Mumbai Court March 2013 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.
Uti Mutual Fund, Through Its Trustees Uti Trustee Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) : 1. Rule, by consent returnable forthwith. With the consent of counsel and at their request, the petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The Petitioner has sought to challenge principally an order that was passed by the Income Tax Officer 19(3)(2), the First Respondent, on 25 February 2013 calling upon the Petitioner to pay an outstanding demand under the provisions of Section 177(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 to the extent of the share of investment by the Petitioner in a securitization trust, called the Indian Corporate Loan Securitization Trust 2008 Series 24. For Assessment Year 2010-11 an assessment was completed under Section 143(3) in respect of the trust resulting in a net demand of Rs.1.57 Crores. During the pendency of these proceedings an application by the trust to the CIT-19 for holding the demand in abeyance under Section 220(6) has been rejected. 3. The Petitioner is registered as a mutual fund with the Securiti...
Rajeev Kapur and Others Vs. Grentex and Company Private Limited and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
1. The above Appeal is filed under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act). By the above Appeal, the Appellants have impugned the order passed by the Company Law Board, Mumbai Bench (CLB) dated 30th January 2010 dismissing Company Petition No. 112 of 2008 which was filed by the Appellants (Original Petitioners) against the Respondents on the ground of oppression of the Appellants who are the minority shareholders of Respondent No.1 Company and mismanagement of the Respondent Company. 2. The Appellants have submitted that the following important questions of law require determination by this Court. (1) Whether in a family Company, where there are essentially two groups of shareholders, and two Directors, and when admittedly there is deadlock with regard to the conduct of the business of the Company, the CLB ought to have granted reliefs so as to put an end to the oppression and mismanagement? (2) Whether in a family Company, where all the other Directors and Shareholders receiv...
Subhash S/O Narayanrao Moralwar Vs. Vilas S/O Pandurang Wankhede and O ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
This Appeal from Order takes exception to the judgment and order dated 15th February, 2012 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 358 of 2001 passed by the Adhoc District Judge-2, Nanded. By the impugned judgment and order, the lower appellate Court has remanded the matter back to the trial Court by quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 9th December, 2001 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nanded in R.C.S. No. 302 of 1998 with direction to decide the suit afresh by taking into consideration Issue Nos. 1 to 8 framed by the lower appellate Court. 2. An order of remand passed under Order 41, Rule 23A is amenable to appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, can only be heard on the grounds enumerated in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Narayanan vs. Kumaran and others reported in (2004) 4 SCC 26 and in the case of Jegannathanvs. Raju Sigamani and another reported in 2012(5) Mh.L.J. 1. 3. The...
The Chief Executive Officer Vs. Vaijinath S/O Abasaheb Shinde and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
1. In all these writ petitions the issue involved is identical. Therefore, all these petitions have been heard together and the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. All these petitions take exception to the judgments and orders delivered on 22nd and 23rd September, 2011 by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Latur in Complaints (ULP) no.22, 26, 27, 25, 24, and 23/2008. 2. The relevant facts, as narrated in the complaints, are thus: The respondent No.1 herein are the original complainants before the Industrial Court. They filed the complaints stating therein that the complainants are working as a Clerk since 15.09.2001, 1.11.1988, 1.1.1997, 1.6.1989, 31.12.1998, and 1.10.2000, respectively in the office of the present petitioner original respondent No.1 and respondent 4. They are getting monthly salary of Rs.3500/-. The petitioner herein and respondents 2 to 3 had passed a resolution No.4 on 29.5.2004, but they had not absorbed the complainants on the posts of Group Se...
Madhukar V. Khandeparkar, (Since Deceased) by Legal Representatives: a ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-06-2013
U.V. Bakre, J. By this Letters Patent Appeal, the Judgment dated 14/11/2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 282 of 1999 has been challenged. 2. Facts which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, in short, are as follows : Eviction proceedings were initiated against the deceased appellant no.1 and his wife, the appellant no. 2(defendants) by respondents no. 2 to 7 and two others (plaintiffs), by way of Regular Civil Suit No. 267/1975 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panaji. The suit house is the house bearing Village Panchayat No. 525 situated at Taleigao. The Plaintiffs contended that the suit house was built up by one Radhabhai Khandeparkar alias Oidem, in the property of the plaintiffs with their permission and she was residing there alone as licensee and died in 1975 without leaving any heirs and upon her death, the suit house remained closed. The plaintiffs further claimed that on or about 28/07/1975, the defendan...
Tata Capital Ltd. and Another Vs. Anand Swarup Oberoi and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2013
1. The applicants have applied for raising attachment levied under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 54 of the CPC by this Chamber Summons taken out under Order 21 Rule 38(2) thereof. Pursuant to an award dated 20th June, 2009, warrant of attachment came to be levied on 26th July, 2012 and the flat claimed by the applicants in this Chamber Summons came to be attached on 7th August, 2012. The society where the flat is situate was informed about the attachment on 27th August, 2012 by their undated letter. 2. The applicants claim to have been sold a flat by the Respondent who is the Judgment Debtor (JD) under the award under an agreement for sale executed on 6th October, 2010. The agreement has been registered on 8th October, 2010. 3. The agreement is between family members. The applicants are the transferees. They claim to have paid consideration mentioned in the agreement to the JD and his wife in their personal names. 4. The bank accounts of the applicants show payment made to one Oberoi...
Subhash @ Ravi Swaminath Shrivastava Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2013
Oral Judgment: (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) This appeal is directed by the appellant-original accused against the judgment and order dated 12.03.2007 passed by the learned 7th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai in Sessions Case No.863 of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/- in default R.I. for six months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (a) First informant PW 1 Ramkumar was running a tailoring shop in Room No.5 in Kala Killa at Dharavi, Mumbai. Ram Pal (deceased) and the appellant Subhash were working in the tailoring shop of PW 1 Ramkumar. PW 1 Ramkumar as well as the appellant and deceased Ram Pal used to sleep in the shop of PW 1 Ramkumar. (ii) The incident took place on 11.08.2006. On that day at 10.00 p.m., PW 1 Ramkumar came back to his shop after taking dinner. He saw that the appellant and the dece...
Balu Shivram Shingade Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-2013
Oral Judgment: [Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.] 1 This appeal is directed by the appellant-original accused against the judgment and order dated 20.10.2006 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Niphad in Sessions Case No. 21 of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 307 and 498-A of IPC. For the offence under Section 302, the appellant was sentenced to R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- in default R.I. for three months. For the offence under section 307 of IPC, no separate sentence has been passed and for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC the appellant was sentenced to R.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 300/- in default R.I. for three months. The learned Sessions Judge directed that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 2 The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: The appellant was married to Nababai (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), about 14 years prior ...
Mrs. Alka W/O Ajay Dalal and Another Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Thr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-05-2013
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard finally with consent by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. 2. Perused provisions of Section 20 of Sub-section 4 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 2012. 3. The Standing Committee of Corporation consists of 16 persons and as per that provision, 8 have to be elected every year in place of 8 members who retire annually. The meeting held on 2.2.2013 for that purpose was the first meeting after Section 20 and above scheme of retirement by rotation came into force. To determine, who should be the 8 persons to retire in first year, Section 20 of Sub-section 4, contemplates election of those 8 Members by drawing lots. The manner thereof is to be decided by the Chairman of the Standing Committee. 4. The counsel for petitioners submits that though accordingly 8 chits having word Kayam (to continue) and 8 chits having word Nivrutta (to retire), were prepared, while drawing lots, all male members have picked up the chits fr...
Ganesh S/O Jaglal Jaiswal Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Secreta ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-05-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for both the parties. 2. This Writ Petition challenges the order passed by the Deputy Regional Transport Officer, Wardha in Appeal No.4/2012/Wardha under Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The said Appeal impugned the order passed by the Police Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Wardha City (prescribed authority). The Police Sub-Inspector (hereinafter referred to as prescribed authority) by the said order dated 22nd November, 2012 has suspended the registration certificate of Maruti van bearing Registration No. MH-32 A-185 for a period of 120 days from the date of deposit of said vehicle at Wardha Police Station. The order in question was passed by the Prescribed Authority in exercise of its powers under Section 53(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Section 53 (1) of the said Act runs as under: 53. Suspension of registration: (1) If any registering a...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »