Mumbai Court September 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.
The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vijay S/O Marotrao ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
Oral Judgment: This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.1.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati, in M.A.C.P. No.100/2009, granting compensation of Rs.6,23,900/- to the respondents no.2 to 7 on account of death of one Faganu caused in a motor vehicular accident involving auto-rickshaw owned by respondent no.1 and insured with the appellant. 2] The appellant/ insurance company had set up a defence that the Driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving licence. The learned Tribunal after assessing the evidence found that the drivercumowner respondent no.1 herein had a driving licence, but it was not renewed and thus was not valid on the date when the accident occurred. He therefore accepted the defence that there was breach of term of insurance policy, however, directed the appellant insurance company to satisfy the award at the first instance and then to recover it from the respondent on.1. 3] Mr. Paunikar, raised two points,...
Dinanath Rama Naik, (Since Deceased) Through Legal Heirs and Others Vs ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
S.A. BOBDE, J. Heard Shri A. R. Kantak, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri C. A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Since a learned Single Judge, Lavande, J being unable to agree with the judgment of the Division Bench in Mrs. Damayantiben Shivaji Chauhan V/s Dr. Dinesh Parekh and others reported in All India Rent Control Journal 1988(1) 520 having regard to the view taken by the another Division Bench in Maria Madeira e Fernandes V/s Vishnu Mahadeo Kanekar, reported in AIR 1987 Bom. 240 has referred the following question. “Whether in an appeal preferred by a tenant against an order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller an application under Section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, is maintainable, at the instance of the landlord on the ground that the tenant has not deposited the rents due during the pendency of the proceedings before the Administrative Tribunal ?” 3. Section 3...
Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Limited Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 1.8.2006 in a group of Income Tax Appeals pertaining to various assessment years. The present appeal is against the order insofar as it relates to ITA No.1964/M/1997 and pertains to the assessment year 1993-1994. 2. By an order dated 3.3.2008, the Division Bench admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:- “1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in confirming the allocation of Research and Development expenses incurred by the Head Office among the four manufacturing units on the presumption that the expenditure so incurred is for the benefit of these manufacturing units, when in fact such research conducted had no connection with the business of the said units, nor any benefit is received by them from the said research? 2) Whether on the facts and in the ci...
Union of India, Owning and Representing the Central Railway Through th ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
This appeal arises out of the order dated 17.10.1996 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal: Nagpur Bench Nagpur, in Claim Petition No.48/OA-1/RCT/NGP/92 whereby the appellant was directed to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.48,310/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. on account of loss sustained by the latter. 2] The facts in brief are thus: the respondent - Maharashtra State Electricity Board, through Controller of Stores, Chandrapur Thermal Power Station, Chandrapur was the consignee of the consignment containing 600 bags of stable bleaching powder booked by M/s Chlorochem Industries Kota (Rajasthan) - cosignor. The consignment was booked on 15.3.1989 which reached to the destination in November, 1989 i.e. after about 8 months that too in a damaged condition. The respondent lodged claim with the appellant, but in vain. Therefore, the claim application was filed claiming damages of Rs.56,690/- towards value of the consignment. 3] The appellant filed written reply. The booking ...
Gajanan Gangaram Patil and Others Vs. M/S. Relene Petrochemicals Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
By consent, heard finally. The Background events are: 2 On 16 April, 2002, Erstwhile PCD Unit of NOCIL (formerly National Organic Chemicals Ltd.) practically closed due to financial difficulties. 3 On 20 March, 2003, a Closure permission was granted by the State Government to NOCIL under Section 25O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the ID Act), but this was set aside by consent before the High Court and the matter was remanded. Later, the permission was once again granted on 20 March 2003. On 31 January 2004, the Industrial Tribunal set aside closure permission under Section 25-O(5). Writ Petition No.5046 of 2004 filed by NOCIL to challenge Industrial Tribunal's order was admitted and pending. NOCIL had also filed a Company petition for demerger of the PCD Unit from the Company, which is also pending. 4 On 11 September, 2004, a Tripartite memorandum of understanding (MOU) between NOCIL, the unions (NOCIL Employees' Union and PIL Employees Union), and Relene Petrochemica...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Another Vs. Kashinath S/O Narayan ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
Oral Judgment: 1. Both these appeals are directed against judgment and award dated 02.06.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola in M. A. C. P. No.268/1999, which was filed for grant of compensation on account of death of one Kiran occurred in motor vehicular accident involving a Jeep driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 (for short the “Insured”) and insured with original respondent no.3 (for short the “Insurer”). 2. After appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned tribunal held that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. Since the deceased, while travelling had not held rod/iron bar and secured himself, he was also held to be negligent to the extent of 10%. Owing to the absence of evidence of the income of the deceased, the learned tribunal assumed notional income at Rs.15,000/- per year and after deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses of the deceased and co...
The Commissioner of Income Tax And#8211; 10 Vs. M/S. Indian Oil Corpor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
M.S. Sanklecha, J. This appeal by the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) challenges an order dated 24/11/2010 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in ITA No.2201/Mum./2006 relating to the assessment year 2002-03. 2) The appeal is admitted on the following question of law:- “Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that interest under section 234D is chargeable from Assessment year 2004-05 only and it could not be charged for earlier assessment years, even though regular assessments for such earlier assessment years are framed after 1/6/2003?” At the instance of the Advocates for the appellant and the respondent, the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. 3) The facts leading to this appeal are as under:- a) On 30/10/2002, the respondent-assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2002-03 declaring an income of Rs.2620,22,91,1...
Smt. Seema Sunil Khinvasara Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
A.A. Sayed, J. 1. The Petitioner who is a doctor by profession and practices in a rural village has filed this Petition for and on behalf of her minor daughter Pranjal. The Petitioner has questioned the denial of admission by Respondent No.3 college to Pranjal in the First year MBBS course from the Maharashtra Rural quota. The Petition was amended after a Reply was filed by Respondent no.3 and the Petitioner has also challenged the constitutional validity of clause 3.2.4 of the 2012 Prospectus of the college on the ground that it is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. Respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra. Respondent No.2 is the Directorate of Medical Education and Research. Respondent No. 3 is the Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences situated at Sevagram in District Wardha (referred to as “Respondent No. 3 college”). Respondent No.4 is the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nasik. 3. The facts leading to the filin...
Mohammad Wasim Mohammad Imam Bhiwaniwale Vs. the State of Maharashtra, ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
Oral Judgment: (A.B. Chaudhari, J.) : Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2) Shri Chande, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of the present criminal writ petition, argued that the petitioner is entitled to be released on parole since grandmother of the petitioner expired and he is required to attend the rituals. The learned Counsel relied on Rule 19 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 as amended in support of his submissions. 3) Per contra, Shri Nayak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents, opposed the petition and argued that the list of the persons mentioned in Rule 19 cannot be stretched to mean that even the grandmother of the prisoner would be included in the said expression and, therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the criminal writ petition. 4) We quote Rule 19 for convenience, which reads thus: “19. When a prisoner may be released on parole - A prisoner may be...
Gajanan Gangaram Patil and Others Vs. M/S. Relene Petrochemicals Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
By consent, heard finally. The Background events are: 2 On 16 April, 2002, Erstwhile PCD Unit of NOCIL (formerly National Organic Chemicals Ltd.) practically closed due to financial difficulties. 3 On 20 March, 2003, a Closure permission was granted by the State Government to NOCIL under Section 25O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the ID Act), but this was set aside by consent before the High Court and the matter was remanded. Later, the permission was once again granted on 20 March 2003. On 31 January 2004, the Industrial Tribunal set aside closure permission under Section 25-O(5). Writ Petition No.5046 of 2004 filed by NOCIL to challenge Industrial Tribunal's order was admitted and pending. NOCIL had also filed a Company petition for demerger of the PCD Unit from the Company, which is also pending. 4 On 11 September, 2004, a Tripartite memorandum of understanding (MOU) between NOCIL, the unions (NOCIL Employees' Union and PIL Employees Union), and Relene Petrochemica...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »