Mumbai Court October 2014 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.
Viraf Phiroz Bharucha Vs. Manoshi Viraf Bharucha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2014
V.K.Tahilramani, J. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent though served. Taken up for final hearing and disposal forthwith. 2. The appellant-husband has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24th February, 2014 passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court No. 6, Mumbai. By the said judgment and decree, the learned Judge of the Family Court dismissed the Petition bearing No. A-845 of 2011 preferred by the appellant under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 claiming for a decree of nullity of marriage. 3. The case of the appellant is that he and the respondent got married on 15th April, 1999 at Mumbai according to Hindu vedic rites. On 4th August, 2001 they were blessed with a baby boy. It is the case of the appellant that he was a `Parsi' by religion at the time of the marriage and continues to profess his faith in the said religion and the respondent was a Hindu at the time of marriage and continues to be...
Director of Income-tax (IT)-1 Vs. Airlines Rotables Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2014
1. This Income Tax Appeal challenges the order passed by the Tribunal dated 21st September, 2011. The Tribunal while dealing with the Appeal of the Assessee in Income Tax Appeal No.278/Mum/2007 for assessment year 2003-04, has followed its decision in the Assessee's own case for assessment years 1998-99 and disposed of the issues raised. The only substantial question of law is that whether the Assessee had a permanent establishment in India within the meaning of Article 5 of the Indo UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, in relation to that, the Tribunal has, therefor, followed its earlier orders. We had on the earlier occasion called upon the Revenue's Advocate Mr. Tejveer Singh to take instructions as to whether any Appeals have been filed against the orders which have been referred to by the Tribunal in the case of this very Assessee for prior assessment years. On 16th April, 2014 we were informed that the Revenue has filed Appeals challenging the orders passed by the Income Tax A...
M/s. K.T. Kubal and Company Vs. Mujibur Rehman Haji Israr Alam Siddiqu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2014
1. The question that falls for consideration of the court in this petition is of interpretation of Order VI, Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent, is the original plaintiff, who has filed suit in the Court of Small Causes, inter alia, for recovery of possession of the suit property from the petitioner. He had, filed an application for amendment of the plaint, which was allowed by the order dtd.16th December, 2013. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The case set out by the respondent in his eviction suit is that he is the owner of the building known as Mujibur Rehman and Brother Building and the petitioner is the tenant in respect of the open space, admeasuring about 4,000 sq. ft., situate in the compound of the building from where the petitioner is running a factory under the name and style as K.T. Kubal and Co.. The monthly rent for the open space i...
Pramod Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-10-2014
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Lecturer in the Department of Civil Engineering in the Polytechnic Institution run by the respondent no.4 on 30.7.1977. This was after adopting due procedure for selection and appointment. The petitioner was subsequently appointed as a Lecturer (Selection Grade) with effect from 1.4.1993 and worked as the Project Officer, Community Polytechnic, Amravati from 4.2.2000 till 30.7.2007. According to the petitioner, the post of Project Officer is equivalent to the post of Head of Department. The petitioner also worked as the in-charge Head of Department of Civil Engineering from 8.8.2005 to 13.2.2008. In the year 2007, the process for selection for the post of Head of Department (Civil Engineering) was undertaken, in which the petitioner got selected as the Head of Department. This was approved by the Directorate o...
Meera Housing Private Limited Vs. Khatav Makanji and Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2014
1. This Chamber Summons is taken out on behalf of the Defendant No.3 for an order that the plaint be rejected and the suit be struck off the records of the Court. The Defendant No.3 is supported by Defendant Nos. 1 and 4. The reason that the Applicant says that the plaint should be rejected and struck off is because the plaint was signed and verified by one Digamber Mahadev Bagwe, as a Director of the Plaintiffs and the said Bagwe was barred by law from acting as Director, as he had been adjudicated an insolvent by this Court vide orders dated 20th November, 2007 read with order dated 19th July, 2011. 2 The Applicant submitted that under Order VI Rule 14, the pleadings has to be signed by the party and his pleader or if the party is unable to remain present, the same may be signed by any person duly authorised by the party to sign the same or to sue or defend on his behalf. Since the said Bagwe has been declared as insolvent, he could not have acted as a Director of the Plaintiffs and ...
Shivaji Education Society, Amravati (Maharashtra State) through its Pr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-10-2014
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petitioners herein challenge the report by the Grievance Committee, dt.8.11.2011 as also Resolution No.20 of 2012, dt.2.3.2012 passed by the Management Council of respondent no.1/University and communication from the University dt.20.3.2012 issued by the Registrar of the University. The petitioners have prayed to confirm the order dt.11.1.2010 issued by the petitioner institution against respondent no.3. 3. The facts, briefly stated, are thus:- Petitioner-Shri Shivaji Education Society, Amravati a registered Trust and Society, runs the Medical College by name Dr.Punjabrao @ Bhausaheb Deshmukh Memorial Medical College at Amravati and other educational Institution. Respondent no.1 is the University established under the provisions of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as MUHS Act). Under Section 53 of the said Act, a Grievanc...
Chhaya Rajendra Zende and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2014
P.C. 1. The applications were made by the petitioners seeking sanction for transfer of lands held by a tribal to a non-tribal in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 36 and 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (for short "the said Code"). In these cases, the applications were made for grant of permission to sell the lands held by a tribal to a non-tribal. In case of sanctions sought for the sale of a land held by a tribal to a non-tribal, in view of clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 36A of the said Code, the Collector can grant sanction only with the prior approval of the State Government. 2. On such applications being made for grant of sanction, the procedure which is normally followed is that the Collector or Additional Collector who is empowered to grant sanction, calls for report of the concerned Tahasildar. On the basis of the report of the Tahasildar, the Collector/ Additional Collector prepares his own recommendation. The application alongwith the recommendation...
Pravara Medical Trust and Another Vs. The Union of India, through the ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-10-2014
R.M. Borde, J. 1. Petitioner No.1 Pravara Medical Trust is registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and is also registered as society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, on 28.12.1972. Petitioner No.2 Pravara Institute of Medical Sciences is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 10.07.2001 and is also registered as a Trust on 16.12.2003. It is also admitted that petitioner no.2, by virtue of notification issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India on 29.09.2003, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, has been declared to be a deemed university. Petitioner no.2 operates Medical College, Dental College, Nursing College and other Health related educational institutions. 2. Petitioners are taking exception to the direction issued by the University Grants Commission to tender information, as requested by Respondent No.3 in his application dated 05.12.2008. The University ...
Shrivallabh Vs. Ibrahimkhan and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-10-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 25/7/2013 passed below Exhibit 57 in Regular Civil Suit No.559/2012. By aforesaid order, the application moved by the petitioner original plaintiff calling upon the respondents defendants to answer interrogatories under provisions of Order 11 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) has been rejected. 3. The facts giving rise to the present proceedings are as follows:The petitioner is the original plaintiff who has filed Special Civil Suit No.60/2006 seeking declaration that the judgment and decree dated 5/11/2003 passed in Special Civil Suit No.325/1994 was null and void, the same having been obtained by practicing fraud. According to the petitioner, the suit property was agreed to be sold by the respondent No.1 to the petitioner. According to the petitioners, a document was shown to have been executed on 3/2/1992 b...
Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2014
Mohit S. Shah, CJ. 1. At the request of the learned Counsel for both the sides the petition was taken up for final disposal. 2. The Petitioner, Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd., is a wholly owned subsidiary of a non-resident company, Vodafone Tele-Services (India) Holdings Limited (the holding company). The Petitioner required funds for its telecommunication services project in India from its holding company during the financial year 2008-09 i.e. Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. On 21 August 2008, the Petitioner issued 2,89,224 equity shares of the face value of Rs.10/- each on a premium of Rs.8,509/- per share to its holding company. This resulted in the Petitioner receiving a total consideration of Rs.246.38 crores from its holding company on issue of shares between August and November 2008. The fair market value of the issue of equity shares at Rs.8,519/- per share was determined by the Petitioner in accordance with the methodology prescribed by the Government of India under the Capit...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »