Mumbai Court October 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. Jai Industrial Corporation and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Oct-14-2015
Oral Judgment:(B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. After hearing the respective Counsel on 27-08-2015, we have passed the following order:- Heard Shri Sunil Manohar, Senior Advocate with Shri A.A. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Rao, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Shri Samarth, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and Shri Kasat, learned counsel for respondent No.5. The learned AGP is seeking time to obtain instructions in view of the amendment carried out in the petition. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Shri Samarth, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 state that the petitioners have submitted a proposal for slight change in road alignment so that the existing plot is not divided into two separate parts. The copy of proposal submitted on 27.07.2015 is shown to the Court by Shri Samarth, learned counsel. A map accompanying it is handed over by the learned Senior Advocate. It is taken on record and marked as Exh.™X™. The lear...
Hamid Abdulgani Pansare Vs. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
S.B. Shukre, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 18th May 2012 passed by respondent No.2-Committee invalidating the caste certificate of the petitioner showing him as belonging to Fakir Bandarwala caste, a caste recognised as Other Backward Class (OBC) in the State of Maharashtra. The order further directs respondent No.3-Collector to register offence under section 11 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Vimukta Jati, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category Cast Certificate (regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Caste Certificate Act? for short) for obtaining false caste certificate. 3. We have heard Mr.Mendadkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Ms.Gauri Godse with Mr.Rohit Joshi for respondent No....
Green Goa Foundation, through its Chairman Raison Almeida Vs. The Muni ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. The above Public Interest Litigation filed by the petitioner on the ground that the feat of the Holy Spirit is celebrated in the months of May or June every year and the feast of Our Lady of Immaculate Conception is celebrated on 8th of December every year and the religious ceremonies are performed within the Church premises situated at old market, Margao Goa. But however, during the said festive occasion, a traditional fair is organized where artisans and others sell their products which would last for a period of three days including the feast day. Such fair was organized originally in the open space in front of the Church but however, over the years as the Church required the open space for religious activities, the fair gradually shifted to the roads near the Church and even in the open space in front of the building of the Civil and Criminal Court. Such activities according to the petitioner used to attract the local artisans and producers of hous...
Amit Hemendra Jhaveri Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges:” (a) three orders dated 12 February 1999 by which the petitioner's declaration under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (the KVSS 1998) is rejected in respect of the Assessment Years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96; and (b) the Constitutional validity of Section 95 of the KVSS, 1998. 2. The petition was admitted on 2 May 2000 at which time, the following order was passed: "Rule only on the question of constitutionality of KVSS, 1998. Respondents waive service. Interim reliefs refused. However, if the petitioner succeeds in Writ Petition, it will not be open to the department to plead that declaration under KVSS cannot be granted as scheme has expired. Expedited. Liberty to department to apply." Therefore the only issue for our consideration is issue (b) viz. Constitutionality of Section 95 of the KVSS, 1998. Factual Background:” 3. The petitioner filed his return of income for the Assessment Yea...
Dicitex Furnishing Ltd. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
1. By this application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Arbitration Act), the applicant seeks appointment of an arbitrator. The respondents have raised an objection about maintainability of this application on the ground that the applicant had signed the discharge voucher/sheet voluntarily given to the respondents in full and final settlement of all their claims present and/or future arising directly/indirectly in respect of the loss. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this application are as under: 2. On 17th September 2011, the applicant obtained a Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy No.124500/11/2012/457 from the respondent no.1 to cover the stocks of goods lying in its three separate godowns located at Thane, Maharashtra vide their three separate endorsements. The total sum insured stood at Rs.13 crores. Clause 13 of the terms and conditions of the said policy contains an arbitration clause. On 25th M...
DBS Bank Ltd. Vs. M/s. Innoventive Industries Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
1. The company application seeks appointment of provisional liquidator of the Respondent company and an interim restraint order concerning the disposal of the company's assets pending such appointment. 2. The company is said to be indebted to the Applicant (who is the original Petitioner in the Company Petition) in the sum of over Rs.24.91 Crores. The Company has been referred to the Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) cell and a consortium of lenders led by Central Bank of India has proposed a CDR scheme for the company. The Applicant herein is not part of CDR lenders, but its debt of Rs.24.91 Crores has been acknowledged in the debt profile of the company under the caption 'Non CDR lenders' in the report of the reference made to the CDR cell. It is the case of the Applicant that the company has not proposed any scheme for discharge of its outstanding claim. It is submitted that the company inter alia proposes to dispose of its assets in pursuance of the CDR scheme and also otherwise w...
SIDERALBA S.P.A. Vs. Shree Precoated Steels Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
1. By this petition filed under Sections 46 and 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Arbitration Act), the petitioner seeks a declaration that the arbitral award dated 8th June 2011 is enforceable as a decree of this Court and seeks payment of cost. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the laws of Italy and has its registered office at Italy. The respondent is a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at Mumbai. 3. Some time in the year 2005, according to the petitioner, the petitioner and the respondent were introduced to one another by Mr.Enzo Fiorentino who was the agent of the respondent in Italy. It is the case of the petitioner that in the month of December 2005, a meeting took place between the representatives of the petitioner and the respondent in Naples, Italy at which it wa...
Shridhar Chavan Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2015
1. The appellant who was working as a Chobdar on the establishment of this Court, has appealed to this Court, challenging the judgment and order delivered by the Special Judge for Greater Mumbai appointed under Section 3 the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.C.Act' for the sake of convenience). By the said judgment and order, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant of offences punishable under Section 7 and section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 1(one) year, and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- on each of the said two counts. 2. The case arose on a complaint lodged by one Shri Anil Bugde (PW 1), an Advocate. The appellant, at the material time, was attached to an Hon'ble Judge presiding over C.R.No.27. The case, in brief, may be stated thus: Bugde had filed an application in this Court on behalf of one Smt.Vaishali, his client. On 8/10/2010, Bugde went to the Court Room No....
TNT India Private Limited Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (II) a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. We had heard both sides at length on the earlier occasion. The matter was placed today only to enable Mr. Jetly to take instructions. However, Mr. Jetly submits that the concerned officials are of the view that it would be better if the Court passes an order and with regard to the legality and validity of the suspension effected by the communication/order dated 1st October, 2015. It is in these circumstances that we are required to pass a brief order. 3. The Petitioner before us is a private limited company incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is a subsidiary of M/s. TNT Express N V. It is claimed that this global entity operates in about 200 countries. 4. The Respondents to this Writ Petition are the Union of India and the Department of Customs and their senior officials, who are posted at the Mumbai Airport. 5. The case of the Peti...
Naomi Banda Zambian National Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-2015
1. On the basis of a complaint filed by Shri V.K. Menon, Intelligence Officer attached to Air Intelligence Unit, Customs, the appellant was prosecuted on the allegation of having committed offences punishable under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act read with section 8(c) thereof, and section 23(c) of the NDPS Act read with sections 8(c), 21(c) and 28 thereof. 2. The Special Judge, who held the trial, convicted her of the aforesaid offences, and sentenced her to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 10(ten) years, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- on each of the said two counts. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant “ a Zambian National “ has approached this Court by filing the present Appeal. The prosecution case, as put forth in the complaint, may, in brief, be stated thus: That, during the night intervening 24th and 25th February 2007, the complainant V.K. Menon, and other Officers of the Air Intelligence Unit (AIU) of Customs attached to its A? Batch, were on duty in the Depart...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »