Mumbai Court April 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.
Indian Hotels and Restaurant Association Represented by Its Treasurer ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-2014
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule. 2. The Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are claiming a writ, order or direction declaring clause (zzzzv) of Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 2010 as ultravires the Constitution of India, null, void and of no legal affect. It is prayed that the said provision be struck down as violative of the mandate of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 245, 246, 265, 300A and 366(29A)(f) of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the relief restraining the Respondents from giving effect to the said provision directly or indirectly, so also, levying or attempting to levy any service tax under the impugned provision is also claimed. 4. Few facts which are necessary for appreciating the rival contentions are that the Petitioner No.1 before us is an Association registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926 and claims that it has 2000 Hotels in G...
The Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. M/S S ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1. None present on behalf of respondent no. 2. 2. This appeal is admitted by this Court on 26.02.2004 on the following substantial questions of law, namely (b) and (e):- "(b) Whether the Employees Insurance Court could have ignored the report prepared by the ESI Inspector holding that details of the employee such as name, father's name, place from which he hails, designation, length of service, signature and thumb impression of the employees were not contained in the said report; and whether such details are mandatory as per the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, rules and regulations and whether failure to incorporate such details renders the report null and void. (e) Whether casual workers and other employees and other servants of the applicant who were working in the respondent establishment could be considered as employees as defined under...
Majestic Infracon Private Limited Vs. Etisalat Mauritius Limited, Repu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-2014
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. Admit. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 2. This is an appeal against the order and judgment of the learned company Judge admitting a petition filed by respondent No.1 for having the second respondent company Etisalat D.B. Telecom Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the company") wound up under section 433 (f) of the Companies Act, 1956 on the ground that it is just and equitable to do so. 3. It is convenient to refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the petition. In the petition, Respondent No.1 to this appeal was the petitioner. The appellant was respondent No.2 to the petition. Respondent No.2 to the appeal Etisalat D.B. Telecom Limited i.e. the company sought to be wound up was Respondent No.1 to the petition (hereinafter referred to as "the company"). Respondent Nos.3 and 4 - Delphi Investment Limited and Genex Exim Ventures Private Limited were respondent Nos.3 and 4 to the petition. 4. The petitioner contended that it is jus...
Sandeep Ganapati Karmali and Another Vs. Ajay Shivaji Fatto Dessai and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. By this common judgment, Writ Petition No. 643/2013 and Writ Petition No. 658/2013 are being disposed of as both the writ petitions arise out of same order of temporary injunction passed on 20.02.2013 in Regular Civil Suit No. 16/2012/A by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem, which was the subject matter of challenge before the Court of District Judge-2, Margao in two appeals being Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 27/2013 and Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 28/2013 between the same parties. The learned District Judge-2, South Goa, Margao by his two identical orders passed in both these appeals on 17.07.2013 allowed both the appeals quashing and setting aside the order of temporary injunction dated 20.02.2013 of the trial Court and substituting the same with his order of temporary injunction only against defendants no. 1 and 2, who are respondents no. 4 and 5 in Writ Petition No. 643/2013 and respondents no. ...
Sasmita Investments Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
1. By an order dated 29th January, 2013 passed by this court, three issues were framed as preliminary issues under the provisions of order XIV rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which are set out hereinafter and are answered in the later part of the judgment. By the said order dated 29th January, 2014 this court clarified that the parties shall advance their submissions on these three preliminary issues and settlement of remaining issues was accordingly postponed till decision of this court on those three issues was rendered. Sr.NoISSUESFINDING1Whether the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court to try, entertain and dispose of the present suit is barred under Section 269UN of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as pleaded in paragraph 1 of the Written Statement and/or Section 293 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?In the affirmative2Whether the law of limitation bars the present suit?Need not be answered3Whether the plaintiff has the locus standi to maintain the present suit as pleaded in paragraph 11 o...
Harish Loyalka and Another Vs. Dileep Nevatia and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
PC:- 1. The 1st defendant to the suit and the plaintiff to the counter-claim, Mr. Nevatia, has filed a further affidavit dated 10th March 2014 in lieu of examination in chief. Substantial portions of this affidavit, notably from the fourth line of paragraph 12 to the end of that paragraph, and from paragraph 14 onwards are in the nature of submissions, arguments and not in the nature of evidence. Mr. Joshi, learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs to the suit is justified in his contention that he ought not to be required to cross-examine Mr. Nevatia on these submissions as they are not testimony. 2. The provisions of Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (œCPC?)require that the œexamination in chief? shall be on affidavit. This means that the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief can contain, and contain only, such material as is properly admissible in examination in chief, in a manner no different than if the witness was in the witness box and his dire...
Sudhakar Vs. Shripat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This second appeal was admitted on 19.11.2088 by formulating the question of law as under “ œWhether the Courts wrongly assumed jurisdiction to try the suit when the suit was filed on the basis of a relationship of licensor and licensee in view of the provisions of Section 26 (2) of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act?? 2. Section 26 (2) is in Chapter IV-AI of the Act relating to recovery of possession of certain immovable property and certain licence fees and rent. Section 26 of the Act provides that suits or proceedings between licensors and licensees or landlords and tenants for recovery of possession of immovable property and licence fees or rent, except those to which other Acts apply, shall lie in Court of Small Causes. The non obstante clause in sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the Act provides that the Court of Small Causes shall have jurisdiction to entertain and try all suits and proceedings between a licensor and licensee, or a landlord and t...
Dr. Manilal V. Valliyate and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
A.K. Menon J. 1. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. 2. Learned counsel for the Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, both the petitioners are finally heard. 3. The subject matter of the above Petitions is welfare of œSunder? an Elephant in captivity. These two petitions can be conveniently disposed of by this common order. Writ Petition No.2662 of 2013 (œFirst Petition?) is filed on the Original Side on 20th November, 2013 and seeks the following reliefs:- œ(a) Issue a Writ of certiorari and / or any other writ, order or direction quashing the Ownership Certificate No.1-12-B-a-KLP-220-1365 dated Nil (Exhibit-D) issued in respect of Sunder by Respondent No.1 in favour of Respondent No.2 as well as earlier ownership certificate dated 3/2/2007 (Exhibit-A). (b) Direct Respondent No.1 to forthwith implement the order dated 21/8/2010 issued by the Joint Secretary (Forests), Government of Maharashtra (Exhibit-G). (c) Ad-interim order in terms of prayer (b...
Sasmita Investments Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
1. By an order dated 29th January, 2013 passed by this court, three issues were framed as preliminary issues under the provisions of order XIV rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which are set out hereinafter and are answered in the later part of the judgment. By the said order dated 29th January, 2014 this court clarified that the parties shall advance their submissions on these three preliminary issues and settlement of remaining issues was accordingly postponed till decision of this court on those three issues was rendered. Sr.NoISSUESFINDING1Whether the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court to try, entertain and dispose of the present suit is barred under Section 269UN of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as pleaded in paragraph 1 of the Written Statement and/or Section 293 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?In the affirmative2Whether the law of limitation bars the present suit?Need not be answered3Whether the plaintiff has the locus standi to maintain the present suit as pleaded in paragraph 11 o...
Messrs B. Himmatlal Agrawal and Another Vs. the Maharashtra State Powe ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
P.R. Bora, J. 1. The petitioners are the Contractors and stated to be working with respondent no.1 since last couple of years. Petitioner no.1 has been carrying out the contract of cleaning and allied works in coal handling plant, CHPII cold plant at KTPS, Koradi up to the year 2012-2013. Petitioner no.1 was allotted the work of cleaning and allied works at KTPS, Koradi. Petitioner no.2 is carrying out similar works at Koradi and Khaparkheda Thermal Power Stations. Petitioner no.2 is said to have successfully executed the contract of cleaning and allied works for the year 2010-2011 at Khaparkheda Thermal Power Station. He is also stated to be carrying out contract with Khaparkheda Thermal Power Station for house keeping and allied works including maintenance of auxiliaries and is also said to have carried out fabrication works. 2. A tender notice was published by respondent no.1 having tender Code No.35946 for œSix Monthly Contract for Cleaning and Allied Works including Round Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »