Mumbai Court October 2015 Judgments
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Artson Engineering Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 30th June, 2005 rendered by the sole arbitrator allowing some of the claims made by the respondent. The petitioner herein was the original respondent in the arbitral proceedings and the respondent herein was the original claimant. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. On or about 4th September, 1997 Engineers India Ltd. floated a tenders on behalf of the petitioner for Crude Distribution System. The respondent submitted their bid in response to the said tender. On 23rd February, 1998, the petitioner by a fax letter accepted the bid of the respondent and awarded work at Rs.14,03,30,247/-. The said contract was governed by the provisions of General Conditions of Contract (GCC) and Special Conditions of Contract (SCC). The contractual completion date was within 8 months from the said letter dated 23r...
Tag this Judgment!Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske Vs. Damodhar Narayan Sawale and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
1. The Trial Court dismissed Regular Civil Suit No.257 of 1985 on 31-7-1987 for possession of Survey No.20/2 on the basis of the sale-deed dated 21-4-1979 at Exhibit 128, recording the finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he has purchased the suit field from the defendants. The Trial Court held that the defendant No.2 has established that the sale-deed at Exhibit 128 was nominal and executed by way of collateral security for money lending transaction. The Trial Court further held that in the absence of permission of the District Collector, as required by the provision of Section 8 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, the sale at Exhibit 128 is void. 2. The lower Appellate Court has reversed the decision of the Trial Court, in Regular Civil Appeal No.98 of 1987 by its judgment and order dated 31-7-1995. It is held that the defendant No.1 has admitted the claim of plaintiff and the plaintiff has established that the defend...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrakala and Others Vs. Marathwada Medical Research and Rural Devel ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. On 25.08.2015, this Court has passed the following order: 1. The learned Advocates submit on instructions from their respective clients present in the Court that they have no objection if this Court hears these matters. 2. These matters have been heard for almost two hours. 3. Stand over to 07.09.2015 at 02:30 pm as PARTHEARD, at the request of the learned Advocates.? 3. The Petitioners in the first petition challenge the judgment and order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the Industrial Court at Aurangabad by which Complaint (ULP) No.47/2008 filed by the Petitioners was dismissed. 4. The Petitioners in the second petition are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the Industrial Court, Aurangabad by which Complaint (ULP) No.97/2008 filed by these Petitioners has been dismissed. 5. The Petitioners in the third petition are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.12.2013 pa...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Textile Engrs. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') challenges the order dated 6 July 2000 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal'). The impugned order of the Tribunal disposes the revenue's appeal for the block period 1 April 1986 to 12 September 1996. 2. This appeal was admitted by this Court on 29 July 2002 on the following substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- as 'on money' receipt in the period from 1986 to 1989, was without jurisdiction, patently illegal and invalid, there being no evidence or material in support? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the third member of the Tribunal erred in holding that he is bound to accept the view of one of the two members inspite of the fact that he has a third view? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in not allowing any ded...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod D. Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule in both the Petitions made returnable forthwith. 2. By this Petition (WP(Cri.)/1680/2015) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and invoking section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Cr. P. C.?), the Petitioner challenges the order passed on 7th March, 2015. That order is to the following effect:- ORDER Heard learned counsel for complainant at length. The allegations made are very serious which require thorough investigation. The IO would on investigation, if comes to conclusion about its truthfulness, proceed, or else not. After making of such allegations and on hearing the complainant the Court is duty bound to order investigation. The case/complainant cannot be heard summarily and disposed off. Hence in interest of justice the police to investigate the offence u/s. 156(3) Cr. P. C. and file report. The CP to appoint authorised officer as per the SC/ST Act to investigate it.?...
Tag this Judgment!Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State Information Commissioner and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
G.S. Kulkarni, J. WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1806 of 2015 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated January 31, 2015, passed by the 1st respondent “ the State Information Commissioner, whereby the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent under Section 19 (3) of the Right to Information Act 2005 (for short the Act?), has been allowed directing the 2nd respondent to provide information to the 3rd respondent as per his application made under Section 6 of the Act. In a nutshell the facts are: 2. The 3rd respondent is stated to be the Sole administrator of the estate and effects of one late E. F. Dinshaw. A Development agreement dated January 2,1995 came to be entered between the 3rd respondent and the petitioner, under which the petitioner agreed to develop lands belonging to the estate of late E.F. Dinshaw situated at Malad (West), Mumbai. An irrevocable power of attorney was also executed by the 3rd respondent in favour o...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. M/s. Jai Hind Industries Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
B.P. Colabawalla, J. 1. By this Reference, the First Bench of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal (for short, the MSTT?) has referred the following questions of law for a decision of this Court under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short the BST Act?):- (a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on true and correct interpretation of Entry C-I-29 of Part I of Schedule-C, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the nonferrous metal castings as manufactured and sold by the respondents (original appellants) are nothing but non-ferrous metal ingots? (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on true and correct interpretation of Entry C-I-29, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the non-ferrous metal castings, namely aluminum castings manufactured and sold by the respondents (original appellants) are covered by Entry C-I-29? 2. The real dispute in the present Reference is whether raw aluminum castings manufactured and s...
Tag this Judgment!SCOD 18 Networking Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Ministry of Information a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging orders revoking their registration as Multi System Operators. These registrations have been granted under the Cable Television Network Rules, 1944 (for short the Rules?). The petitioners are engaged in the business of securing signals from television channels distributed to them through cable operators to the end users. Since the two petitioners carry on identical business, but the facts leading to the revocation of registration of their case are slightly different, we would set out the facts in Writ Petition No. 58 of 2015 firstly. 3. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and operating from the address mentioned in the cause title. It is engaged, inter-alia, in the business of cable distribution service as Mult...
Tag this Judgment!Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Madhu @ Mahadev and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
Oral Judgment : 1. The question that arises for determination in this appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the said Act) is whether a legal representative of a deceased employee can be permitted to continue proceedings initiated by said employee during his life time for seeking compensation under Section 10 of the said Act. The facts lie in a narrow compass. One Madhu was employed with the respondent No.2 and during the course of employment, he met with an accident on 11/02/2011. On 07/05/2012 said Madhu filed proceedings under Section 10 of the said Act seeking compensation on the ground that the accident in question had arisen out of and in the course of employment. During pendency of said proceedings, the claimant Madhu expired on 23/07/2013 and his elder brother in the capacity as his legal heir applied for being brought on record. Said application was opposed by the appellant on the ground that the elder brother of the deceased was not ...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gangadhar Gendrao Patankar and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-30-2015
Oral Judgment : 1. This appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the said Act) at the the instance of the Insurance Company takes exception to the Judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati by which the claim for compensation filed by respondent Nos.1 to 5 has been allowed. 2. It is the case of the respondent Nos.1 to 5 that on 07/04/2007, the four year old child of respondent Nos.1 and 2 met with an accident in front of their house while answering nature's call. Said child was hit by a truck owned by respondent No.7 and driven by respondent No.6. Appellants therefore claimed compensation of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/. 3. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle remained exparte. The appellant filed its written statement and took a plea that it was not liable to pay any compensation as claimed on the ground that the offending vehicle was not insured with it. It was further denied that the driver of the vehicle had driven the vehicle i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »