Mumbai Court January 2015 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.
Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family W ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-09-2015
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Both these petitions involve a common question as to interpretation to be placed on para 11 of the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 19.5.2009, by which the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) was made applicable to the Central Government employees. As both these petitions involve common question, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The petitioners in both these petitions are in the employment of the Central Government. By Office Memorandum dated 9.8.1999, Assured Career Progression scheme (ACP/Old Scheme) was made applicable to the Central Government employees. The scheme envisaged an assured upgradation to the next pay scale after a period of 12 years and 24 years of service i.e. twice in the service career to the employees subject to certain conditions. The said scheme was modified by the Office Memorandum dated 19.5.2009 and a Mod...
Balcrishna Shivram Naik Gaoncar and Others Vs. Santosh Narayan Dessai ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-09-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Both the above appeals were admitted on 17/03/2009 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Courts below fell in error in ignoring the fact that the defendants had set up a title in the third person while granting protection to them under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act? (ii) Whether the Courts below fell in error in ignoring the fact that the defendants had shown their willingness to purchase the property @ Rs.20/- per square metre when the agreement stipulated the rate @ Rs.60/-per square metre and when the defendants raised the plea that they are ready to purchase the property only if the plaintiff had a marketable title? (iii) Whether the Courts below fell in error in holding that suit was barred by limitation on the ground that the suit was one for demolition of the structure when essentially, the suit was one for possession? 2. I have heard Shri Shivan Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri P.A. Kamat, learned ...
Fizabai Sarafalli Badshah and Another Vs. Krishna Kushtappa Shetty Sin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2015
P.C. 1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of a suit for eviction filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging, Housing Rates Control Act, 1947. 2. The respondent who is the legal heir of the defendant in the suit, is the tenant of the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises. Plaintiff had issued a notice of demand to the defendant calling upon him to pay arrears of rent, taxes, education cess and other taxes. It was the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that the demand notice was not complied with and, therefore, respondent/defendant was required to be evicted. The defendant contested the suit. The Trial Court recorded a finding that the defendant was a defaulter. An appeal was preferred by the defendant. 3. The appeal was allowed by setting aside the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff and that judgment and decree of the appellate Court is impugned in this petition. The appellate Court came to the conc...
Subhash Narsopant Saundankar and Another Vs. Chandrakant Babanrao Salu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Unsuccessful landlord before the appellate court, who reversed the decree in favour of the landlord for possession is before this court. 2. A suit was filed in the court of 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dhule. The said suit was registered as Regular Civil Suit No. 458 of 1985. The said suit was contested by the present respondent no.1 and the predecessor-in-title of respondent nos. 2 to 5. The said suit was decreed by the learned trial court and the defendants in the suit were directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises and they were also directed to pay Rs.152.50 Ps. as arrears of rent, Rs.35/- towards damages and Rs.65/- by way of notice charges by judgment and decree dated 16.11.1991. 3. Appeal was carried. The said appeal was registered as Regular Civil Appeal No.2 of 1992 and was on the file of Extra Joint District Judge, Dhule. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment, dated 2.2.2000 allowed the appeal and thereby reversed the j...
Purushottam Ramlal Shukla Vs. Gayatridevi and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-08-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the landlord, challenges the order dated 24.11.2006 passed by the Additional Collector, Nagpur whereby the appeal preferred by the respondents-tenants under Clause 21 of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short the Rent Control Order) has been allowed. As a result of said order, the proceedings initiated by the landlord have been remanded to the Rent Controller for fresh inquiry with regard to grant of permission under Clause 13(3)(i), (ii) and (v) of the Rent Control Order. The landlord has been held ineligible for grant of permission under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the Rent Control Order. 2. The present litigation is long drawn and reference is being made to the relevant facts which are required to be considered while adjudicating the Writ Petition. The petitioner is the owner of premises that are situated at Dharampeth, Nagpur being Muni...
Jignesh Amulakh Vora Vs. Nashik Municipal Corporation and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2015
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) 1. Notice for final disposal was issued on 4th March, 2014. Facts of both the Petitions are more or less identical and, therefore, we are making a reference to the facts of the case in Writ Petition No.9492 of 2013. The Petitioner therein is claiming to be the owner of the land bearing Survey No.23/3A of village Dasak, Nashik within the limits of the Nashik Municipal Corporation. The total area of the said survey number is 5377 sq. meters. The development plan for the City of Nashik was sanctioned on 28th June, 1993 which came into force on 16th November, 1993. As per the said development plan, Survey No.23/3A (for short "the said land") was reserved under Reservation No.133 for Road, Primary School and Secondary School. 2. A notice dated 25th October, 2010 was served by the Advocate for the Petitioner to the Municipal Corporation purporting to be a notice under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short "the MRTP Act")....
Subhash Narsopant Saundankar and Another Vs. Chandrakant Babanrao Salu ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Unsuccessful landlord before the appellate court, who reversed the decree in favour of the landlord for possession is before this court. 2. A suit was filed in the court of 5th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dhule. The said suit was registered as Regular Civil Suit No. 458 of 1985. The said suit was contested by the present respondent no.1 and the predecessor-in-title of respondent nos. 2 to 5. The said suit was decreed by the learned trial court and the defendants in the suit were directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises and they were also directed to pay Rs.152.50 Ps. as arrears of rent, Rs.35/- towards damages and Rs.65/- by way of notice charges by judgment and decree dated 16.11.1991. 3. Appeal was carried. The said appeal was registered as Regular Civil Appeal No.2 of 1992 and was on the file of Extra Joint District Judge, Dhule. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment, dated 2.2.2000 allowed the appeal and thereby reversed the j...
Ashwin Crane and Construction and Another A partnership firm Vs. L and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2015
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (for short 'the said Arbitration Act') the petitioners have impugned the arbitral award dated 7th July, 2011 made by the learned arbitrator directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.56,44,422/- with delayed payment charges at the rate of 36% per annum from 30th November, 2001 to 3rd June 2002 and at the rate of 24% per annum from 4th June 2002 till payment and/or realisation thereof. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. The petitioners are the original respondents whereas the respondents are the original claimants in the arbitration proceedings. It was the case of the respondents that pursuant to the proposal of the petitioner no.1 herein to have two numbers of L and T Make Hydraulic Excavator Model 72 CK and one no. Tata Hitachi EX 200 and two nos. Krupp HM 720 CS Rock breaker on hire purchase basis which proposal was accepted by the respondents....
Naresh K. Pahuja Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2015
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the challenge is to the order dated 20th August, 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the ' Tribunal' ) under Section 254 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act' ). 2. By the impugned order dated 20th August, 2010 the petitioner's Misc.Application for rectification of the order dated 10th July, 2007 passed by the Tribunal under Section 254 (1) of the Act in respect of the petitioner's quantum Appeal for A.Y.1995-96 was rejected. 3. On 10th July, 2010 the Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's Appeal for A.Y.1995-96 filed against order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upholding the order of the Assessing Officer inter alia holding that gifts of Rs.13.25 lacs received by the petitioner from one Kishan Punjabi (donor) were not genuine. On 3rd December, 2007 the petitioner filed an application for rectification under Section 254 (2) of the Act seeking to rectify the order dated 10...
Commissioner of Income-tax- II, Pune Vs. Agarwal Enterprises
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2015
1. This Appeal by the Revenue challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench at Pune, dated 8th November, 2011. 2. The assessment year in question is 2005-06. The Revenue's Appeal before the Tribunal raised two grounds. The first ground was that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should not have deleted the addition of Rs.27,63,920/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 37(1) of the Act from out of the Assessee's claim towards Keyman Insurance Premium. 3. The second ground was that a sum of Rs.42,48,052/- on account of under valuation of closing stock of shares and bonds was rightly added. 4. Mr. Vimal Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, appearing in support of this Appeal submits that all four questions and formulated by the Revenue are substantial questions of law. 5. He submits that the Keyman Insurance Policy has been taken in the case of the present Assessee, a partnership firm. It is on the life of two partners. The partnership firm cannot have ex...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »