Mumbai Court March 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.
MSRT Corporation Vs. M/s. Navketan Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2015
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Arbitration Act), the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 15th February, 2012 made by the learned arbitrator, allowing some of the claims made by the respondent. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 2. The petitioner herein was the original respondent in the arbitral proceedings, whereas the respondent herein was the original claimant. 3. On 19th July, 1991, the respondent who was the owner of plot bearing CTS No.590, situated at the junction of Sayani Road and Gokhale Road at Parel admeasuring 1445.35 sq. mtrs. entered into a sale cum development agreement with the petitioner in respect of the said plot of land for a total amount of Rs.5.40 crores. Under the said agreement, the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.3.40 crores to the respondent towards the cost of land. The balance sum of Rs.2.00 crores was agreed to b...
Raghunath Bapu Nangare Vs. Jai Shivrai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. With the consent of and at the request of the learned counsels for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. Besides, by order dated 18 December 2014, the parties were put to notice that this petition would be disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 2. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 27 August 2014 (impugned order) made by the School Tribunal, Kolhapur, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 13 February 2014 made by the respondents management, reducing the petitioner in rank from the post of Head Master to that of Assistant Teacher. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner came to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher at the Bhadole High School (School) vide appointment order dated 31 May 1993 effective from, 1 June 1993 and that such appointment was approved by the Education Department on 8 January 1995. The learned counsel for the management has raised some dispute with regard to suc...
Dr. Ravindra Balaji Govindwar Vs. Dr. Ashok Dhoble and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-12-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 20.04.2013 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Nagpur in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 151 of 2013. 2. The facts in so far as they are relevant for adjudication of the prayers made in the writ petition are that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent nos. 1 to 5 is in respect of Annual General Meeting of the Indian Dental Association that was held on 24.12.2011. The validity of aforesaid Annual General meeting was the subject matter of the arbitration proceedings between the petitioner on one side and the respondent nos. 1 to 5 on the other. The respondent no.6 acted as arbitrator in proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Act). An award came to be passed by the learned Arbitrator on 21.12.2013. By said award it was declared that the Annual General Meeting held on 24.12.2011 was illegal...
Bajranglal Anilkumar Jaju and Another Vs. The Vyasya Bank Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2015
1. The plaintiff has sued for Rs.2.38 crores with interest @ 15% p.a from the defendant bank, for accounts, for a declaration that the defendant is holding all the sale proceeds of palm oil received by it under a consent decree obtained in Suit No. 855 of 1979 including a sum of Rs.45.30 lakhs in trust for and as agents of the plaintiff, for an injunction against the defendant for remitting that amount the United Asian Bank (UAB) or to the credit of one Patel Holdings and for accounts and directions in that behalf. 2. The plaintiff carried on business in palm oil. The plaintiff got certain Letters of Credits (LCs) issued with regard to certain import consignments. The first consignment under the LCs was cleared. Thereafter the LCs were seen by the defendant bank to be fraudulently obtained by the plaintiff. The bank refused to act upon the LCs. The second consignment was not cleared as per the averments made in para 8 of the plaint itself. There has been another litigation between the ...
M/s. International Computers Indian Manufacture Limited Vs. The Commis ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2015
G.S. Kulkarni, J. 1. By this Income Tax Reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short the Act), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) has referred the following questions of law for decision of this Court:- (I) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in not granting depreciation on a part of issue of shares capitalised to Plant and Machinery and factory equipment Rs.29,668/-? (II) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in not granting depreciation of Rs.1,97,636/- on the cost of issue of shares capitalised to plant and machinery and factory equipment Rs.29,668/- and Rs.9,79,438/- towards capital work-in-progress? 2. Facts in brief are :- The Assessment Years in question are 1980-81 and 1981-82 respectively. In the Assessment Year 1980-81, the assessee had issued 6,25,000 equity shares of Rs.10/- each. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.62.50 lakhs was adjusted ...
Kunda Madhukar Shetye and Others Vs. Shaila Subrao Shetye and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-12-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Both these Appeals From Order arise from the same suit and are between the same parties and they have been argued together, and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The Appeal From Order No.54/2012 challenges the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bicholim in Special Civil Suit No.2/2012 dated 25 June 2012 in the application for interim relief filed by the appellant-original plaintiff. The Appeal From Order No.8/2015 is filed by the original defendants No.1 to 4 in the same suit challenging the order NH 6 AO Nos.54/2012 and 8/2015 dated 2 February 2015 dismissing the application filed by them under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for modification of the order dated 25 June 2012. 3. The parties to these appeals, Kunda Madhukar Shetye that is the original plaintiff, defendant No.1 Shaila Subrao Shetye, defendant No.2 Shriram Gajanan Shetye, defendant No.3 Pandurang Gajanan Shetye and defendant No.4 Vijay Gajanan Shetye, are relate...
The State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Arman Gulzar Tadvi and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-12-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the State, challenging the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 08.12.1995 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case Nos. 237/1992 and 153/1994, thereby acquitting the Respondents Accused for the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 302 r.w. 149 of Indian Penal Code, as well as under Section 135 r/w. 37 of Bombay Police Act and also acquitting the accused No.5 Rashid and accused No.6 Samsher for the offence punishable under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code. The original complainant has also filed the Revision Application taking exception to the Judgment and Order in Sessions Case Nos.237/1992 and 153/1994, dated 08.12.1995. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: 2. It is the case of the prosecution that, the deceased Ramjan @ Rangya was dealing in the business of purchasing and selling cattle. There was some dispute between Rangya, and accused persons on account of certain bullocks. Rangya had tried...
Rama Dattu Gaonkar and Another Vs. Bhaurao Vithal Ghaisas (since decea ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Mar-12-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. V. P. Thali, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above appeal was admitted by this Court by an order dated 24.10.2008 on the following substantial questions of law. 1. Whether the First Appellate Court could have struck off the name of the defendant no.2 from the cause title of the suit and further struck off the written statement filed by the defendant no.2 in RCS No. 43/86, on the plea that the Managing Committee was not defending the suit in a representative capacity, and there was non compliance of the provisions of the Order I Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code, notwithstanding the fact that no such objection was raised/taken before the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court? 2. Whether the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court that the plaintiff was in exclusive possession of the suit property is perverse? 3. Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appe...
Dileep Nevatia Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2015
1. Of the four principal reliefs sought in this suit, only the third survives today. This is a prayer, originally cast in the alternative to the preceding two, for a decree in damages in the amount of Rs.160.38 lakhs against the Defendant with interest at 21% per annum. 2. The original Defendant was the State Bank of Indore. It has subsequently been taken over by the State Bank of India. The plaint was amended to reflect this. 3. The Plaintiff, Mr. Dileep Nevatia, is the Sole Proprietor of a firm called M/s. Sundeep Industries. Mr. Nevatia appears in person. The firm used to carry on business in Mumbai. The Plaintiffs case is that his firm started business in 1975. From 1978 onwards, the Plaintiff sought and was granted various banking and credit facilities by the Defendant (then the State Bank of Indore). Initially, the Plaintiff achieved a handsome turnover and profitability for the 10-year period from 1978 to 1988. The Plaintiff contends that it is on account of the wrongful acts an...
Ashok Kundalrai Mohekar Vs. The National Textile Corporation Ltd. (M. ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-12-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The petitioner-original plaintiff has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 02.04.2013 passed by the first appellate Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and setting aside the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 35 of 2005. 2. The facts in so far as the same are relevant are that, the petitioner is the owner of the suit premises which is occupied by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 as tenant paying monthly rent of Rs. 3085/-. The petitioner issued notice dated 02.12.2004 and terminated the tenancy of the respondents. Thereafter, suit for possession of the property in question came to be filed on 14.01.2005. 3. On being served with the suit summons the respondent nos. 1 and 2 appeared before the trial Court and sought time to file written statement. Time came to be granted vide orders passed below Ex. 11, 12, 13. However, the application seeking time to file written statement vide Ex. 14 came to be reje...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »