Mumbai Court April 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.
Smt. Panna Sunit Khatau and Others Vs. Dilip Dharamsey Khatau and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
Oral Judgment: By this petition filed under section 30 read with section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the petitioner seeks to challenge the interim award dated 4th December, 1985, directions dated 10th September, 1985, 25th September, 1985 and 21st October, 1985 issued by the learned arbitrator. 2. Some of the relevant facts for the purposes of deciding this petition are as under: Mr. Sunit Chandrakant Khatau, Kiran Chandrakant Khatau, Dilip Khatau, Abhay Khatau L. Khatau and Kishore Khatau were co-owners of the immovable property known as Khatau Bungalow, Manav Mandir Road, Mumbai 400 006. Under the family arrangement dated 10th August, 1983, the company known as Khatau Company Limited and certain other concerns were allotted to petitioners' group. In respect of the immovable property known as Khatau Bungalow, the Memorandum of Understanding dated 12th July, 1984 (for short MOU) was executed between Kishore Dharamsey Khatau, Dilip Dharamsey Khatau and Abhay Laxmidas Khatau (herein...
Babubhai @ Zaverchand Harjivan Sheth and Others Vs. the State of Mahar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
A.P. Bhangale, J. 1. All these appeals arise out of the Judgment and order dated 13-06-2005 passed in Special Case No. 10 of 2001 tried before the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad at Alibaug. Eight accused (hereinafter referred to as A-1 to A-8) were facing trial upon the charges of Kidnapping, double murder and destroying evidence of the commission of double Murder as also offences of atrocities on members of Scheduled Caste. Eight accused were facing Special sessions trial no. 10 of 2001 upon multiple accusations. It is alleged that A-1 to A-3, not being members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe had on 29-03-2001 intentionally insulted and humiliated Mr.Vasant Kamble and Mrs. Alka Kamble in the office of the Amit Gas Agency within public view , wrongfully interfered with and deprived the deceased of their legal right over Amit Gas Agency belonging to deceased Kamble couple. Incidentally as Kamble couple was belonging to Scheduled Caste, the offences punishable u...
Ashford Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PravIn Dalpatrai Desai and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
Oral Judgment: The learned senior counsel appearing for the Plaintiffs on instructions, restricted the arguments to prayer clauses (a) and (b), which are reproduced as under:- (a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order and direct the office of the Prothonotary and Senior Master to take on file, number and process the above Execution Application even before sealing of the Consent Decree dated 8th June 1998 passed in the above matter. (b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order under Sub-rule (2) of Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 allowing execution of the Consent Decree dated 8th Jun3 1998 passed in the above matter without issuance of the usual Notice under Order XXI Rule 22 of the C.P.C. to the Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 abovenamed. 2 They are not pressing other prayer clauses i.e. from (c) to (m) at this stage of the Execution. Admittedly, by order dated 8 June 1998 the Suit got disposed of in view of the consent terms. The consent terms was signed b...
M/S.Orient Ship Agency Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. the Commissioner of C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) The Petitioners seek to challenge the legality of a notice to show cause dated 22 September 2000, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs and a communication dated 18 December 2012 of the Superintendent of Customs intimating that a personal hearing of the case has been fixed on 18 January 2013. 2. On 28 December 1996, a notice to show cause was issued to Beacon Maritime Carriers Pvt. Ltd. for a failure to export and to account for 59 cargo containers. During the course of the personal hearing on 25 June 1997, the adjudicating authority was informed by the Advocate appearing for the noticee that its contract had been terminated on 16 November 1996 by the principal shipping agency (National Shipping Agency of Saudi Arabia) and a fresh contract had been awarded to DBC Freight International. The letter dated 17 November 1996 of the principal shipping agency provided an undertaking to satisfactorily account for the cargo covered by the Import G...
M/S. Abg Kandla Container Terminal Ltd. and Another Vs. Axis Bank Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
1. The above Suit is filed by the Plaintiff for declarations that: (i) the Suit Bank Guarantee has ceased to be operative and that the first Defendant is not bound to make any payment thereunder; (ii) the first Defendant is not entitled to recover the amounts that may be paid by it under the Suit Bank Guarantee to the second Defendant from the Plaintiff and debit the account of the Plaintiff towards the same and (iii) the first Defendants demand made on the Plaintiff vide their email dated 4th December 2012 is wrongful, non-est and of no effect whatsoever and not binding upon the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has also sought a permanent injunction restraining the first Defendant from making payment to the second Defendant purportedly due under the Suit Bank Guarantee and for restraining the Defendant No.1 from demanding payment from the Plaintiff and/or debiting the account of the Plaintiff towards payment that may be made under the Suit Bank Guarantee, and/or in any way acting in furtheran...
Pratibha Gorakhnath Nikumbh Vs. State of Maharashtra Through the Secre ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-2013
Oral Judgment: (Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar, J.) In these two writ petitions, the petitioners, a sister and brother seek relief against the decision of the Caste Scrutiny committee dated 7th June 2008 holding that the petitioners do not belong to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe community. The claim of both the petitioners is based on the order dated 2nd November 2004 passed by this Court in the Writ Petition No.7995 of 2004 (Shri Deepak Gorakhnath Nikumbh Vs. State of Maharashtra). The said Deepak Gorakhnath Nikumbh happens to be the real brother of the present petitioners. He had challenged the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating his caste claim of Mahadeo Koli before this Court. This Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 15th July 2004 of the Scrutiny Committee and ordered the Committee to grant caste validity certificate of Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe to Deepak. The present petitioners also thereafter applied to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for issuing caste val...
ZulkarnaIn MohammedhussaIn Kagalwalla Vs. Mumtaz HussaIn Mohammedhussa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
1. This is the usual suit between the admitted siblings where one sibling, despite admitting the right to the share of the other siblings after the death of his parent, keeps appropriated to himself the estate of the deceased constraining the other siblings to sue for their share. 2. All the parties in this suit are the admitted heirs of their deceased father, one M.A. Kagalwala (the deceased). All of them accept the relationship and most of the estate of the deceased. They also accept that they are governed by the Shariat Law. The plaintiff, defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 who are the sons of the deceased have an equal share which is double that of the daughter of the deceased who is defendant No.3, their sister. Hence the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 have 2/7th share in the estate of the deceased. The defendant No.3 has 1/7th share in the estate of the deceased. 3. These shares of the parties and the relationship between the parties is admitted in paragraphs 4,5,7 a...
K.A. Mohandas Vs. National Centre for the Performing Arts (Ncpa) and A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
P.C. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the concurrent orders passed by lower authorities below whereunder his complaint challenging the dismissal order came to be dismissed. 3. The petitioner was charged for misconduct as defined under Clause (v) of Section 12 of Service Rules of respondent No.1. The petitioner is alleged to have abused his superior - Mr. Jadhav, Asstt. Supervision with filthy words and pushed him down the chair thereby physically hurting him. The petitioner thereafter took out the fire axe from FCR and tried to assault and kill Mr. Jadhav with the said axe. The petitioner is further alleged to have taken out read knife from his pocket and attempted to stab Mr. Jadhav in his stomach and also threatened to murder him along with his wife and children if he reported the incident to anyone. Disciplinary Inquiry was initiated against the pet...
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. In these proceedings, which have been lodged on 1 October 2012, the Petitioner has sought to question the legality of an order which was passed over five years ago on 28 May 2007 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. In the alternative, the Petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus ordering and directing the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2(I), Mumbai to give effect to the order of the Tribunal as if all the grounds of appeal have been set aside for fresh adjudication. 2. The assessment year to which the dispute relates is 1998-99. On 30 November 1998, the Petitioner filed a return of income declaring a total income of Rs.513.51 crores after claiming a deduction under Sections 80HH, 80I and 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`the Act'). On 9 February 2001, the Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment under Section 143(3) determining a total income of Rs.580.50 crores. The A.O. denied the benefit of a deduction under Sections 80HH, 80I and 80IA i...
M/S. Oriental Export Corporation Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2013
PC : 1. The Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondents, more particularly the Director General of Foreign Trade, to revalidate, renew and extend the period of the Duty Free Import Authorization (`DFIA') License. The Petitioner seeks to challenge the orders passed by the Foreign Trade Development Officer between 18 May 2011 and 5 July 2011 (Exhibits-D-1 to D-10) declining to revalidate the DFIA licenses on the ground that the request could not be considered in terms of paragraph 2.13.1 of the Hand Book of Procedures. 2. Between 23 April 2008 and 25 November 2010, 24 DFIA Licenses were issued to the Petitioner by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade. According to the Petitioner, it complied with the export obligation following which the Third Respondent issued a certificate of discharge of the export obligation. The Petitioner applied for revalidation of the licenses, which request was rejected as noted by diverse orders annexed at Exhibits-D-1 to D-10 to the petition. 3. A p...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »