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.
Airex Logistics Express Services P. Ltd. Vs. Asit C. Mehta Investment ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2015
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 27th December, 2011 allowing the claims made by the respondent and directing the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.7,18,673/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 4th April, 2011 till payment. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. Sometime in the year 2009, the petitioner was desirous of selling their entire shareholding to a prospective buyer/investor for an amount of Rs.25 crores. The petitioner wanted to avail of the services of an intermediary to sell of the company of the petitioner. On 8th September, 2009 the petitioner and the respondent entered into an agreement under which the petitioner appointed the respondent as an intermediary for the sale of the petitioner company on the terms and conditions recorded therein. Under the said agreement, the scope of the services of the respo...
Manikrao and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-23-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent. 2. By this application filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants are challenging the order passed by J.M.F.C., (Court No.9), Amravati, on 28.4.2014 refusing to discharge them from Reg. Criminal Case No. 2 of 2006, arising out of Crime No. 108/05, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 380 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against them and also the order of Sessions Judge passed on 31.10.2014 in Criminal Revision No. 66 of 2014, thereby confirming the order of refusal of discharge of the applicants passed by the learned J.M.F.C. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are as under: (a) Vaishali daughter of applicant no. 1 got married with one Pravin Charjan r/o Amravati, in the year 1990. Viashali died of an unnatural death in her matrimonial home on 12.10.2005. There used to be frequent quarrels between the husband and wife and it appears that demand of money was the bone o...
Pandu Gopal Dange, since deceased by Lrs. Dattu P. Dange, since deceas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-2015
1. Civil Application No. 2733 of 2014 for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased petitioner No.2a is allowed. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Mr. Tejpal Ingale appears for the petitioners, including the legal heirs now brought on record. 2. This petition, is directed against the judgment and order dated 30 December 1988, made by the Tenancy Awal Karkun, Shirala and orders dated 28 February 1991 and 26 November 1998 made by the learned Assistant Collector Collector Walwa and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur (MRT) respectively, confirming the same. All the three orders have declared that the petitioner's agricultural tenancy in respect of the suit property stands terminated and directions have been issued to hand over possession of half portion of the suit land to the respondents. 3. The brief facts, in which such challenge arises is that from some time prior to the year 1948, the petitioner or their predecessors-in-title claim tenancy and possession in respect of th...
Agricultural Produce Market and Others Vs. Ashok and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-22-2015
Oral Judgment : 1. The issue that arises in these writ petitions is having failed to prove the charges of misconduct that led to the dismissal of the employee, can the employer be permitted to rely upon very same charges to dispense with his services on the ground of loss of confidence? These writ petitions can be decided by this common judgment as the judgment passed by the Industrial Court dated 12-7-2005 is under challenge at the instance of both the parties. 2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.5907/2005 shall be referred to as the employer, while the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1311/2007 shall be referred to as the employee. Bereft of unnecessary details, the relevant facts are that the employee was appointed as a clerk with the Agricultural Produce Market Committee by employer on 13-10-1986. The employee was getting daily wages @Rs.20/- per day. During the course of service, a chargesheet was issued on 5-2-1994 by the employer. The employee was put under suspension and an en...
Pandharinath Pandurang Mate deceased by his legal heirs Patil Pandhari ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2015
1. This petition is directed against the order dated 13 November 1996 made by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT), Pune setting aside order dated 31 December 1992 made by the Assistant Collector, Pune and remanding the application made by the respondents herein under Section 32F of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (said Act) for reconsideration. 2. The petitioners inter alia claim to be tenants in respect of property surveyed under No. 18 Pot Hissa No. 1/11 which admeasures 0.34 Ares, Khadakwasla, Pune (suit property). On 1 April 1972 proceedings were initiated by Ramchandra Pansare under Sections 25 and 29 of the said Act for resumption of possession which was dismissed on 13 July 1992. Pansare preferred appeal no. 457 of 1972, which was dismissed by the SDO on 31 December 1972. The petitioners, thereupon initiated proceedings under Section 32G for the purchase of the suit property. The same were allowed by the Tahsildar by order dated 1 February 1979, by way of ...
New India Assurance Company, through its Divisional Manager Vs. Himmat ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-22-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The first appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal granting compensation of Rs.60,000/- to the respondents 1 and 2 parents of the deceased. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed the cross-objection. The respondents 1 and 2 filed the Civil Application No.52/2015 praying for grant of early hearing. When this application came up for consideration, it transpired that the first appeal is of the year 2001 and the appeal and the cross-objection can be taken up for final hearing. Accordingly, the civil application is allowed. 2. The appeal and cross-objection are taken up for final hearing. 3. It is undisputed that Sudam died in the accident in which the vehicle owned by the respondent no.3 was involved. It is undisputed that the vehicle which was involved in the accident was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. The respondents 1 and 2 (father and mother of deceased Sudam) filed the claim petition in wh...
Agricultural Produce Market and Others Vs. Ashok and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2015
Oral Judgment : 1. The issue that arises in these writ petitions is having failed to prove the charges of misconduct that led to the dismissal of the employee, can the employer be permitted to rely upon very same charges to dispense with his services on the ground of loss of confidence? These writ petitions can be decided by this common judgment as the judgment passed by the Industrial Court dated 12-7-2005 is under challenge at the instance of both the parties. 2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.5907/2005 shall be referred to as the employer, while the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1311/2007 shall be referred to as the employee. Bereft of unnecessary details, the relevant facts are that the employee was appointed as a clerk with the Agricultural Produce Market Committee by employer on 13-10-1986. The employee was getting daily wages @Rs.20/- per day. During the course of service, a chargesheet was issued on 5-2-1994 by the employer. The employee was put under suspension and an en...
Akhtar Hussein Mohiddin Ali Shaikh and Others Vs. The State of Maharas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2015
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. 1. These Appeals are directed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 4th May, 2009 recorded in Sessions Case No.80 of 2007 by the Court of 3rd Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge at Sewree, Mumbai. By the said Judgment, the Appellants, who are Original Accused Nos.1 to 10, are held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,500/- each, in default to suffer R.I. for six months. They are further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. section 149 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default to suffer R.I. for one year. Original Accused No.1-Sherbahadur Akram Khan is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. Section 109 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for six months. They are further convicted ...
The Azmane Urban Co-operative Credit Society Limited Vs. Kissan Gokuld ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-22-2015
1. Present appeal is preferred by the appellant against the order passed below Exhibit 21/D in Criminal Case No. OA/159/2011/B by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panaji, on 01.10.2012. 2. The parties are referred to their original status. 3. Brief facts lead to the present appeal may be summarised as below: The complainant has filed a complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. 4. The complainant is a society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, as made applicable to the State of Goa having its office at Mandur Goa and the accused is its member. The accused stood surety to the loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/- availed from the complainant by one Mr. Devidas N. Narvekar, resident of Altinho, Panaji Goa. Mr. Narvekar, is the principal borrower and the accused and one more person namely Mr. Raju G. Naik, are the sureties executed in favour of the complainant. The accused and the sureties...
The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Vs. Grant Medical Foundation (RUB ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-2015
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. This appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the IT Act) is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pune Bench A, Pune (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 20th April, 2012. The assessment year is 200809. 2. The Tribunal had before it the Appeal, bearing ITA No.884/PN/2010 which was filed by the respondent assessee and ITA No.985/PN/2010 which was by the Revenue. The assessee's appeal was restricted to the confirmation by the Income Tax Commissioner Appeals Pune of deduction of tax under section 201 (1) amounting to Rs.80,81,586/- and consequent interest thereon under section 201 (1A) amounting to Rs.16,73,630/- in respect of doctors drawing fixed plus variable pay with written contract treating them as employees of the hospital. The second ground raised by the assessee was whether the Commissioner erred in partially confirming short deduction of tax (TDS) under section 201 (1) amount...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »