Mumbai Court August 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.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Petroleum Workmen's Union And Or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2011
1. Heard Counsel for the parties. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Corporation seeks declaration that the proposed strike of the respondent Unions, pursuant to the strike notices dated 6th July, 2011 and 12th July, 2011, in the respective matters is illegal and unjustified. 2. Briefly stated, the respondent Unions gave notice of strike on 6th July, 2011 and 12th July, 2011 respectively. As a consequence of strike notice, the matter was discussed before the Conciliation Officer and Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Mumbai on 28th July, 2011 and 29th July, 2011 in the pending Conciliation Proceedings. The petitioner Corporation anticipating that the Respondent Unions would take the strike notice forward had already filed Writ Petition in this Court on 22nd July, 2011. However, in view of the stand taken by the concerned Unions before the Conciliation Officer on 28th July, 2011 and 29th July, 2011, that they would not defer the...
Damji Tingsa Pada Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2011
JUDGMENT (Per M.L. Tahaliyani, J.) 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner has stated that he was apprehended by Gadchiroli Police on 5th August, 2009 and was shown arrested in three cases. During the course of his detention he was acquitted in one of the said three cases and was ordered to be released on bail in second case. As far as third and last case i.e. Crime No.03/2007 of Kasansoor Police Station under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is stated by the petitioner that he was tried and the case was fixed for judgment on 28th March, 2011. The petitioner was not physically produced before the Court on that day, nor was he produced through electronic video linkage. However, a police constable had carried his warrant to the Court to get endorsement of the Officer of the Court on the warrant in respect of result of the case or the next date of hearing, as the case may be. The petitioner, however, was not intimated as to what happened on 2...
Mumbai 400 020. Vs. Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2011
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : J.P. Devadhar, J.) 1. Since the questions of law raised in all these appeals are common, all these appeals are heard together and disposed off by this common judgment. 2. For the sake of convenience, we set out the facts in Tax Appeal No.3693 of 2010, which relates to AY 2002-03. 3. Tax Appeal No.3693 of 2010 is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made on account of provision of solvency margin by the Assessing Officer even though the provision for solvency margin was made as per the directive of IRDA for a period of three years only and does not form the method of actuarial valuation made in accordance with the Insurance Act, 1938 ? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made on account of provision on solvency margin by the Assessing Off...
Hirji Bhojraj and Sons Vs. the Deputy Director of Education and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
1. Both these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment, as the parties thereto, as also the issues raised therein, are common. 2. Writ Petition No. 1315 of 2009 is filed by the Management of the school. The Management has challenged the decision of the Deputy Director of Education, Mumbai Division, dated 20th June, 2009 (Exhibit 'V') regarding the appointment of Shivaji Kisan Janrao (respondent No. 4 in this petition, hereinafter referred to as "Shivaji Janrao" for the sake of brevity) as Principal of petitioner No. 2-school, thereby directing initiation of action in the matter by the Education Inspector and to submit compliance report. The Management has further prayed for declaration that, it being a minority institution, has a right to choose and select Head Mistress or Principal of their choice and to direct the Deputy Director of Education and Education Inspector to approve the appointment of Smt. Harsha Trivedi as Head Mistress with effect from 1st August, 2008. 3. The s...
Simratmal S/O. Hiralal Gandhi Vs. Kedarnath S/O. Badrinarayan Bang and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
1. Heard Adv. Mr. V.S. Bedre, for the applicant; Adv. Mr. L.B. Pallod, for respondent no.1, and Adv. Mr. V.S. Badakh, for respondent no.3. 2. None for respondent nos.2 and 4, although served. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for parties, taken up for final hearing. 4. By the present application preferred by the applicant (original accused) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, prayed that the order passed by the learned 6th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) & Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Ahmednagar, on Exhibit 49, in Summary Trial Case No. 5064/2007, dated 31st October 2009, be quashed and set aside. 5. The applicant herein is the original accused no.2 and the respondent no.1 herein is the original complainant. It is contended that as there were close friendly relations between the applicant and respondent no.1, and since the applicant was in need of amount, the complainant i.e. respondent no.1 herein paid the amount...
Leela Bhagwansing Advani and ors. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondents in deducting tax at source while paying the amount of compensation on acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioners. The petitioners have also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. As regards the deduction of tax at source is concerned, the argument of the petitioners is that under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the compensation was payable to the petitioners immediately after the Award dated 30th May 1995. It is contended that if the amount of compensation was paid immediately after the Award, then there would have been no question of deducting tax at source under Section 194LA of the Act, because the said Section 194LA was not on the statute book on the date of the Award i.e. 30th May 1995 and that the said Section was inserted subsequently by Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 with effect from 1st October 2004. There is no merit in the above content...
Sheshrao Vithobaji Lakhapurkar Vs. Shyamrao ShiladIn Jaiswal
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
1) Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 29/04/2011 passed by the learned Ad hoc District Judge-1, Amravati, by which order the application for condonation of delay of five months and 15 days in filing the application for restoration of the application for condonation of delay in the First Appellate Court came to be rejected. 3) The petitioner herein has suffered a decree in Regular Civil Suit No.50/2005, which suit was filed by the respondent herein claiming easementry right in respect of light and air, the petitioner and the respondent are neighbours. The suit has been decreed on 31/03/2006 and the Appeal in the First Appellate Court came to be filed on 15 th February, 2008. Since it was belated, the petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay and the principal ground on which condonation of delay was sought by the pe...
Aparna Narendra Zambre and anr. Vs. Assistant Superintendent Engineer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
1. This petition is filed by the heirs and family members of deceased Mohan Kulkarni, who was working as an Assistant Engineer in Mhaishal Pump House No. 2, who died in harness on 8th September, 2003, leaving behind petitioner No. 2 as his widow and two daughters. Petitioner No. 1 is one of the daughters of deceased Mohan. At the relevant time, she was unmarried. The other daughter was already married in November, 2002, before the said Mohan Kulkarni died in harness. 2. After the death of Mohan, his widow, petitioner No. 2 made an application on 29th July, 2004 addressed to the Executive Engineer, Mhaishal Pump House No. 2 at Sangli, requesting to appoint her unmarried daughter, petitioner No.1, to the post of Junior Clerk or any other suitable post on compassionate ground. She further stated that she has no objection if petitioner No.1, who was her unmarried daughter, were to be given such appointment. The said proposal was forwarded to the Superintending Engineer, Krishna-Koyna Upsa ...
Shankar Ganpati Jadhav Vs. the Heritage Motors (Mumbai) Pvt Ltd Forg a ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
Justice S.B. Mhase, President. Heard Mr.Mangesh Patel-Advocate for the appellant This appeal is directed as against the order passed by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane in consumer complaint no.86/2010 decided on 14/03/2011. By this order in view of the pendency of the suit in the Civil Court the complaint has not been entertained. The admitted facts are as follows:- Present appellant is complainant in the consumer complaint no.86/2010. In the said complaint respondents are original opponent nos.1 and 2. Complainant has taken a loan from the opponent no.2 i.e. From Saraswat Co-op. Bank Ltd. for purchase of Tempo Trax Cruizer. The said loan according to the opponent was in arrears and, therefore, opponent no.2 has appointed opponent no.1 as the agent to seize and sell the said vehicle in view of the agreement between the opponents inter-se. Opponent no.1 seized the vehicle and, presently, vehicle is in custody of opponent no.1 for and on behalf of opponen...
Dilip D. Kale President and Chief Executive Officer Vs. Vithal Maruti ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-2011
Justice S.B. Mhase, President Mr.N.V.Sharma-Advocate for the appellant absent. Heard Respondent in person. This appeal was filed on 23/07/2010. It was first time listed for admission on 24/09/2010. Along with this appeal there is delay condonation application. Said delay condonation application appeared before the State Commission on 24/09/2010. On 24/09/2010 recording absence of the applicant/appellant matter was adjourned to 29/10/2010. It appears that on 14/10/2010 the matter was mentioned before the Bench no.2 and they directed to keep the matter before Bench no.1 on 15/10/2010. On 15/10/2010 it appeared before Bench no.1. It appears that on that date the stay was granted on deposit of the total amount as directed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum minus the amount which has been already deposited, at the time of filing an appeal. It further appears that as per the scheduled date 29/10/2010 it appeared before Bench No.2. However, Mr.N.V.Sharma Advocate for the applic...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›