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.
M/s Prism Reality Vs. Govind Yashwnt Khalade and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule, with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 is invoked against the order dated 30.07.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wadgaon Maval, Pune, by which order the application Exh.21 filed by the Petitioner herein under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground that the suit be dismissed as the proper Court Fees have not been paid came to be rejected. 3. It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary details, suffice it to say that the Respondents No.1 to 4 herein are the original Plaintiffs who have filed the suit in question being RCS No.130 of 2013. The substantive relief sought in the suit is a declaration that the Development Agreement No.9272 of 2006 and the Power of Attorney No.9273 of 2006 dated 14.12.2006 are bogus, illegal and not binding on the Plaintiffs. A further declaration that is sought is that the Sale Deed exe...
Executive Engineer, W.D. VIII GTIDC and Another Vs. Revati G. Goltekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2015
Oral Judgment:1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 05/06/2010 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, North Goa, Panaji, (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 21 of 2008.3. Vide notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L. A. Act, for short) and published in the Official Gazette dated 26/05/2006, land was acquired for construction of L.B.M.C. of T.I.P. from ch. 27.70 kms. to 28.970 kms. in Siolim village of Bardez Taluka (Phase I). This included land admeasuring 6073 sq. mts. from survey holding Nos. 262/2, 262/6, 262/9, 262/12, 262/15 and 264/9 of Siolim village. An area of 1020 square metres has been acquired from survey no. 262/2; 615 square metres from survey no. 262/6; 1100 square metres from survey no. 262/9; 668 square metres from survey no. 262/12; 1000 square metres from survey no. 262/15; and 1670 square metres from survey no. 264/9. By Award dated ...
Commissioner of Income-tax,Central-IV Vs. Jignesh P. Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2015
1. This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 8th May, 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Revenue has formulated the following re-framed question of law for our consideration: " Whether the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in placing reliance on the judgment in the case of ACIT v. M/s. Bhaumik Colours Pvt. Ltd. whereas in the instant case, the assessee is a registered and beneficial share holder of a company that has given loans to a third company that lent these, monies to the Assessee?". 3. We find that the impugned order has upheld the order of the CIT(A) dated 28th March, 2011, holding that the issue arising before it was covered by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Asstt. CIT v. Bhaumik Colours (P.) Ltd. [2009] 118 ITD 1 (Mum.) read with decision of this Court in CIT v. Universal Medicare (P.) Ltd...
Sunbel Alloys Co. of India Ltd. Vs. The Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2015
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. These two matters can be disposed of by a common order. 2. We take up first Central Excise Appeal No.179 of 2014. Having heard both sides and perusing the order of the Tribunal we proceed to admit this appeal on the following substantial questions of law: [i] Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal erred in committing yet another instance of judicial indiscipline by not following binding precedent in case of S.D. Fine Chemicals affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was followed in the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in case of E. Merck under identical facts for the past period, which had attained finality since no appeal was filed against that decision? [ii] Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in allowing the Respondent to argue and lead evidence as regards percentage of value addition achieved in the processes undertaken, at the final hearing...
Santosh Rani and Another Vs. The Honâble Member, Maharashtra Stat ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-20-2015
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.)1. Both the appeal are heard finally with consent of the parties. The appellants challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court dated 17.1.2012 thereby dismissing the petitions filed by the present appellants and upholding the order passed by the learned Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court dated 1.7.2011, by which the learned Appellate Court had reversed the order passed by the learned Cooperative Court dated 23.5.2011 holding the disputes filed by the respondent to be barred by limitation and as such dismissing the same.2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeals are as under That the appellants being members of the respondent society were alloted plots in the respondent society. Sale deeds in respect of said plots came to be executed on 7.8.1987. It appears that a correction deed was executed betweens the appellants and the respondent on 12.8.2008. A dispute came to be filed by the respondent society on 14.1....
Borosil Glass Works Limited Vs. Tata Motors Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By this petition, filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Said Arbitration Act), petitioner has impugned the arbitral award rendered by the arbitral tribunal on 18th June, 2009 directing the petitioner to indemnify the respondent by creation of a fund under the control of respondent and deposit the sum of Rs.26,30,662/- and Rs.58,170/- together with interest on the sum of Rs.26,30,662/- at the rate of 30% p.a., from 21st July, 2005 till 13th February, 2007 and further interest on the sum of Rs.26,30,662/-, at the rate of 10% from 14th February, 2007 till actual deposit. 2. The arbitral tribunal directed the petitioner to keep the said amount in a fixed deposit of a nationalized Bank of their choice within four weeks from the date of the said award. Petitioner was directed to deposit the said amount initially for the period of one year and was directed to keep the said fixed deposit renewed till such time as ...
TATA SONS Limited and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-2015
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking the following reliefs : (a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction; (i) quashing and setting aside the said impugned orders being exhibits C1 to C4, D1 to D4, E hereto and K4-A, K4-B, K4-C, K4-D, K5-A, K5-B, K5-C, K6-A, K6-B and K6-C. (ii) quashing and setting aside the said Notices dated July 17, 2012 for recovery of the alleged sales tax dues for the period 1998-2002 being exhibits F1 to F4 hereto; (iii) quashing and setting aside the said Orders dated August 9, 2012 for levy of interest and penalty in respect of the said alleged sales tax dues for the period 1998 2002 being exhibits G5 to G8 hereto; (iv) quashing and setting aside the said Assessment Notices dated March 15, 2011 for levy of sales tax for the years 2002-2005 being exhibi...
Executive Engineer, W.D. VIII GTIDC and Another Vs. Revati G. Goltekar
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-20-2015
Oral Judgment:1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 05/06/2010 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, North Goa, Panaji, (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No. 21 of 2008.3. Vide notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L. A. Act, for short) and published in the Official Gazette dated 26/05/2006, land was acquired for construction of L.B.M.C. of T.I.P. from ch. 27.70 kms. to 28.970 kms. in Siolim village of Bardez Taluka (Phase I). This included land admeasuring 6073 sq. mts. from survey holding Nos. 262/2, 262/6, 262/9, 262/12, 262/15 and 264/9 of Siolim village. An area of 1020 square metres has been acquired from survey no. 262/2; 615 square metres from survey no. 262/6; 1100 square metres from survey no. 262/9; 668 square metres from survey no. 262/12; 1000 square metres from survey no. 262/15; and 1670 square metres from survey no. 264/9. By Award dated ...
Shailja and Another Vs. Meerabai Balakdas Dhanvijay
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-20-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for non-applicant Admit. Heard finally by consent. 2. By this application, three orders passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Chandrapur Regular Cri. Case No.186/13 have been challenged. These orders are dated 26.9.2013, 28.2.2014 and 19.7.2014. 3. By the impugned orders, according to learned counsel for the applicants, there has occurred a miscarriage of justice in the sense that the mandatory enquiry as contemplated under proviso (a) to Section 202(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure has not been conducted by the Magistrate and, therefore, the orders of issuance of process to the applicants as well as committing the criminal complaint case to the Court of Sessions have been vitiated in law. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the applicants has referred to me a decision of Kerala High Court in Moideen Kutty Haji and ors. v. Kunhikoya and ors. reported in AIR 1987 Ker. 184. 4. Learned counsel for respo...
People's Movement for Civic Action through its General Secretary and A ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-20-2015
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The above petitions have been referred to me by the Honourable the Chief Justice, in accordance with the provisions of Section 98(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for decision on the point of difference between my learned sister and brother Judges, Smt. Justice Roshan Dalvi and Shri Justice F. M. Reis, in the common judgment dated 26.02.2014, passed in the above petitions. The said point of difference, as stated by learned brother Reis, J, in paragraph 66 of the said Judgment, reads as under: Although I agree with my learned sister Smt. R. S. Dalvi, J that the plan which is at page 117 is the plan which was duly approved on 31.05.1995 and not the plan at page 122 as claimed by the respondent nos. 6 and 7, for the reasons stated in the judgment, I deeply regret my inability to agree with the findings in the judgment with regard to the effect of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while disposing of Writ Petition (C) No. 329 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »