Mumbai Court June 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.
Shroff United Chemicals Limited. Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2011
1. Rule, by consent returnable forthwith. With the consent of Counsel and at their request the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution are directed against an order dated 18 March 2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax - I, Division III, in so far as interest has been disallowed to the Petitioners on a claim for refund. The grievance of the Petitioners is that this is contrary to the express terms of Section 11 BB of the Central Excise Act 1944 and a finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 15 October 2010. 3. The case of the Petitioners is that in anticipation of the import of intellectual property services, they had applied for and obtained service tax registration under Section 69 of the Finance Act 1994. The Petitioners had made an application to the Reserve Bank for the remittance of funds abroad, for a proposed acquisition of the registration of certain agro-chemical products in the U.S. In...
Ram Richpal Jain. Vs. Dara Khurshadji Amrolia and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2011
1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 24.2.2010 vide which the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division Nashik Road has allowed the application below Ex.17 being MCA No.16/08 filed by the respondent for amendment to the application filed by the respondent-applicant No.16/08 for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration of RCS No.12/1995. 2. One Dara Khurshedji Amrolia had filed Regular Civil Suit No.370/69 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nashik. On the establishment of the Court at Nashik Road said Civil Suit No.370/69 came to be transferred to the Nashik Road and was renumbered as Regular Civil Suit No.12/1995. The said suit was dismissed ex-parte. As such the daughter of the deceased Dara Khurshedji Amrolia viz. Firoza Bomi Anklesaria filed MCA No. 16/2008 for restoration of the suit. An application for condonation of delay in filing application also was filed. In the said application an application below Ex.17 for amendment came to be fi...
Sealand Shipping and Export Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Kin-ship Services (India) Pvt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2011
1 These are two Petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "Arbitration Act"), by both the parties, against Award dated 4 January 2007, granting a part claim and a part counter claim by the sole Arbitrator in a dispute arising out a Charter Party Agreement dated 7 August 2001 between them. 2 Arbitration Petition No.178/2007 has been filed by the Petitioners/the claimants against the Respondents/original Opponents only against the grant of claim to the extent of `30,78,417/-, the rest of the Award has been accepted. 3 Arbitration Petition No.266/2007 has been filed by the original Respondents against the claimants only to the extent of grant of sum of `8,60,750/- towards the restricted charter hire charges and the bunkers cost. 4 By the impugned Award, the Arbitrator, subject to set off/adjustment, has directed the original claimants to pay to the original Respondents, the balance amount of `22,09,667/- and the interest thereon at the rat...
Sanjiv Gajanan Punalekar and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2011
1. Since both these petitions purporting to be PILs raise common issues of law and facts, the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Broad Controversy 2. PIL 84 of 2008 is filed by a practicing advocate who challenges the "Merit-cum-Means Scholarship Scheme for Students of Minority Communities" issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Minority Affairs on 1st April, 2008 (Exhibit `A' to the petition) on the ground that it discriminates against students belonging to the majority community only on the ground of religion. The petitioner has prayed that since the scheme is unconstitutional, it be cancelled. 3. PIL No.254 of 2009 is filed by a person who claims to be intensely interested, and is involved, in issues relating to women and children. The petitioner is the wife of a retired Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Uttar Pradesh and hence has been travelling around the State and the places wherever her husband was posted. Thi...
Sergi Transformers Explosion Prevention Vs. Ctr Manufacturing Industri ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2011
1. The applicant challenges the order dated 18.2.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Thane below Ex.57 and the order dated 1.3.2011 passed below Ex.133 in Civil Suit No.1/2005. 2. There have been several rounds of litigation between the parties which have not only reached to this Court, but also upto the Apex Court. 3. Bare necessary facts for adjudication of present application are as under: The respondents-plaintiffs have filed a Civil Suit bearing No.1/2010 in the Court of learned District Judge, Thane claiming infringement of patent and for an order of injunction restraining the defendant-applicant and defendant No.2 from infringing the plaintiffs' patent by making, using, offering for sale and/or selling the impugned product. The suit was filed on 11.1.2010. The writ of summons was served on the defendant on 4.3.2010, written statement came to be filed by the present applicant on 20.3.2010. It appears that subsequently counter claim came to be filed on 8.4.2010 thereby seek...
Lalit Malick and ors. Vs. Bajinder Singh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2011
1. An interesting question, as to whether a decree holder and a judgment debtor can insist on auction of a flat under attachment, when the petitioners who are admittedly in possession of the said flat, are willing to satisfy the decree by paying the decretal amount, arises for consideration in the present petition. 2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are as under: 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that one Abdul Gafoor Khan was owner of a flat bearing no. A/5, Ravidarshan C.H.S. Ltd., Carter Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai 400 050. It is further contention of the petitioners that the father of the petitioners namely K.L. Malick entered into an agreement for purchase of the subject flat with the said Abdul Gafoor Khan Wazir Khan on 4th March, 1971. It is their contention that said agreement was witnessed by respondent no. 2 Joginder Singh Sawhney. It is also their contention that in pursuance to the said agreement, Shri K.M. Malick was put in posse...
Suchetan Exports Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Gupta Coal India Limited and ors.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-06-2011
1) This appeal is preferred by the defendant no.1 in Special Civil Suit No.187 of 2011 challenging the order dated 16.4.2011 passed by the learned Third Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, allowing the application Exh.5 for grant of temporary injunction filed by the respondent no.1- plaintiff and directing the respondent no.2, (who is the original defendant no.2), to hand over the balance Coal in its possession to the plaintiff on payment of rent, if any, due to him by the plaintiff. 2) The appellant is the original defendant no.1, the respondent no.1 is the original plaintiff, the respondent no.2 is the original defendant no.2 and the respondent no.3 is the original defendant no.3. The parties shall, hereinafter referred to according to their original status as "plaintiff", "defendant no.1", "defendant no.2" and "defendant no.3." 3) The undisputed factual position which emerges from reading the entire plaint and the written statement, needs to be stated as under--on 12.4.2010...
Dr. (Mrs.) Suhasini Umesh Karanjkar Vs. Kolhapur Municipal Corporation ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2011
1. This reference made by an order dated 23 December, 2010 of a Division Bench of this Court raises the following questions :- 1) Whether the power to search, seize and seal "any other material object" conferred by Section 30 of the Pre- conception and pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 includes the power to search, seize and seal an ultrasound machine or any other machine or equipment, if the Appropriate Authority or Authorized Officer has reason to believe that it may furnish evidence of the commission of an offence punishable under the Act? 2) Whether the decision of a Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad Bench in Dadasaheb (Dr.) s/o Popatrao Tarte v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2010 (2) Mah. L.J. 110 taking the view that Section 30 does not confer such power in respect of an ultrasound machine lays down the correct law? 2. The brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are not in dispute. The petitioner is a Gynecologist ru...
High Court on Its Own Motion. Vs. Shri Dattatray Narayan Samant and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-03-2011
1. The suo motu contempt action against the respondents/contemners emerges out of show cause notice issued on 17.8.2007 and, thereafter, matter being admitted on 20.11.2007. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 17th August, 2007 is reproduced thus:- "1. During the course of hearing of this Civil Application, learned counsel for the respondents - Central Bank of India pointed out certain improper words used by the applicant in relation to a learned Judge of this Court. The said words occur in the main paragraph No. 14 and also in some paragraph nos. 2 an 3 of the C.A. No.1936 of 2007. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant further stated that the "false statement" referred to in sub- paragraph No.3 is attributable to the learned Judge who decided the matter. Prima facie, the use of such language by the applicant and his advocate who has drafted the application constitutes criminal contempt of Court. (vide M.Y. Shareef vs Judges of the Nagpur High Court AIR 1955 SC 19...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›