Mumbai Court March 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.
Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. T. Mathew the Se ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
1. By this notice of motion, defendant No.3 seeks rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on various grounds. Some of the relevant facts which emerge from the plaint and the affidavits filed by the parties are as under: 2. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the trustees of a private family trust known as PTM Family Trust incorporated under the deed of settlement dated 5th September 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the said trust). In the year 1980, defendant Nos.1 to 3 approached the plaintiff with a request to advance monies to the said trust to purchase certain properties in a building viz. Dalamal House and offered that upon purchase of the said properties, the said properties would be let out to the plaintiff for a period of 20 years with other rights. Plaintiff advanced a sum of Rs.93,93,420/- in the form of deposit to the said trust to enable it to buy certain premises in the said building Dalamal House. On 15th May 1980, the plaintiff and defendant Nos....
Talati and Panthaky Associated Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of In ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. At the instance of the Counsel, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). By the above impugned notice dated 22 March 2013, the respondent No.1 “ Assessing Officer is seeking to re-open the assessment for the Assessment Year 2006-07. 3. On 28 November 2006, the petitioner filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2006-07, declaring a total income of Rs.60.21 lakhs. On 21 April 2008, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, determining the petitioner's income at Rs.62.21 lakhs. 4. Thereafter, the impugned notice was issued on 22 March 2013 under Section 148 of the Act seeking to re-open the assessment for the Assessment Year 2006-07. In response to the petitioner's request, the Assessing Officer on 10 September 2013 ser...
Karbhari and Others Vs. Devidas and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
1. Both the appeals are admitted.By consent, both the matters are heard for final disposal, after making the notice returnable forthwith after admission. 2. The learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.2 insisted for early hearing in view of the order made by this Court on 3.3.2014 by which stay was granted to the operation and implementation of the judgment and order of First Appellate Court and further, some relief of interim nature was given to the present appellants. 3. The two appeals are filed against judgment and order of Regular Civil Appeal No.615/2012 and Regular Civil Appeal No.614/2012, respectively. The appeals were pending in the Court of Ad-hoc District Judge-2, Ahmednagar. R.C.A. No.615/2012 was filed against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No.176/2007 and that suit was filed by present respondents. R.C.A. No. 614/2012 was filed against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No. 179/07 and that suit was filed by the present appellants. The present app...
Rajashree Simant Sukale and Another Vs. Icici Prudential Life Insuranc ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
R.C. Chavan, President: [1] These two appeals filed by original Complainants, Smt. Rajashree Simant Sukale and Ms. Tejashree Simant Sukale (Appeal No.973 of 2011) and the original Opponent No.1 - ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. (Appeal No.282 of 2012) are directed against an order dated 25/10/2011 passed by Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune partly allowing Consumer Complaint No.188 of 2010 before it and directing the ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company for the sake of brevity) to pay to the Complainants, an amount of Rs.4,121/- towards refund of insurance premium together with interest thereon @ 15% p.a. with effect from 17/12/2009 besides an amount of Rs.25,000/- by way of compensation towards physical and mental agony and costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-. [2] Facts, which are material for deciding both these appeals, are as under:-It is not in dispute that deceased Mr. Simant Dattatraya Sukale...
Leela Gaur Vs. Corporation Bank
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
R.C. Chavan, President: [1] This appeal is directed against an order dated 29/10/2013 passed by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune dismissing the Consumer Complaint No.184 of 2012. Facts, which are material for deciding this appeal, are quite disturbing. [2] The Appellant/original Complainant “ Smt. Leela Ushakant Gaur, is a daughter of one Smt. Vimal Randive. Appellant and Smt. Vimal Randive held two lockers bearing Nos.188 and 191 in the safe deposit vault of the Respondent Bank at its Pune Branch. The Appellant as well as her mother were entitled to operate the lockers. In the year 1992, Appellants mother went to United States of America where the Appellants sister was residing. There was some bitterness between the family and the Appellant was not in touch with her mother. Appellants mother had allegedly lost the keys of the lockers. Appellant approached the Respondent Bank to permit her to operate the lockers since the lockers were operable by ei...
Bhausaheb Vishram Kahandal and Others Vs. Opal Farm Agro Chemicals Pvt ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member: [1] All these appeals filed by the Appellants/original Complainants take an exception to a common order dated 24/01/2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur in Consumer Complaints Nos.624 of 2009 to 641 of 2009. Since all these appeals involve identical facts and common question of law, all these appeals are clubbed together and are disposed of by this common order. [2] Facts leading to these appeals can be summarized as under:- "The Appellants/original Complainants (hereinafter referred to as the Complainants for the sake of brevity) purchased an organic manure - Hortimeal-5:10:5 and Hortimeal-5:10:0 from the manufacturer “ M/s. Opal Farm Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent/original Opponent No.1; and the dealer “ M/s. Pandit Agro Services, Medha Krishi Seva Kendra and Janori Vividh Karyakari Seva Santha. 300 bags of said organic manure was directly purchased from the manufacturer viz. the Respondent/original Oppo...
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and Others Vs. Syeda Aleemu ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
1) Heard. Admit. Heard finally. In this group of appeals, respective appellants, i.e. either the claimants or the insurance companies have questioned legality of multiplier fixed by the respective Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, under the Motor Vehicles Act. 2) Facts in each of the appeals are at variance to a larger extent, but, since common question of law, referred to above, is involved, they are taken up together, heard and disposed of by this common judgment. FIRST APPEAL NO.1611/2013(MACP NO.44/2009). 3) Smt. Syeda Aleemunbee, sought compensation for death of Syed Shabbir. An amount of Rs.6,21,500/with interest @ 9% was awarded on 22.09.2011. Same is challenged by the appellant/insurance company on the ground of quantum. The appellant/insurance company feels that age of parents of the deceased at the time of accident was in the age-group of 40-45 years. The trial court should have applied multiplier of 15 and it should have deducted half of the amount towards personal expenses a...
Keshav Vithoba Khatdeo and Others Vs. Gumphabai Gopalrao Mundare and O ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This second appeal was not board. However, Appeal From Order No.99/2013 is on today's admission board at Sr. No.22. Mrs. Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellants, commenced her arguments on A. O. No.99/2013 and during the course of hearing it was noticed that the result of this A.O. depends fully upon the result of Second Appeal No.426/99. That being so, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, present A. O. as well as S. A. were posted for final hearing and disposal at 2.30 p.m. and accordingly both the appeals have been heard together. 2. Since result of A.O. No.99/2013 depends on the result of S.A.No. 426/1999, I have taken the said appeal for hearing and disposal first. Upon hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, I find that the following substantial questions of law will have to be reframed since the question of law framed on 20.12.2001 in the light of the arguments advanced before me do not arise. Hence, following substantial questi...
ShamIn Azad Education Society and Others Vs. the Presiding Officer, Sc ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
1. Rule. Heard Shri A.S. Jaiswal, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri G.R. Agrawal, Advocate, for the petitioners; Shri A.M. Deshpande, the learned AGP for the respondent No.2; and Shri P.S. Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 2. This petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 25-2-2013 passed by the School Tribunal, Amravati, allowing Appeal No.83 of 1997 filed by the respondent No.3-Mohd. Zaki Javed s/o Mohd. Ayyub challenging his termination from service with effect from 30-4-1997. The School Tribunal has set aside the order of termination dated 30-4-1997 and directed reinstatement of the respondent No.3 on the post of an Assistant Teacher with continuity in service. However, the prayer for back wages has been rejected. This petition is filed by the Management and the petitioner No.3, who was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in place of the respondent No.3. 3. The facts of the case are as under: The petitioner-Management issued an advertisemen...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›