Mumbai Court October 2012 Judgments
Premlaxmi and Co. Vs. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Oral Judgment: Called out from final hearing board. 2 The petitioners original claimants have challenged Award dated 3rd April 2009 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the agreement between the parties by invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short Arbitration Act). 3 Admittedly, there is no specific clause of Court jurisdiction. Merely because an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act was filed by the petitioner and whereby an arbitral tribunal was constituted that itself cannot give jurisdiction to this Court to entertain Section 34 petition as filed. 4 Admittedly, basic cause of action arose at Ratnagiri as the construction was of a tunnel at Ratnagiri. Section 2(e) of the Arbitration Act deals with the term Court. Therefore, the Court at Ratnagiri has jurisdiction to deal with and entertain such application against the award, though passed by the arbitral tribunal by the consent of parties by holding meetings in Mumbai. T...
Tag this Judgment!Ku. Suman Vishnu Pathak and Others Vs. Smt. Usha W/O Prabhakarrao Kopa ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
1. The respondent Smt. Usha Koparkar is the original plaintiff and the granddaughter of Late Shri Vishnu Pathak, who filed Regular Civil Suit No.80 of 1981 claiming that the suit property, which stood in the name of Vishnu Pathak, was acquired by nucleus of joint family funds and hence she was entitled to share in it. She claimed partition and separate possession of 1/36th share in the suit property, i.e. Plot No.17 at Yavatmal. The appellant Nos.1 and 2 are the original defendant Nos.17 and 19, who claimed to be the owners of the suit property on the basis of the codicil executed by Vishnu Pathak on 10-5-1973 bequeathing the suit property in their favour. The appellant Nos.3 to 7 are the original defendant Nos.26 to 30, who claimed to have purchased the suit property from the appellant Nos.1 and 2. 2. The two sons of Kashinath Pathak, viz. Satish and Vinod, were joined as the defendant Nos.1 and 2; Smt. Nirmalabai w/o Kashinath Pathak was joined as the defendant No.3; the another daug...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. M/S.Ramdas Sobhraj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-2012
M.S. Sanklecha, J. This reference at the instance of the applicant has been made by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal (Tribunal) under Section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) for the opinion of this Court on the following question of law: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the true and correct interpretation of sub-section (l) of section 2 of the Maharashtra Sales Tax on the transfer of property in goods involved in execution of Works Contracts (re-enacted) Act, 1989, read with the 46th Amendment of the Constitution of India, whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that there is no transfer of property in ink, lacquer and paper in the transaction effected in post 46th Amendment era? The Advocate for the applicant and respondent state that the word “paper” in the question is a mistake. Therefore, the question framed is only with regard to transfer of property in ink and lacquer. 2) The fact...
Tag this Judgment!Digambar S/O Pandurang Kadu Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-25-2012
1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 45/2011 which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. The trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant for offences punishable under section 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sides are heard. Original record is perused. 2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows. The complainant Dadasaheb Dukare is the father of the prosecutrix. The accused and complainant are residents of village Satral Tq. Rahuri District Ahmednagar. The house of the accused is situated at the distance of around 250 feet from the house of the complainant. At the relevant time, the accused was aged about 40 years and the prosecutrix was aged about 15 years. The prosecutrix is described as simpleton, little bit mentally retarded but she was studying in 6th standard in a School from Satral. 3. The incident took place on 29/11/2010. The prosecutrix left ...
Tag this Judgment!Godrej Agrovet Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-25-2012
Oral Order: 1] The petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the proceeding of S.T.C.No.162/08, which is pending in the Court of JMFC Badnapur. The case is filed by respondent no.2, public servant for offences punishable under various Sections of Insecticides Act, 1968 and Rules framed under the Act. Both sides are heard. 2] Copy of the complaint given by public servant shows that on 31/7/02, the Inspector appointed under the Special Act did the inspection of the premises of M/s Rama Sales Corporation, Badnapur. He found that the insecticide Monocrotophos 36% manufactured by Nagarjuna Agrichem Limited, Srikakulam, manufactured in June 2002 having expiry date of November 2003 were kept for sale. He had doubt about the quality of the insecticide and so he took samples of 250 ml. of the insecticide. Three such samples were collected and they were closed and sealed. One of the sample was haded over to...
Tag this Judgment!Nandabai W/O Popatrao Warat Vs. Maruti Gopala Mehetre and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-25-2012
1. The revision is filed against the judgment and order of appeal No.9 of 1991 which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. The judgment and order of J.M.F.C. Ahmednagar delivered in R.C.C. No. 158 of 1988 is modified by the appellate court and the conviction and sentence given to the respondent-accused is converted from the offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C. to one punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C. Further the accused is sentenced to pay fine only. This decision is challenged by the original complainant in the present proceeding. Both sides are heard. This Court has perused the original record. 2. Learned advocate for the petitioner made a prayer for converting the present proceeding to criminal appeal. He submitted that in view of the provisions of section 401(5) of Cr.P.C. such conversion is possible. He submitted that by the amendment made to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. the right is given to the victim to file such appeal, and so, such conver...
Tag this Judgment!M/S.M. Visvesvaraya Industrial Research and Development Centre Vs. the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-2012
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. This reference under section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 arises out of Reference Application Nos.306 and 307 filed by the assessee in respect of a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 29th March, 1996 in ITA Nos.6351/B/93 and 1717/B/94 pertaining to assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91. (A) The Tribunal on the assessee's application drew up a statement of case and referred the following eight questions and an additional question for the year 199091 for the opinion of this Court:- "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion concerning clauses 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 20 and 24 of the Memorandum of Association of the assessee are not objects of general public utility and thereby do not fall with...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Kasana Chavhan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-25-2012
A.P. Bhangale, J. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dt.18.1.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad in Sessions Trial No.13 of 2000 whereby the appellants were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each. Appellant Rajendra Kasana Chavan was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. It appears that no separate punishment was awarded to accused/appellant Rajendra for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Raoji Kasana Chavan was acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. M/S.Ramdas Sobhraj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-2012
M.S. Sanklecha, J. This reference at the instance of the applicant has been made by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal (Tribunal) under Section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) for the opinion of this Court on the following question of law: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the true and correct interpretation of sub-section (l) of section 2 of the Maharashtra Sales Tax on the transfer of property in goods involved in execution of Works Contracts (re-enacted) Act, 1989, read with the 46th Amendment of the Constitution of India, whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that there is no transfer of property in ink, lacquer and paper in the transaction effected in post 46th Amendment era? The Advocate for the applicant and respondent state that the word paper in the question is a mistake. Therefore, the question framed is only with regard to transfer of property in ink and lacquer. 2) The facts leading to the present ref...
Tag this Judgment!Abubakar Suleman Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-25-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned APP for the Respondents. 2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, a friend of the Detenue, is seeking a writ of habeas corpus for quashing and setting aside the order of detention dated 4th October, 2011 passed by the detaining authority in exercise of powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the COFEPOSA Act"). The order of detention has been passed with a view to prevent the detenu in future from indulging any smuggling of goods. It is not in dispute that the detaining authority has invoked Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner amongst other grounds has invited our attention to the Ground Nos.8 and 9 in the Petition. Her contention is that bail was gran...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »