Mumbai Court April 2015 Judgments
Swarup Group of Industries and Others Vs. Swarup Group of Industries a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-2015
1. The above chamber summonses have been taken out by the award debtors (defendants) in the suit essentially for staying the execution of the above award which is an interim award passed by consent of the parties and for other ancillary reliefs. 2. The interim award was passed on 3rd December, 2008. 3. The above execution application has been taken out in this Court on 16th July, 2009 since the consent award (which could not be challenged) was not challenged. 4. Another application was also taken out for raising the attachment levied in the above execution proceeding and an order has been passed to facilitate and direct execution of the above interim consent award. 5. The attachment sought to be raised, was not raised (except on one unit with which the parties have no dispute). 6. Since the attachment was not raised, it continued and would culminate into sale of the attached properties, both movable and immovable. The execution would accordingly proceed. 7. Thereafter the final award c...
Tag this Judgment!Saroj M. Bijlani and Others Vs. Chandru G. Bijlani and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-2015
A.R. Joshi, J. 1. This is the appeal preferred by original plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 challenging the order passed on 2nd March, 2015 on the Notice of Motion No. 981 of 2014 and another Notice of Motion No.22 of 2015. 2. Heard rival arguments at length. Perused the impugned order dated 2nd March,2015 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. By the said order, Notice of Motion No.981 of 2014 preferred by the present appellants/plaintiffs was dismissed while Notice of Motion No.22 of 2015 filed by the present respondent Nos. 1 to 4 was allowed. 3. Prior to appreciating the rival submissions, the case putforth in the suit filed by the present appellants/plaintiffs can be mentioned in order to ascertain the basic dispute between the appellants and the present respondent Nos. 1 to 4: The present appellants/plaintiffs filed suit No. 769 of 2007 seeking the partition of the immovable house property belonging to the HUF. The said house property is a building with ground plus three upper stor...
Tag this Judgment!Sonali Nimish Arora Vs. Sandeep Gopal Raheja and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-2015
1. There is before me a Chamber Summons filed by the original Defendant No. 6, Sonali Arora (Sonali), in Suit No. 2363 of 2012 filed by her late father, Gopal L. Raheja. The prayers in this Chamber Summons are firstly to condone a delay of 32 days in filing this Chamber Summons; secondly, to set aside the abatement, if any, of the suit itself; and thirdly, to allow the transposition of Defendant No. 6 as the Plaintiff in place of the original Plaintiff who has passed away. 2. There are actually a very large number of suits and applications that are interlinked, although I am at this stage concerned in this judgment only with this Chamber Summons. In order to better understand the spectrum of disputes, before dealing with the rival contentions in this Chamber Summons, it is perhaps useful to outline at the broadest level these competing actions. The disputes are all within the Raheja family. This is a prominent presence in Indias construction and real estate sector. The patriarch of thi...
Tag this Judgment!Shyamal Vs. State of Maharashtra Through The Secretary Women and Child ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-30-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking directions to the Respondents to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi Karyakarti (Sevika), as she is already working as Anganwadi Madatnis in the light of the Government Resolution dated 5th August, 2015. There is a further prayer seeking direction to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to decide the representations dated 13th March, 2013 and 7th March, 2013. It is further prayed that, the respondents be restrained from filling in the post of Anganwadi Karyakarti (Sevika) in Anganwadi No.79 at Pethsangvi, Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. By way of amendment on 10th April, 2013, further petitioner has prayed for quashing the selection process initiated by Respondent No.3 for appointment of Anganwadi Sevika (Karyakarti) in Anganwadi No. 79 at Pethsangvi, Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad, and by way of further amendment on 17th March, 2015, further relief is claimed to quash and set aside the selection process/recruitment process initiated by Respondent No...
Tag this Judgment!Betts India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circl ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-30-2015
M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. These petitions challenge two notices both dated 22/03/2011 issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) seeking to reopen the petitioner's assessment for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06. 2. Writ Petition No.639/2011 challenges the notice dated 22/03/2011 seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2005-06. Writ Petition No.640/2011 challenges the notice dated 22/03/2011 seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2004-05. It is an agreed position between the Counsel that the facts in both the petitions are identical and even the reasons recorded for issuing the reopening notices are also identical save the quantum/amount indicated therein. Consequently the decision rendered in any one of the two petitions would equally apply to the other. In view of the above, for the sake of convenience we refer to the facts set out in Writ Petition No.640/2011 dealing with the assessment year 2004-05....
Tag this Judgment!Francisco A. D'Souza and Another Vs. L and T Finance Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-2015
1. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioners have impugned the arbitral award dated 18th September 2012 made by the learned arbitrator. 2. At the threshold, Mr. Poojary, learned counsel for the respondent raises an objection of the limitation in filing present arbitration petition impugning the arbitral award dated 18th September 2012 which was lodged on 22nd April 2014. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the respondent invited my attention to the compilation of documents forming part of the record before the learned arbitrator and in particular some of the acknowledgments duly signed by the petitioner no.1 and/or his relatives. In so far as the service of the impugned award is concerned, my attention is invited to page 75 of the compilation which indicates that the award was sent by the learned arbitrator at the two addresses i.e. House No.142/B, Acoi, Karaswada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa 403 507 and also House No...
Tag this Judgment!Zilla Parishad Nagpur Through its Chief Executive Officer, Civil Lines ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-30-2015
Oral Judgment : 1. Admit. 2. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 3. This appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure takes exception to the judgment dated 31-10-2013 passed by the first appellate Court dismissing the appeal preferred by the present appellant and confirming the decree passed by the trial Court on 21-12-2010 directing the present appellant to hand over vacant possession of encroached portion of land. 4. The relevant facts are that the respondent original plaintiff claims to have purchased various pieces of lands including land bearing Survey No.34/2003 vide registered sale deed dated 23-12-1986. 5. It is the case of the respondent that various persons including the present appellant had encroached upon portions of the lands purchased by the respondent. The respondent accordingly got said lands measured on 21-2-1987 and it was noticed that in so far as the present appellant is concerned, it had encroached land to the exten...
Tag this Judgment!Arif Usman Kapadia and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2015
Oral Order: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. Since the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions is identical, they can be conveniently heard together. 2. By these Petitions which are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioners are seeking a declaration that Sections 5D and 9A of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 as amended by recent Animal Preservation [Amendment] Act, 1995 which was granted assent by the President of India on 26/02/2015 and published in the Government Gazette on 04/03/2015 is unconstitutional and for further direction, directing the Respondents not to take any steps or action on the basis of the impugned provisions of Sections 5D and 9A of the said Act and for interim relief granting stay to the operation of the said provisions pending the hearing and final disposal of these Petitions. 3. Petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No.982 of 2015 is a Senior Advocate practicing in this Court and he being aggrieved by the Amendment Act, 1995 which was broug...
Tag this Judgment!Vilas Arjun Patil and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2015
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 6.6.1996 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibaug. Accused No.9 is dead and no relatives of accused No.9 have applied to contest the appeal for accused No.9. Hence, the appeal abates against the accused No.9. Accused Nos.1, 4 to 7 and the deceased accused No.9 are convicted for the offences punishable under section 384 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and payment of fine of Rs.1,000/-, i/d to suffer R.I. for 1 month each. Accused Nos.1 to 9 are held guilty for the offences punishable under sections 363 and 366 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they are sentenced to suffer R.I. for 2 years and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, i/d 2 months for both the charges. Accused Nos.1 to 9 are also held guilty under section 5 of the Child Marriage (Restraint) Act, 1929 and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days and to pay fine of Rs.500 each, ...
Tag this Judgment!Director of Income Tax (IT)-I Vs. A.P. Moller Maersk A/S.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2015
Oral Judgment: (A.K. Menon, J.) 1. The present set of appeals involve a common set of questions which have been proposed as substantial questions of law. For the sake of convenience, we will take up the facts in Appeal No.1690 of 2013 which is the lead case pertaining to assessment year 2001-2002. 2. The facts, in brief, are as follows. The assessee is a foreign company engaged in the shipping business and is a tax resident of Denmark. A firm by name and style M/s. A.P. Moller Maersk A/S was designated as the managing owner of the company as well as another Denmark resident shipping company by name Atieselskabet Dampskibsselskabet Svendborg (ADS). M/s. A.P. Moller Maersk A/S was assessed to tax during the assessment years 2001-02 to 2003-04. The Commissioner of Income Tax held that A.P. Moller Maersk A/S being the managing owner, the income from the shipping business would be taxed in the hands of the two shipping companies referred to above. Pursuant to the directions of the Commissio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »