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.
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: ...
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 Spinning Co.Ltd. ...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-i Vs. Amitabh Bachchan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2012
M.S. Sanklecha, J. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") challenges the order 19th March 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in respect of the Assessment Year 2002-03. 2. Being aggrieved, the appellant has raised the following questions of law for consideration by this Court. a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in holding that the A.O. was not justified in initiating proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and accordingly, upholding the order of the CIT(A) in holding that the whole assessment is annulled? b) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal in law was right in holding that the A.O. was not justified in initiating the proceedings u/s. 147 even though the Assessing Officer had sufficient reasons in the form of nine issues to believe that the income chargeable to tax has ...
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 the Petitione...
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...
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 and they are fac...
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 Plaintiffs ownership and possession of the suit property. In t...
Mrs. Radhika George and Others Vs. Maharashtra Housing and Area Develo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
N.M. Jamdar J. 1. The appellants who are the original petitioners in Writ Petition (Lodging) No.2529 of 2011 have filed the present appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 24th April 2012 disposing of the Writ Petition with certain directions. The appellants, in the Writ Petition had challenged the order of the Executive Engineer of MHADA - respondent no. 2 in the proceedings under section 95A of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority Act, (for short ‘The Act”) directing the appellants to vacate the premises in their occupation. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge inasmuch as it does not grant protection to the appellants in respect of their possession over the structures in question. 2. The subject matter of dispute is redevelopment of the property bearing CTS No.1269 at Rajawadi, Ghatkopar (East). The petitioners are owners of tenements situated therein and members of Chittaranjan Nagar, Vidya Co-...
Gangubai W/O Bhagwanrao Pawatekar and Others Vs. Kishanrao S/O Limbaji ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-04-2012
1. This writ petition is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 24th October, 1991 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in Revision Petition No. 101/B/90/Beed declaring the respondent No. 1 Kishanrao, i.e. petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 1822 of 1992 and 1035 of 1992, as tenant of the suit land. 2. The background facts for filing this writ petition as disclosed in the writ petition are as under : ". The petitioner herein is a daughter of late Gangubai wife of Bhagwanrao, who was the land owner of Survey No. 122 and 142 to the extent of 3 Acre and 5 Gunthas, situated at village Tarfa Balgujzar, District Beed. From the said land, one Sahebrao Ranuji was the protected tenant. . The mother of the petitioner Gangubai did file an application under Section 44 read with Section 32 subsection (2) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (For short, “said Act”) on 7the January, 1961 in the office of Tahsildar, Beed alleging ...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 39
- 40
- 41
- Next ›
- Last »