Mumbai Court April 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.
Agarsons Container Terminals Vs. National Agricultural Co-operative Ma ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-2015
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 23rd December, 2011, rejecting some of the claims made by the petitioner and allowing part of the counter claims made by the respondent. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 2. The petitioner was the original claimant in the arbitral proceedings, whereas the respondent was the original respondent. The respondent had also filed a counter claim before the learned arbitrator. 3. The respondent was allotted a plot of land admeasuring 20,008.16 square meters, Sector 1 , Dronagiri, Navi Mumbai by CIDCO for the purpose of warehousing vide Agreement of Lease dated 9th September, 1999. According to the said agreement, the construction was to be carried out on the said plot within a period of four weeks from the date of execution of the said agreement. 4. The respondent off...
POL India Projects Limited and Another Vs. Aurelia Reederei Eugen Frie ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-2015
1. The petitioners in Arbitration Petition No.76 of 2012 which is filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Arbitration Act) have impugned the final arbitral award dated 15th September, 2010 and seeks a declaration that there was no valid arbitration agreement between the parties. The petitioners in the said arbitration petition were the original respondents in the arbitral proceedings whereas the respondents i.e. POL India Projects Limited were the original claimants. For the sake of brevity in this order M/s.POL India Projects Limited are described as the petitioners and Aurelia Reederei Eugen Friederich GmbH Schiffahrtsgesellschaft and Company KG, is described as the respondents. 2. In so far as Arbitration Petition No.12 of 2012 is concerned, the said petition has been filed under sections 44 to 48 of the said Arbitration Act inter alia praying for a declaration that the foreign award dated 15th September, 2011 is enforceable as a decr...
Adarsh Vidyalaya Shikshan Samiti and Others Vs. The State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-08-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith heard with the consent of the parties. 3. This Petition is filed with following prayers: B] The order dated 12.11.2014, issued by the respondent No.3 Education Officer [Secondary], Zilla Parishad, Nanded granting approval to the appointment of the respondent no.5 as Headmaster on the basis of proposal submitted by the respondent no.6 on 10.10.2014, may please be quashed and set aside by issuing writ of certiorari, or orders, or directions or any other appropriate writ in the nature of writ of certiorari. C] The respondents no.1 to 4 may please be directed not to accept and consider any correspondence / communication and proposal submitted by the respondent no.6 for and on behalf of Adarsh Vidyalaya Shikshan Samiti, Manatha, Tq. Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded. D] It may please be held and declared that, the Executive Committee / Management elected on 01.05.2013 is legally entitled to administer, control and manage the day-to-day ...
Parwan Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ranjitsingh Linga and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-2015
1. The plaintiff claims ownership rights over the larger property in which the suit property is situated from one Muktaben Sanghavi. The defendants claim their rights in respect of suit property which is Unit No.1-C admeasuring 976 sq. ft from Muktaben Sanghvi. Muktaben Sanghvi has executed a conveyance of her entire property in favour of one Mehta and Kanakiya on 2nd January, 1997, Exhibit-G to the plaint. Mehta and Kanakiya have conveyed the suit property to the plaintiff on 31st October, 2002 Exhibit-A to the plaint. 2. The entire property of Muktaben Sanghvi consisted of a plot of land with two structures thereon being ShedI and ShedII and an open space in between and surrounding the two sheds surrounded by a compound wall. Part of the property has gone in road widening from where the compound wall has been demolished. Part of shed-I has also gone in road widening. That part has yet not been demolished. 3. ShedI consisted of about 12 galas. They are tenanted to different persons. T...
Sangeetha Kirti Patel Vs. R.A. Rajeev Principal Secretary (Appeals and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-2015
Oral Judgment: (A.S. Gadkari, J.) 1. The present Petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the wife of the detenu Kirti Vanabhai Patel for quashing and setting aside the detention order bearing No.PSA-1214/CR-36(1)SPL-3(A) dated 29th September, 2014 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Conservation Of Foreign Exchange and Prevention Of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ('COFEPOSA' for short). By the said order the Respondent No.1 has directed that the said Kirti Vanabhai Patel be detained under the COFEPOSA Act, 1974 with a view to prevent him in future from abating the smuggling of goods as well as from engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods. The record discloses that the detention order dated 29th September, 2014 along with the grounds of detention was served on the detenu on 13th November, 2014 and subsequent thereto the detenu has been lodged in Central Prison at Nashik Road. 2...
Prakash Bhanudas Kavade and Others Vs. The Nashik District Central Co- ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-2015
P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties. 2. Since the questions raised in all these 3 petitions are common, they are heard together and decided by this common order. 3. The Petitioners claim to be the members of the respondent No. 4 bank which is District Central Co-operative Bank in Nashik District. The Petitioners claim to raise a general grievance on behalf of the thousands of members, who according to the Petitioners have been deprived of participating in the election to the respondent No. 4 committee. 4. The elections to the said committee are being conducted for the first time after amendment was made to Section 26 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) on 14/2/2013. Vide the said amendment the concept of active and non-active members was brought on the statute book for the first time. 5. It is the contention of Shri Joshi, learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners and the...
The Commissioner of Income Tax-8 Vs. M/s. Shantivijay Jewels Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2015
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. These Appeals of the Revenue were on our board and after hearing both sides at length, we placed them today for passing orders. 2. The Appeals are directed against the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 16th November, 2012. 3. Insofar as Appeal No. 1336 of 2013 is concerned, there, the relevant assessment year is 2005-06. The Assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of gems jewellery. The return of income for this assessment year was filed on 27th October, 2005, declaring income of Rs.24,44,945/- after claiming deduction under section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the IT Act) at Rs.1,06,81,302/-. This return of income was revised by the Assessee on 20th February, 2006, declaring income at Rs.26,79,480/-. Thus, in the revised return, the Assessee withdrew its claim of deduction under section 10A of the IT Act and instead, claimed set off of unabsorbed business loss brought forward from asse...
Dr. Sujitnath Vs. Opadma and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-07-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 28-2-2014 passed by the trial Court allowing the application moved by the present respondents for setting aside the ex parte order passed against them in Special Civil Suit No.674/2008 and granting them opportunity to file their written statement. 2. The facts relevant for adjudication of the reliefs sought in the writ petition are that the petitioners are the original plaintiffs who have filed suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,32,62,249/- against the respondents with interest. It is not necessary to go into the basis for seeking said relief in the suit. The defendant Nos.1A,1B and 1C were duly served with the suit summons, but they failed to file their written statement. The trial Court, therefore, passed an order on 23-4-2009 directing that the suit would proceed without any written statement of said defendants. Thereafter on 9-1-2014, said defend...
Darius Rutton Kavasmaneck Vs. Gharda Chemicals Limited and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2015
NareshPatil, J. 1. Admit. By consent heard finally. 2. The appellant is the original plaintiff in Suit No.2932/2011. The suit is filed for derivative action by the appellant-plaintiff as minority shareholder. The defendant No.2-Mr. Keki Hormusji Gharda is the Chairman and Managing Director of defendant No.1-Company i.e. Gharda Chemicals Limited. Defendant No.3 is the wife of defendant No.2 and defendant Nos.4 and 5 are the directors of defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 happens to be the uncle (mother's brother) of the plaintiff. The relations between uncle and nephew are strained as borne out from the pleadings and the arguments advanced during the course of hearing. 3. The plaintiff's grievance, in brief, is that defendant No.2 had obtained several patents in his own name whereas the patents ought to have been applied and obtained in the name of defendant No.1-Company. The plaintiff is raising claim as minority shareholder on behalf of defendant No.1-Company. As the company is in the con...
Nivi Trading Limited Vs. Union of India through the Secretary, Governm ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-2015
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. On the earlier occasion, we had heard both sides extensively and referred to the pleadings. The matter was placed today for passing orders. 2. Rule. Respondents waive service. Since extensive arguments were canvassed and pleadings are complete, that by consent of both sides, we make the Rule returnable forthwith. 3. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner prays for issuance of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records of the Petitioner's case pertaining to the notice dated 24th January, 2014 issued by Respondent No. 2 invoking section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the IT Act) and the order dated 21st January, 2015 (Annexure 'B') and, further relief is that upon scrutiny thereof, this Court should quash and set aside the same. 4. The other relief is that the Respondents be restrained and prohibited from proceeding in furtherance of this ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »