Mumbai Court August 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.
BASF India Ltd. Vs. Government of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Indus ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
Ravindra V. Ghuge J. 01. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by the consent of the parties and heard finally. 02. By this petition, the petitioner prays for the quashing and setting aside of the impugned order of reference dated 06/11/2013 passed by respondent No.2-Additional Commissioner of Labour. Consequentially, the petitioner prays for the quashing and setting aside of Reference (IT) No. 24 of 2013 pending before Shri.S.K.Deshpande-learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Thane. 03. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective sides and have gone through the petition paper book with their assistance. The submissions of the petitioner can be summarized as follows:- a) The petitioner is a factory engaging in the business of manufacturing construction chemicals. b) The petitioner employees about 35 workmen on its roll. c) Attendance of the petitioner's employees is registered on the electronic biometric system. d) Labour Contractors namely M/s.Omkar Enterpris...
Sun Polytron Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax-2, Mumbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
1. This Appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 challenges the order passed by the ITAT, Mumbai Bench dated 29th December 2011 in Income Tax Appeal No.515/Mum/2007. The Assessment Year in question is 2001- 02. 2. The learned counsel for the Appellant, in support of this Appeal, submits that the substantial question of law which has been raised in the memo of this Appeal arises for determination and consideration. It is submitted that the Tribunal committed an error apparent on the face of the record in applying section 115JB of the Income Tax Act 1961 as amended and particularly in relation to explanation (1) which is an explanation for sub-section (2) of section 115JB and clause I thereof. That clause may have been amended with retrospective effect and substituted for the original from 1st April 2001 but that section itself was inapplicable. She submits that there was no question of any provision being made applicable for bad debts. In the given facts and circumstances, t...
The Osmanabad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. Pandharinath Gyanba Gunale ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of Special Civil Suit No.8/2001 (Old Special Civil Suit No.232/1995) which was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedpur, District Latur. The suit filed by the present respondent No.1 for relief of possession of immovable property and mense profit is decided in his favour. Counter claim filed by the appellant, defendant No.1, for specific performance of contract of sale of the same immovable property is dismissed by the trial Court. Both the sides are heard. 2. Municipal House No.9 situated at Ahmedpur having construction of godown of size of 50 x 40 ft and construction of three rooms and also open space surrounding the constriction is the suit property. The size of the plot on which the construction is there is around 8680 square feet (155 x 56 ft). It is the case of the plaintiff-respondent, that the defendant No.1 is in possession of the entire property. It is the case of the plaintiff that he purchased ...
Arun Vs. Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Nagpur Un ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
1. Heard Shri Radke the learned advocate for the petitioner, Shri Maheshwari h/f Shri Parchure the learned advocate for respondents 2 and 3 and Shri Atul Pande the learned advocate for respondent no.4. 2. The respondent no.3 published an advertisement on 23rd June, 1996 inviting applications for various posts of Lecturers available in respondent no. 2 college. After the duly constituted Selection Committee conducted the interviews, the petitioner was selected and was appointed for the post of Lecturer in Geography part time vide appointment order dated 20th July, 1996, the appointment being for the period from 1st August, 1996 till 30th April, 1997. In the academic session 1996 1997, again advertisement was issued. The petitioner was given the appointment order dated 21st July, 1997 appointing the petitioner as Lecturer in Geography, the appointment being till 30th April, 1998. On 21st March, 1998 the respondent no.4 granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner as a part tim...
Haldyn Glass Limited Vs. Saumyalata Shyama Shetty and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
P.C. 1. The present suit is filed by the Plaintiff for a declaration that the Plaintiff owns the suit flat and for a decree of possession and permanent injunction restraining Defendant No.1 from transferring, selling, alienating, encumbering and / or creating third party rights in respect of the same. Defendant No.1 is an ex-employee of the Plaintiff and presently an accused in a case registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, Mumbai (EOW) for cheating the Plaintiff and misappropriating its funds. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the suit flat has been purchased by Defendant No.1 from out of the misappropriated funds of the Plaintiff. The present Notice of Motion is taken out for appointment of Court Receiver in respect of the suit flat. 2. The Defendants have inter alia objected to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation. A preliminary issue will have to be accordingly framed under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The following issu...
The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Vs. Ramesh B. Desbhrat ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This petition was admitted on 25-03-2008. The petition impugns the Award, dated 7.3.2006 passed in Reference (I.D.A.) No.38 of 1998 by the Labour Court, Wardha granting reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service. 3. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: The respondent claimed that he was employed by the petitioner with effect from 1st April, 1983 on Wardha-Arvi Road and Kharangana Khondali Road on monthly salary of Rs. 407/-. It is claimed by the respondent that services of the respondent were illegally terminated on 21.4.1986 and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur, in exercise of power vested in him under clause ( c) of sub section (1) of section 10 read with Section 12 of the Industrial Dispute Act, referred the dispute for adjudication. According to the petitioner, however, on 10.5.1998, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court. Statement of Claim was filed before the Labour Court. The petitioner h...
International Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Phoenix Alche ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
Oral Order: 1. The Respondent Company, Phoenix Alchemy Pvt. Ltd. (the Company) was ordered to be wound up, under Section 433(e) read with Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Companies Act), by an Order of this Court dated 15th June 2012. The admitted claim of the Petitioning creditor (IARC) was approximately Rs. 32 crores. The Order also notes the fact that the Company is heavily in debt even otherwise. By the same Order, the Official Liquidator was appointed in respect of the Company. 2. On 18th December 2012, the Official Liquidator filed OL Report No. 5 of 2013 (the OL Report) in respect of the Company in winding-up. It is this Report that is being considered. The directions sought from the Court are in the following terms:- (a) Whether the Honble Court would be pleased to permit the Official Liquidator to file the Criminal Complaint under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956 against the Ex-Directors of the company (In Liquidation) as referred to in para 3 above; (b)...
Sukhdeo Kisan Borhade Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
Oral Judgment: (V.K. Tahilramani, J.) 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant - original accused against the judgment and order dated 29.10.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No.9 of 2012. By the said judgment and order, the learned Session Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-Convicted u/S.Sentenced to302 IPCImprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default R.I. for 3 months.324 IPCImprisonment for 1 Year and fine of Rs.500/- in default S.I. for 1 month.309 IPCImprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs.500/- in default, S.I. for 15 days. The learned Sessions Judge directed that the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (a) Deceased Sitabai was the wife of the appellant. PW 1 Pravin, PW 5 Kishor, Sandeep and Shivaji were the sons of the appellant and deceased Sitabai. They were all residing together at Manegaon. There used to be constant quarrels betwee...
Sharayu Ramkrishna Mhatre and Another Vs. Chandrakant Ramkrishna Mhatr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
1. Applicants who are original plaintiffs have filed chamber summons no.55 of 2014 inter alia praying for amendment to the plaint as per schedule appended thereto. The applicants seek to implead two of the parties as party defendants to the suit. Chamber Summons (L) No.1075 of 2014 is filed by the applicants inter alia praying for amendment to the plaint as per schedule appended thereto by which the applicant seeks to amend some of the paragraphs of the plaint. 2. The applicants have filed the suit inter alia praying for declaration that each of the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/5th undivided share, right title and interest or such other share as may be determined by this court in the estate of the deceased Mr. Ramkrishna P. Mhatre who was father of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The Applicants have also prayed for partition of the entire estate by metes and bounds and have also challenged the alleged gift deed dated 31st December, 2003 executed by the said deceased in favour of def...
M.L. Surekha and Others Vs. M/s. S.M. Samant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-2014
A.K. Menon, J. 1. The Appellants in the four appeals are family members. The Appellants have challenged the order and judgment of the learned Judge, dismissing their petitions under section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, challenging the awards passed against them. 2. The learned Single Judge held that the awards were based on appreciation of evidence adduced before the arbitral tribunal consisting of persons who have knowledge of the trade on the basis whereof they had recorded findings of fact. The impugned order contains no other reasons. The learned counsel for both the parties however, requested us to hear the entire case and not to remand the same stating that that would cause them enormous prejudice. We accordingly did so. 3. The facts in each case are similar except as to the amounts claimed and the evidence produced. We propose to deal with the facts of Appeal No.580 of 2004 alone in detail. It was agreed that the result in the other appeals would follow the result in Appeal ...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »