 and thereafter on 12.07.2011 passed two orders in the matter. 3] Short contention of Shri S. D. Thakur counsel for the petitioner is, petitioner had suffered disability while in employment and therefore his case needs to be viewed in the light of provisions of Section 47 of above mentioned 1995 Act and the reliance upon provisions of Section 2(t) for that purpose or then on percentage of disability suffered by petitioner is totally irrelevant. He is relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kunal Singh Vs. union of India and Another AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1623 for said purpose. 4] Shri Mehadia states that provisions of 1995 Act are applicable to "persons with disability" and h...
Yuvraj Vithu Sutar Vs. Dinkar Lahu Sutar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
1 Rule in both the Petitions, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 By the above Petitions, two orders are taken exception to. In so far as Writ Petition No.6271 of 2010 is concerned, the order challenged is dated 8-12-2009 passed by the Learned Ad-hoc District Judge-I, Kolhapur, by which order, the Application filed by the Respondent herein i.e. the Petitioner in the companion Petition for condonation of delay of 39 days in filing the Appeal against the decree dated 26-3-2009, came to be allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.1500/. 3 In so far as, the Writ Petition No.4088 of 2011 is concerned, the same takes exception to the Order dated 26-10-2009 passed by the same Learned Ad-hoc District Judge-I, Kolhapur, by which Order the application Exhibit-10 for condonation of delay of about 6 days filed by the Petitioner in bringing the heirs on record came to be rejected. 4 In so far as, the first Petition is concerned, the principal ground on which, the...
Reliance Energy Ltd. Vs. Ranjen Agrawal
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
Oral Order: S.B. Mhase, President [1] Heard Adv. Prakash R. Hegde on behalf of the Appellant/ original Opponent and Mr. Ranjen Agrawaal, the Respondent/ original Complainant in person. [2] This appeal is directed as against an order dated 15/6/2010, passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Consumer Complaint No.510 of 2007. The Appellant herein is the original Opponent while the Respondent herein is the original Complainant. For the sake of convenience they are referred to as the Opponent and the Complainant respectively in this order. The Opponent is an electricity company, supplying the electricity in a licensed area. The Complainant was residing at Flat No.B-008, Harmony, Raheja Vihar, Saki Naka, Mumbai and he had taken an electricity connection to the said flat from the Opponent. It appears that the dispute started between the Complainant and the Opponent because the Opponent issued a demand bill for an amount of `35,022.16ps., in addition to...
Authorised Representative, Seva Automotive Ltd. and Others Vs. Anil Ba ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-2011
P.N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Being aggrieved by the judgement and award passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik in consumer complaint No.15/2002 decided on 09/10/2003, whereby the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opponent Nos.1to3 jointly and severally to replace the Maruti Zen Car and give it to the complainant within reasonable time and if it is not possible to replace, refund amount of Rs.3,94,779/- to the complainant and also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as costs, opponent/Maruti Udyog Ltd. (Manufacturer) and Seva Automotive Ltd. (Dealer) have filed these two appeals. Maruti Udyog Ltd. has filed Appeal No.1735/2003 and Authorised Dealer Seva Automotive Ltd. has filed Appeal No.1594/2003. Both these appeals have been filed challenging judgement and award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik and therefore, we are disposing of these appeals by this common order. 2. The fact...
Smt. Yamunabai Dhankude and ors Vs. Shri Raosaheb Mohanlal Chimanlal a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
1 Pursuant to the earlier order dated 27th September, 2011, since the Appeal involved a short question of law, it was directed to be heard for final hearing. Accordingly, I have heard the learned Advocates finally on 4th October, 2011 and the Judgment was reserved. 2 The facts are not in dispute and are very brief. The Respondents filed RCS No.1002 of 1998 against the Appellants in the Civil Court at Pune for permanent injunction from disturbing the possession of the Plaintiffs- Trustees over the suit property. The averments shows that the Plaintiffs are the trustees of a Public Charitable Trust, registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The suit sought relief against Defendants on the ground that the Defendants were unlawfully trying to dispossess the Plaintiffs and were disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs trust, through its trustees. 3 In this suit, an application for rejection of plaint was filed by the Defendants below Exhibit 26 on the ground that since the trus...
Ms. Sea Poly Plast India Pvt. Ltd. and ors Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-2011
1. The Petitioners have challenged the constitutional dmt 2 wp1956 validity of Rule 8 (5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. These Rules have been framed by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 2. A notice under Section 13 (2) was issued to the Petitioners on 20 January 2011 demanding an amount of Rs. 268 crores. The Petitioners raised objections on 14 March 2011 which were disposed of on 12 May 2011. Symbolic possession of the secured assets has been taken on 17 June 2011. The Petitioners have a remedy available under Section 17 of the Act of moving the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In these proceedings the Petitioners have questioned the constitutional validity of Rule 8 (5) which reads as follows :- 8 (5) Before effecting sale of the immovable property referred to in sub-rule (1) of rule 9, the authorised officer shall obtain valuation of the pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »