Mumbai Court July 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs. Prabhu Steel Industries Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-03-2013
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. Heard Shri Anand Parchure, learned Counsel for the appellant Department and Shri C.J. Thakkar, learned Counsel for respondent Assessee. As we find a substantial question of law arising in the matter, and parties agree to immediate final disposal, we proceed to Admit the matter on the following as substantial question of law. (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is correct in law, in rejecting the Valuation Officer's report without providing an opportunity of being heard to the Valuation Officer, thereby violating the basic principle of 'audi alterm partem' ? 2. Shri Parchure, learned Counsel for appellant Department has urged that question nos. (a) and (b) also constitute substantial questions in the matter. However, we find that if question (c) is, answered in favour of the department, it is not necessary to look into the said questions. 3. The facts are not in dispute. Search and seizure operations were carried on 27.09.200...
Rajeev Kumar Suman S/O Kedarnath Prasad Vs. Mahatma Gandhi Antarrashtr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jul-03-2013
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner was rusticated therefore, this petition. Mahatma Gandhi Antarrashtriya Hindi Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1996 (for short the said Act) provides for dispute settlement mechanism in Sections 32, 33 and 34 for the students in disciplinary cases which are reproduced as under: Section 32: (1) Every employee of the University shall be appointed under a written contract which shall be lodged with the University and a copy of which shall be furnished to the employee concerned. (2) Any dispute arising out of the contract between the University and any employee shall, at the request of the employee, be referred to a Tribunal of Arbitration consisting of one member appointed by the Executive Council, one member nominated by the employee and an umpire appointed by the Visitor. (3) The decision of the Tribunal shall be final and no suit shall lie in any civi...
Airoli Flaregas (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2013
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) The Appeal arises from a judgment and order of a Learned Single Judge dated 19 November 2012 on a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The petition sought to challenge the award of a sole arbitrator dated 20 May 2011. 2. The Respondent had awarded a contract to the Appellant in connection with a project for the Flare System for a project called the Visakh Refinery Clean Fuel Project. The claim before the arbitral tribunal pertained to the service tax component. 3. Clause 1.1 of the contractual terms and conditions specified that the unit rates were inclusive of all taxes, duties, octroi, cess, levies etc. except for service tax. Moreover, Cenvatable Service Tax was to be extra which was to be reimbursed by the Respondent at actuals against the submission of documentary evidence in line with Clause 3.2.2 of the special conditions of contract. Details of the service tax furnished by the Appellant along with its ...
Laxman Ramchandra Shelke and Others Vs. Sou. Akkubai Tukaram Dambarke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties heard forthwith. 2. The Appellants herein i.e. the Defendant Nos.1 to 7 are in Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 29/4/2011 passed by the learned District Judge1, Karad. By the said Judgment and Order, the decree passed by the Trial Court for partition and separate possession has been confirmed. 3. The principal contention urged on behalf of the Appellants herein is the manner in which the Lower Appellate Court has disposed of the said Appeal. 4. The substantial question of law therefore which arises for consideration is, Whether the Lower Appellate Court has followed the mandate of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure in disposing of the Appeal? 5 The suit in question has been filed by the Respondent i.e. the original Plaintiff for partition, separate possession and for permanent injunction against the Defendants in respect of the suit properties which are described in Paragraph Nos.1...
Koothayee Adimulam Harijan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2013
P.C. The applicant herein is the original complainant in Sessions Case No.136 of 2011. When the trial in the Sessions Case was about to start, she filed an application requesting that her evidence be recorded through an Interpreter since she knows only Tamil language. She is not familiar and comfortable with Hindi language. The application was opposed by the accused contending that the applicant had appeared before other courts, i.e. Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai and the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Borivali, Mumbai, and in those proceedings, she had communicated in Hindi language. The Sessions Court accepted the contention of the accused. Further, the Sessions Judge took note that the applicant has been residing in Mumbai for the last 23 years to opine that it is highly improbable that she does not know Hindi language. The Sessions Court also noted that the applicant had communicated with Malvani Police Station by issuing a letter in Hindi language. 2. Mr. Vaswani, the learned...
Lufeng Shipping Company Ltd. Vs. M.V. Rainbow Ace and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2013
M.S. Sanklecha, J. This appeal challenges the order dated 6 May 2013 of the learned Single Judge vacating the order dated 28 January 2013 (passed on an application by the appellant) arresting M.V. Rainbow Ace respondent No.1 vessel. The impugned order dated 6 May 2013 vacating the arrest of respondent No.1 vessel was on an application taken out by the owner M/s. Rainbow Ace Shipping S.A. Panama (applicant) of respondent No.1 vessel. 2) Facts leading to this appeal: a) The appellant admittedly has a maritime claim of US$ 1,628,658.07 against the Whim Star Chartering Co. Ltd. (respondent No.2 company). This claim arises out of a voyage charter party agreement dated 6 April 2011entered into between the appellant as owners of a vessel M.V. J Tong and respondent No.2 company as a charterer. b) The appellant's maritime claim on respondent No. 2 company is covered by Article 1(f) and (g) of the International Convention of Arrest of Ships 1999 (Arrest Convention 1999). Consequently, the appell...
Mahesh Ganpat Paigude Vs. Sau. Mohini Mahesh Paigude
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2013
Oral Judgment: The Appellant husband has taken an exception to the Judgment and Decree dated 11th July, 2003 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court-3, Pune, by which the petition filed by the Appellant under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty has been dismissed. 2. Office remark shows that the Respondent has been duly served with the notice. This Appeal was called out yesterday when none appeared for the Respondent. Even today, none appears for the Respondent. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant who has taken us through the pleadings and notes of evidence. 3. The marriage between the Appellant and Respondent was solemnized on 13th March, 2001 in accordance with Hindu Vedic Rites. Various allegations of cruelty have been set out in the petition. The main allegation made by the Appellant in the petition as regards cruelty is found in paragraph 3 of the petition. The re...
Hemant R. Saple Vs. Kaloolal Pyarelal JaIn and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2013
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition questions the order passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes, reversing the decree of ejectment of respondent tenant passed by the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes, on the ground of default in payment of rent. 2. Respondents were duly served, but have not cared to appear and contest the petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The petitioner landlord filed suit for ejectment of the respondent tenant on the ground of arrears of rent, nuisance, annoyance and waste. The trial Court decreed the suit only on the ground of default in payment of rent in arrears. This decree was reversed by the Appellate Court in the following circumstances. 5. The parties were in correspondence about the rent and this possibly led the respondent tenant to file Application on 16th February, 1976 for fixation of monthly standard rent. The tenant claimed that rent was Rs.16.25 per month while the landlord claimed that rent was Rs...
The Chief Executive Officer Vs. Satish S/O Dnyanoba Gaikwad
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jul-02-2013
R.V. Ghuge, J. 1. The appellant, being aggrieved by order dated 22.11.2012, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2946/2012, has preferred this intra Court appeal for challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge. 2. Being a Letters Patent Appeal, we were not required to look into the matter threadbare, and reappreciate the entire evidence recorded before the Labour Court and the details as they emerge from the judgment of the Labour Court, Latur, as well as the Industrial Court, Latur. However, being conscious of the fact that this appeal gave an opportunity to the appellant to make an attempt to point out perversities and illegalities, if any, from the two judgments of the lower Courts and draw our attention to any perversity in the order of the learned Single Judge, we decided to look into the concurrent findings of the lower Courts. It is with this object that we have turned our attention to the first judgment that was delivered by the Labour Court, Latur, and...
Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs. Mrs. Tereza Dinesh Vaghela and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-02-2013
Oral Judgment: Heard Shri V.R. Tamba, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri M.B. Da Costa, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no.1. None for respondent no.2, though served. 2. The above appeal challenges an award passed by the sole Arbitrator dated 2/03/2005 as well as the judgment and order dated 30/04/2009 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, North Goa at Panaji in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.100/2007. 3. Briefly the facts of the case as stated by the appellant are that the appellant and respondents executed an Arbitration Agreement on 27/03/1997 in terms of clause 15 of the Partnership Deed thereby inter alia appointing Shri Himmatbhai Joshi as the sole Arbitrator to decide the differences between the parties. The learned Arbitrator passed an award on 28/03/1999 inter alia deciding the differences raised by the parties before the said Arbitrator. Thereafter by notice dated 2/02/2002, the appellant called upon the respondents to d...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »