Mumbai Court February 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.
Mariano Mesquita and Others Vs. Selva Raju Nadar and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-10-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order passed by District Judge, South Goa dated 11 August 2014 dismissing Civil Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay of 136 days in filing an Appeal from Order. The petitioners in the appeal had challenged order passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Vasco dated 9 December 2013, dismissing their application for temporary injunction. 2. The petitioners filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondents. According to the petitioners they are heirs of one Marcal Mesquita who owned and possessed several properties including the one which was subject matter of the suit. According to the petitioners the respondents without any right had proceeded to carry out construction in the property. The petitioners accordingly filed a suit and also took out an application for temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from carrying out any construction in the suit property. The Civil Judge...
Dr. Vivekanand Jawali @ Vivek Jawali, Chief Cardio Vascular and Thorac ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Feb-10-2015
1. Heard Mr. Bras De Sa, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Lawande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents and Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the intervenor. 2. This common judgment shall dispose of both the above writ petitions since they are filed against the summons dated 10/01/2014 issued to the petitioners by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panaji in Criminal Case No. IPC/265/2013/A. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith. 4. A complaint dated 21/12/2011 was lodged by Mrs. Antonieta Ribeiro D'Souza (intervenor) to the Officer incharge of Panaji Town Police Station against (i) Fortis Hospitals Ltd. (ii) Dr. Vivek Jawali (iii) Shri Abhinandan N. Dastenavar and (iv) Dr. Selwyn Colaco, in which she alleged as follows : On or about 30/08/2010, it was diagnosed that the intervenor suffered from heart ailment and a heart surgery was imperative. On 26/09/2010, the intervenor consulted Dr. Vivek Jawali at the clinic of...
M/s Gharda Chemicals Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2015
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. This reference under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 arises out of the Tribunal's order dated 15th April, 2002. The period of assessment is 1st July, 1988 to 30th June, 1989. The Gharda Chemicals Ltd and at whose instance the Tribunal referred the questions of law for answer and opinion of this Court, is stated to be holding a Registration Certificate No.NIH-780 under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short the BST Act) and also a Recognition Certificate issued under the Bombay Sales Tax Rules (for short the BST Rules). The dealer is manufacturer in chemicals and pesticides and also reseller in chemicals. The dealer has manufacturing unit in Ratnagiri District in the State of Maharashtra which facility has been set up from 27th April, 1987. The Assistant Commissioner Sales Tax (Assessment), H-Ward, Unit II, Mumbai assessed the dealer on 31st March, 1993 for the above period under the B.S.T. Act. That resulted in refund of Rs.27,...
Kaprecon Sleeper Works Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India, throug ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-10-2015
Common Judgment: (A.P. Bhangale, J.) 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. Facts in Writ Petition No.1907 of 1998 : 2. On or about 13.3.1981, the petitioner/Company was awarded a Contract bearing no. W.188.C.360 with the respondent/Railway to supply two lakh ten thousand units of Monoblock Prestressed Concrete Sleepers (hereinafter referred as 'MPCS units') to the Railways. The respondents had enhanced the above order by further two lakh MPCS units of 60 KG specifications. The petitioner/Company manufactured and supplied the MPCS units and have received payments from the respondents. On 24.9.1990, the respondent awarded the first repeat order for manufacture and supply of 7,50,000/- (seven Lakh fifty thousand) and 82,000 (eighty two thousand units) inclusive of adhoc orders sanctioned by Railway Board vide letters dated 10.5.1989 and 7.12.1989. Accordingly, the petitioners have manufactured and supplied MPCS units. 3. On 24.3.1995, further repeat ad hoc order of one ...
Mukesh K. Patel and Others Vs. Daman Municipal Council and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2015
1. As common issues of law and fact arise in these two petitions, they are being disposed of with a common order. 2. Accordingly, Rule in both the petitions. At the request of and with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, Rule is disposed of finally. 3. Both these petitions challenge order dated 31 October 2014 made by the Administrator, Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli (Administrator) made under Section 298 of the Daman and Diu Municipalities (Amended) Regulation, 1994 (said Act) dissolving the Daman Municipal Council (impugned order). 4. The two petitions have been instituted mainly by the Councillors of the Council, because in terms of Section 298(2) of the said Act, when the Council is dissolved, all Councillors shall, on the date of dissolution, vacate their office as such Councillors. 5. The Administrator, issued a show cause notice dated 7 October 2014 to all the Councillors of the Council requiring them to individually, severally or collectively show cau...
Sudhir G. Borgaonkar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2015
1. This Appeal by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 5th October, 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2000-01. 2 The Appellant has formulated the following questions of law for our consideration: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of s. 234A and s.234B of the Act, the ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee was liable to pay interest under those sections; when admittedly the assessee had a bona fide belief and a strong arguable case that its income for the relevant A. Y. would be 'nil' and hence, no default in payment of advance tax had occurred?". 3. The Appellant is engaged in business as builder and developer following the project completion method for purposes of paying its taxes. During the course of assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2003-04, it was noticed that a miscellaneous income of Rs.1.32 C...
Manohar @ Prabhakar S/o Purushottamrao Wakil (Dead) through Lrs: and O ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-10-2015
Oral Judgment : 1. This appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenges the judgment passed by the first appellate Court dated 16-9-2010 reversing the judgment passed by the trial Court. Thereby the dismissal of suit for specific performance has been set aside and decree for specific performance of agreement dated 21-4-1988 has been passed. 2. The original defendant was the owner of field Survey No.353 situated at mouza Wadag, District Wardha. On 21-4-1988, he entered into an agreement to sell 3 Hectares 24 R land to the original plaintiff Goma for a consideration of Rs.31,200/-. Earnest amount paid was Rs.16,000/- and balance consideration of Rs.15,200/- was to be paid by 21-4-1989. It was agreed that permission of the Collector would be obtained by the defendant within said period and if permission was not received by said period, then within one month from receiving such permission, the sale deed would be executed. The possession of the suit field came to b...
M/s. Raviuday Construction Co. Vs. Bhaktiyog Co-operative Housing Soci ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2015
1. The Petitioner-Contractor/Developer, has challenged award dated 15 May 2012 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal as appointed by the consent, based upon the agreements between the parties. Two learned Arbitrator's majority award, is under challenge. Other Arbitrator expressed dissenting view, stated to be, in support of the Petitioner (Original-Respondent), against the Respondent (Original-Claimant). 2. The operative part of the majority award is as under: a. Respondents do pay to the Claimants Rs.7,35,000/- towards last installment and Rs.10,80,000/- for excess FSI with 18% interest thereon from 1/10/2007 till actual payment. b. Respondents shall further pay to the Claimants Rs.25,00,572/- towards interest as per chart annexed. c. Respondents shall further pay to the Claimants Rs.9,73,753/- towards construction of community hall. d. Respondents shall further pay to the Claimants Rs.7,00,000/- towards costs. (Respondents No. 1 to 7 are liable to make above payments jointly and severally)...
Shobha Janardhan Masram Vs. Ganpat Gulabrao Thakre
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-10-2015
1. Heard Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri N.S. Deshpande, the learned Advocate for the respondent. 2. The petition is filed by the original plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree passed by the subordinate Court dismissing the claim of the original plaintiff for specific performance of the contract and allowing the counter-claim filed by the original defendant and granting decree in favour of the defendant for possession of the suit field. 3. The plaintiff filed the civil suit contending that an agreement to sale the property was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 25-11-1994, by which the defendant agreed to sell the suit field to the plaintiff for Rs.50,000/-, that the plaintiff had paid Rs.15,000/- to the defendant at the time of the agreement and the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit field. The plaintiff pleaded that according to the agreement, the defendant was required to obtain written permission from t...
Lydia Agnes Rodrigues and Others Vs. Joseph Anthony D'Cunha and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2015
PC:- 1. This is the Plaintiffs Notice of Motion in a suit for partition. The property in question is CTS No. C-555, admeasuring about 765 sq.yds. situated at Saint Alexius Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai 400 050. This is a plot of land with a structure known as Villa Bemvinda standing on it. RODRIGUES V DCUNHA-NMS-893-14.DOC 2. Annexed as Exhibit A to the plaint is a family tree describing the relations between the Plaintiffs and Defendants Nos. 1 to 7. The progenitor was one Andrew Satiro DCunha. He owned the property in question. He died a widower on 20th August 1977. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 are his daughters. Andrew also had another daughter, Annie; Plaintiffs Nos. 3 to 6 are her children. The 7th Plaintiff is Annies daughter-in-law, Annies son (the 7th Plaintiffs husband) Patrick having passed away. Andrew also had a son Joseph. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are Josephs children (i.e., Andrews grandchildren). Defendant No.5 is the widow of the deceased brother, Godfrey, of Defendants No. 1. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »