Mumbai Court June 2012 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.
Shri Krishna Nonu Naik, (Since Deceased) Legal Heirs of Deceased Plain ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-12-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent nos. 24(i), 25 and 26 and Shri Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 27 and 28. 2. The above Second Appeal was admitted by this Court by an Order dated 06.11.2003 on the following substantial question of law: “1) Whether the contesting Respondents had locus standi to file the Regular Civil Appeal opposing the decree of declaration, when: i) the Appellants had not filed suit against the contesting Respondents but the pleadings and the relief was directed against the Respondent no. 1 only who gave cause of action. ii) the contesting Respondents had not filed counter claim seeking inclusion of their names in survey record. 2) Whether although the final decree incorporates the prayer, omission to reproduce the prayer in the judgment and order after stating that the suit is decreed is fatal making the decree ineffecti...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Triumph International Finance ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2012
Oral Judgment: J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. This appeal was admitted on 13th September 2010 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that transactions effected through journal entries in the books of the assessee would not amount to repayment of any loan or deposit otherwise than by account payee cheque or account payee bank draft within the meaning of Section 269T to attract levy of penalty under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 2. The assessment year involved herein is AY 20032004. 3. The respondent - assessee, a Public Limited Company, is a member of the National Stock Exchange and is also a Category I Merchant Banker, registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The assessee is engaged in the business of shares, stock broking, investment and trading in shares and securities. 4. In the assessment year in question, the assessee had f...
Shree Satish Vishnu Nalavade and Others Vs. Ganpati Hari Nalawade (Dec ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2012
Oral Judgment: 1 Rule. With the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 At the outset, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners seeks deletion of the reference to Article 226. The reference to Article 226 in the cause title is accordingly deleted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3 The above Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Order dated 9-4-2008 passed below Application 61 in Misc Civil Appeal No.41 of 2000 and Order dated 20-12-2010 passed below Application 195 in Regular Civil Suit No.38 of 1993. 4 The facts necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above Petition can be stated thus - The Petitioners herein are the original Plaintiffs in Regular Civil suit No.38 of 1993 (old Regular Civil Suit no.277 of 1986), which has been filed seeking partition and separate possession of their share in the suit properties against the Respondents herein who are the Defendants. The Petitioners also challeng...
Edward Alias Adward Paul Machado Vs. Pawan Kumar Nagpal and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2012
S.A.Bobde, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Parties. 2. By consent of parties Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal hence, Rule, returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the notice dated 03.01.2012 issued by the respondent no.1 - Eviction Officer of Airport Authority of India and the eviction proceedings in pursuance thereof, initiated by respondent no.2 before respondent no.1 - Eviction Officer. The notice is challenged mainly on the ground that the Eviction Officer functioning under the provisions of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to at “the 1994 Act” for short) has no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter and in any case ought not be allowed to do so, in view of the pendency of Civil Suit filed by the petitioner claiming title to the same land from which he is sought to be evicted under the impugned notice. The petitioner has claimed in the suit that he is entitled to be decl...
Zargar Rafi Ahmed S/O. Abdul Jabbar Vs. the Chief Executive Officer, M ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
Oral Judgment: [B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.] 1] Heard Smt. Ansari, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Gundre, Advocate for the respondent No.1 and 2, and Shri Rudrawar, Advocate for respondent No.3. 2] The petitioner who was already SSC in 1980 joined the services of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 10.5.1985 and completed 3 years of service on 10.5.1988. Thus, seniority of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Naka Karkoon needed to be computed from 10.5.1988. Respondent No.3 joined his services in 1980. He completed his SCC in 1988. According to the petitioenr, therefore, the seniority must be calculated after completion of 3 years i.e. from 1991. 3] Shri S.V. Gundre, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the Govt. Resolution dated 23rd September, 1975 is very clear and in cases where a person is already SSC before joining the services, his seniority can be calculated after he puts in 3 year's service. He submits that if a person obtains SSC qualification while in service, the...
M/S. Abhishek Builders and Developers and Others Vs. the City and Indu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Counsel for respective respondents waive notice. By consent, heard finally forthwith. 2. Writ Petition (St.) No. 10937 of 2012 is to issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Order or directions in the nature of writ of certiorari thereby quashing and/or setting aside the impugned order dated 9th April, 2012 passed by the respondent No. 2 rejecting the petitioners' proposal for regularization. (Exhibit-A). The petitioners have sought further relief to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus thereby seeking directions to the respondents to reconsider the proposal for regularization in respect of the petitioners' property i.e. building known as Green Heritage, situated at Plot Nos. 79 and 80, Sector20, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, on the basis of the material placed on record and accept the same in accordance with law. 3. The first petitioner is a ...
Dr. Meena Vs. the Vice Chancellor and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the judgment and order dated 28.2.2011, passed by the Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Nagpur in Appeal No.N-4/2006, by which the appeal was returned to the appellant for presentation to the proper forum, upon holding the appeal to be not maintainable under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, against the order of retirement from service of the petitioner, she being declared invalid by the Medical Board. 3. In support of the writ petition, Advocate Shri Sundaram for the petitioner vehemently argued that Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 provides for appeal for challenging even the 'otherwise termination', besides dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. According to him, the petitioner was finally served with an order dated 21.2.2007 that she was found to b...
Taj Air Ltd. (Formerly And#8220;megapode Airlines Ltd.And#8221;) Vs. A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
The Petitioner has invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act) for setting aside the award dated 4 June 2010 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted as per the agreement clause between the parties, as the dispute arose. 2 The operative part of the award is as under:- The Respondent do pay to the Claimant a sum of Rs.23,38,322/- (Rupees twenty three lakhs thirty eight thousand three hundred twenty two only) being of 7 percent of revenue due to the claimant under clause 1.2, read with clauses 7 and 9 of the Agreement with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from 1st April 2004 to the date of this Award. ii) The Respondent do pay the Claimant a sum of Rs.17,85,000/- (Rupees Seventeen lakh eighty five thousand only) by way of cost of arbitration. iii) The Respondent do pay the Claimant interest on the sum directed to be paid to the Claimant by this award from the date of the award till the date of payment at the statutory r...
President and Others Vs. Smt. Savitri W/O Pushpashil Patel and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition challenges the order dated 24-4-2006 passed in Contempt Petition No.12 of 2005 by the presiding Officer, Additional School Tribunal, (Nagpur) Chandrapur, in exercise of its power under Section 11(3) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short, “the MEPS Act”), holding that the respondent No.1 is entitled to back wages since 7-5-1988 till her retirement on superannuation. The order further directs the respondent No.2-Education Officer to deduct from non-salary grants due and payable to the petitioners, the amount of arrears and emoluments of the respondent No.1 for the said period, as per the revised pay-scale and to pay the same directly to her. 2. Such of the facts as are relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy in the present case, are stated below: By the judgment and order dated 29-11-1988, the School Tribunal allowed the Appeal STN No.88 of 1988 filed by the responde...
Welspun Projects Limited and Others Vs. Mira Bhayander Municipal Corpo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2012
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Counsel for the respective Respondents waive notice. By consent, taken up for final hearing forthwith. 2) By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is prayed that the decision of the Standing Committee of Respondent No. 1 Corporation and the letter of intent, issued in favour of R. K. Consortium be quashed and set aside, including, in particular the decision of the Standing committee of the Respondent No. 1 Corporation disqualifying/rejecting the Petitioners' bid or financial proposal. The Petitioners have thus, prayed for quashing and setting aside the declaration of R K Consortium as the preferred bidder, whether by way of a letter of intent or otherwise and the decision to award the contract to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 / R K Consortium. The Petitioners have further prayed for direction against Respondent No.1 to consider the Petitioners' bid or financial proposal, carry out the financial evaluation ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »