Mumbai Court July 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.
Dharmarajya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh Vs. M/S. S.P.Fabrications Pvt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2} The petitioner has challenged an interlocutory order pending the main complaint whereby the challenge was raised to the transfer order issued by the respondent-Management against some of the employees who are members/office bearers of recently formed Union. The impugned transfer order is only for a period of six months. 3} The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on instructions restricted the case only with regard to one Mr.Sandesh Damodar Sutar. Therefore, the present petition is concerned only his transfer. 4} The learned Industrial Court, after considering the issue, including the merit of the contentions that were raised specifically with regard to alleged case of malafide action of Management, rejected/refused to pass interim order of staying the transfer pending the main complaint. 5} There is no serious dispute with regard to the service conditions and the right of Management to transfer the employees from one p...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ms. Janhavi S. Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.) :- 1. With the consent of the parties, we proceed to hear the appeal filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the cross-objections finally. 2. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law :- “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was right in directing the A.O. to calculate the long term capital gain without appreciating that section 2(42A) of the Act explanation 1 only determines the holding period of an asset for the purpose of short term capital gains and has no application to long term capital gain for which the assessee gets the benefit of indexation?” The cross-objections are admitted on the following substantial question of law :- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal erred in holding that in respect of the 50% of the property inherited by the respondent from his mother the period of holding will start from 21.08.1988 and not fro...
Ashish Arunkumar Kejriwal Vs. Mills Mazdoor Sabha and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT: 1) Heard finally by consent of the parties. After hearing both the parties on 21st June 2012, I have already given reasons and adjourned the matter for the respondents to place more material on record in support of the exparte order and the reasons for rejecting application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the same and for restoration of the original proceedings. The reasons so recorded need to be treated as a part of this order also. 2} The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has again relied on the reasoning given by the learned Industrial Court, basically, on paragraphs 5 to 8 and 9 and thereby contended to maintain the order. However, the respondents are unable to place any material on record, for which time was granted. Admittedly, the application for bringing Mr.Amar Anilkumar Kejriwal on record was filed by the respondent without taking note of and/or without verifying about other legal heirs of the deceased. Admittedly, no such person in the nam...
Hirabai Vasant Patil Vs. Sitaram Nago Alias Namdev Davane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
Oral Judgment: 1 Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The above Petition takes exception to the order dated 28/2/2012 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panvel by which order, Applications (Exhibits 156, 157 and 159) came to be rejected. In so far as the Applications Exhibits 156 and 157 are concerned, the same were for framing Additional Issues; whereas Application Exhibit 159 is concerned, the same is for treating the reply filed to the application for temporary injunction (Exhibit-5) as a Written Statement. 3 It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary facts. The facts in brief necessary to be cited for adjudication of the issue raised in the above Petition can be stated thus:- The suit in question i.e. Regular Civil Suit No.145 of 2007 has been filed by the Respondent herein for a declaration and injunction. The declaration sought is as regards the Plaintiff’s ownership and possession of the suit propert...
Dr. Vaishali Dilip Pawar and Others Vs. the Director of Medical Educat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) Rule, made returnable forthwith. Learned AGP for the Respondents waives service. By consent, the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The Petitioners are all employed with the Government of Maharashtra and are Medical Officers working in Government Hospitals. The dispute in the present case relates to the in-service quota for postgraduate degree and diploma courses. The Petitioners have sought a direction to the effect that the Respondents should declare 25% of the total number of postgraduate medical seats inclusive of degree and diploma seats as being available for in service candidates without excluding (i) seats reserved for all India medical students; (ii) seats for clinical subjects. 3. The State Government issued a Government Resolution on 22 February 1996 which adverts to the position that students who have completed their medical courses show an unwillingness to join government service. In view of this and in order t...
Wasp Pumps Pvt Ltd. and Another Vs. the Asst. Provident Fund Commissio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard by consent of the parties. 2} The petitioner-Company had become sick as contemplated under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 in the year 1996-1997 itself. The wages were paid and so also the provident fund contribution, in time. There were disputes during the period 1996-2000. The petitioner replied and explained the delay and submitted not to claim interest and damages from the company. They prayed to drop the proceedings. The Authority, however, by order dated 04.12.2008, without assigning specific reason and infact without considering the grounds so raised, by unreasoned order directed to pay damages to the tune of Rs.27,58,091/- including the interest. 3} An appeal under section 7I of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short “the Act”), was preferred. The appellant-petitioner again raised various issues of jurisdiction, limitation and pointed out the difficulties which they were facing an...
Sanjeevan GramIn Vaidyakiya and Samajik Sahayata Pratisthan Through It ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
Oral Judgment: Heard by consent of the parties. 2} The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 23.12.2011 whereby the learned Presiding Officer, considering the termination notice and undisputed facts that no opportunity whatsoever was given before terminating the respondent and thereby caused breach of principles of natural justice, has set aside the termination notice and directed to reinstate to the post of Laboratory Attendant with continuity and back wages. Though time was granted, till this date the order is not yet complied with. 3} The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has strongly relied on the Judgment of the Full Bench in SaindranathJagannath Jawanjal vs. Pratibha Shikshan Sanstha and Anr (2007 (3) Bombay Cases Reporter 527)and placed reliance specifically on paragraphs 45 and 46 which reads as under: “45 ….In this behalf, readily available judgments are in the case of (State of Punjab and others vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy, U.P.State Spi...
Shri Popat Jaysingh Rajpure Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
Oral Judgment: 1 Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2 The subject matter of the above Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 11/11/2011 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baramati by which order Application (Exhibit-1) invoking Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be disposed of and the operative of the order reads thus:- “1] The Civil Court have no jurisdiction to entertained the suit against defendant Nos.1 to 8 hence the suit is against disposed of them 2] The suit shall proceed against defendant No.9 and 10 3] The injunction order against defendant No.4 is vacated 4] The suit be fixed for hearing of Exh.5 a fresh.” A short question therefore arises for a consideration is, whether the court could have passed the order of the nature passed whilst dealing with an application under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3 The genesis of the suit filed by...
Prabodh G. Mehta and Others Vs. Union of India Through Ministry of Law ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
R.Y. Ganoo,J. 1. Heard learned Advocates on both sides, Admit. 2. Mr.Salil Shah waives service on behalf of all the respondents. By consent taken up for final hearing. 3. On hearing learned advocates on both sides, following substantial question of law is framed: a) Whether the Tribunal was justified in affirming the imposition of penalty for the alleged contravention of Section 9(1)(f)(i) of FERA 1973 on the ground that the appellants had paid equivalent Indian currency through Mr. Niranjan Shah to a person outside India without any general or special exemption granted by the RBI as a consideration for acquisition of US$ 1,00,000/-? 4. Being aggrieved by the Order dated 24.4.2011 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange (for short said Tribunal) in Review Application Nos. 43 - 46 of 2010 confirming the dated 25.3.2009 passed by said Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 253 - 256 of 2002, the present appeal is filed. 5. Few facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under: ...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ms. Janhavi S. Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.) :- 1. With the consent of the parties, we proceed to hear the appeal filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the cross-objections finally. 2. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law :- Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was right in directing the A.O. to calculate the long term capital gain without appreciating that section 2(42A) of the Act explanation 1 only determines the holding period of an asset for the purpose of short term capital gains and has no application to long term capital gain for which the assessee gets the benefit of indexation? The cross-objections are admitted on the following substantial question of law :- Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal erred in holding that in respect of the 50% of the property inherited by the respondent from his mother the period of holding will start from 21.08.1988 and not from 01.04.1981 ? 3. In ...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- Next ›
- Last »