Mumbai Court September 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.
Rakesh S. Kathotia and Another Vs. Milton Global Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-2014
M.S. Sonak, J. 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2 July 2014 made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Arbitration Petition No.66 of 2014, dismissing the appellants' application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) mainly on the ground that there is no identity of the parties to the arbitration agreement, as contained in the Joint Venture Agreement dated 14 July 2001 (JVA) and the parties to the application. 3. In pursuance of JVA, the appellants representing 'SubhkamGroup' and some of the respondents, representing the 'VaghaniGroup' constituted 'Milton Global Limited' (respondent No.1), as a Joint Venture Company (JVC). The 'VaghaniGroup' owned and controlled 'Milton Plastic Limited' (respondent No.4)), which was engaged in manufacture and marketing consumer durables and kitchen appliances under the brand name 'Milton'...
The Commissioner of Income Tax-16 Vs. M/s Happy Home Enterprises and A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2014
B.P. Colabawalla J. 1. Income Tax Appeal No.201 of 2012 is filed by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) wherein the following questions of law are projected as substantial and read as under:- (A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in allowing to the Assessee Company a deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act for A.Y. 2006-2007 amounting to Rs.2,11,74,864/- wherein the commercial area built by the assessee exceeded the limit specified in clause (d) to section 80IB(10) of the I.T. Act 1961? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that the limits on commercial area provided in clause (d) to section 80IB(10) of the Act would not be applicable even after 01.04.2005 as the projects were approved before that date even though no such exception is provided under the Income Tax Act? 2. This appea...
Naveen Shanker Lokure Vs. Nascimento Milgares Pereira and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-19-2014
1. Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1, 2 and 10(a) to 10(d), 10(e) to 10(g). 2. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19/05/2009 passed by the learned District Judge-4, South Goa, Margao (First Appellate Court, for short) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 70/1999. The said Regular Civil Appeal No. 70/1999 was filed against the judgment and decree dated 29/04/1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao (trial Judge, for short) in Special Civil Suit No. 32/1972/A. The appellant was the defendant no. 2(a) and legal representative No. 1(a) of the original defendant no. 1, whereas the respondents no. 1 to 26 were the legal representatives of the original plaintiffs, in the said Civil Suit. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said suit. 3. The original plaintiffs namely Jose Francisco Pereir...
Damodar Vs. Umakant and Another
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-19-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is filed by a driver of a fire engine/fire tender in employment of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is the Fire Department, Government of Goa which provides services to extinguish fire and other emergency services. Respondent No.1 before this Court is the claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Panaji. 2. By the impugned judgment and order dated 21st August, 2008, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), has allowed Claim Petition No.83/2005 and awarded compensation of Rs.61,000/- to respondent No.1, including the amount of No Fault Liability already granted to him, with 9 % interest upon it. It is not in dispute that on 27th April, 2006, an application under Section 140 of the M.V. Act filed by respondent No.1, was allowed and he was given compensation of Rs.25,000/-. 3. The said respondent No.1 has chosen not to appear before this Court to oppose the proceedings. 4. I have heard Advocate Ms. A...
Conservator of Forest, Govt. of Goa, Daman and Diu and Another Vs. Vin ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-19-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26/06/2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mapusa ("First Appellate Court", for short) in Regular Civil Appeal No.40/2001. The said appeal was filed against the Judgment and decree dated 16/02/2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Bicholim ("trial Court", for short) in Regular Civil Suit No.9/1989. 3. The appellants and respondent no.7 were the defendants in the said suit whereas respondents No.1 to 6 were the plaintiffs. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said suit. 4. The original plaintiff had filed the said suit for recovery of possession and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs, in short, was as follows : The original plaintiff was in possession of the suit property known as "Dongrat" or "Khairat" situated at Revora, Bardez, Goa and bearing survey No.176/0, as ...
Dr. Herlander Coelho Pereira and Others Vs. Jaganath V. Naik alias Kun ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-19-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners; Mr. Rodrigues, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Mr. Godinho, learned Counsel for respondents No.7(a) to 7(f). 2. By this petition, the petitioners have taken exception to the Judgment and Order dated 15.06.2005 passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal, Panaji in Tenancy Revision Application No.43/1995. 3. The facts of the case, in short, are as under: The respondent No.1 claimed to be tenant of the property bearing survey No.119/1 of village Penha de Franca. The respondent No.1 had filed two applications, one under Section 14 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 ("the Act" for short) and another under Section 18(C) of the Act. The Awal Karkun of Mapusa took up the application under Section 14 of the Act and disposed of the same by order dated 03.03.1992 and thereafter the learned Mamlatdar of Bardez disposed of the application for p...
Laxmiben Vinodbhai Vithalani Vs. Gama Goli Yadav since deceased throug ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-2014
P.C. 1. Heard Mr. O.B. Molankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Preeti Walimbe, learned counsel for respondent no.1 at length. 2. By this Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, 'C.P.C.'), the original defendant has challenged the Judgment and decree dated 15.4.2010 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Kalyan in Regular Civil Suit No.363 of 2005 as also the Judgment and decree dated 7.10.2013 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-1, Kalyan in Civil Appeal No.85 of 2010. By these orders, the Courts below decreed the suit instituted by the respondent under section 15 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, 'Act'). 3. The respondent, hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff', instituted suit for recovery of possession of Room No.6, situate in Ambika Bhuvan, Ambika Nagar, Dombivli (E) (for short, 'suit premises'). The plaintiff issued demand notice dated 13.5.2005 (Exh.37) claiming arrears of rent from December, 19...
Disha Shikshan V. Vikas Kendra and Another Vs. Ministry of Health and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-2014
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioners have invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India and thereby prayed to set aside communication dated 26 June 2014 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy, (for short, AYUSH), thereby rejected the prayer to increase the admission capacity in Bachelor of Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery (for short, BHMS) course from 50 to 100 seats under Section 21A of the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 (for short, the HCC Act). 3. The Petitioners, an educational institution, which have Homeopathy Medical College and Hospital, established in year 1991 with intake capacity of 50 students, after getting approval from the Central Council of Homeopathy, New Delhi (for short, the Council), imparting the Homeopathy education. Respondent No. 1 is the Ministry of Health and Family Welf...
Kadamba Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Benedicta Fernandes e Dias and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Sep-18-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. The proceedings arise out of the Judgment delivered on 01.09.2008 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Margao, in Claim Petition No.217 of 2005. By said Judgment and Award, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has found Respondents before it jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.12,48,458/- to the claimant No.1 with interest at 9 percent from the date of application till the date of Award. The amount of no fault liability awarded under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is directed to be adjusted against the said compensation. 2. It is not in dispute that the husband of claimant No.1 was occupying the other vehicle involved in the accident namely Tata Mobile and expired in that accident. The claim was preferred by his widow and son (unmarried). The said son expired during the pendency of proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 3. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 14.08.2001 on Margao-Cortalim Highway. At the relevant...
Ravjibhai Chhotubhai Waghela Vs. Prashant Kisan Shinde and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-2014
1. Admit. Learned counsel for the respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 2. This appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 and is directed against the order dated 31st December, 2011 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and the Judge, 11th Labour Court, Mumbai dismissing his claim and the order dated 19th May, 2012 passed in review application filed by the appellant dismissing his review application. Some of the relevant facts are described for deciding the appeal which are as follows : 3. The appellant was claimant before the learned Commissioner. It was the case of the claimant that he was in the employment of respondent no.1 as a Driver of an Auto-Rickshaw bearing No.MH03R5430. The claimant met with an accident on 16th July, 2009 at Chembur Wadala Link Road, Opp. Anik Bus Depot, Wadala (E), Mumbai400 022 and sustained injuries. It was urged by the claimant that the said auto-rickshaw...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »