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.
Rajendra Waman Rajemane Vs. Phaltan Education Society and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2015
1. This petition challenges the judgment and order dated 8 March 2010, made by the College Tribunal, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against termination of his services by the order dated 2 September 2008. 2. The respondent No.1-Management has established and administers the following three educational institutions: (a) Kiraksal High School, Satara; (b) Shrimant Byhayyasaheb Rajemane College, Mhaswadi (Rajemane College); and (c) Mudhoji College, Phaltan (Mudhoji College). 3. In June 1992, respondent No.1 appointed the petitioner as a Junior Clerk at the Kiraksal High School. In June 1997, the petitioner was transferred on promotion to Rajemane College as Head Clerk. Finally, in December 2005, the petitioner was once again transferred on promotion to the post of Office Superintendent at Mudhoji College. There is record that the petitioner's promotion/appointment as Head Clerk at Rajemane College was approved by respondent No.6 (University) and the State Authorities (respondent Nos.7 ...
Ramesh W. Sawant and Another Vs. Apex Urban Co-op. Bank of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2015
1. The preliminary issue with regard to the jurisdiction of this Court is raised under Section 9A of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The issue is framed and answered as follows: Whether this Courts inherent jurisdiction is barred. - No 2. The plaintiff has sued for a declaration that two agreements dated 30th May, 1996 which are leave and license agreements for a period of 5 years up to 29th May, 2009 are valid, subsisting and binding on the parties and for a declaration that defendant No.1 has never terminated or repudiated the said two agreements dated 30th May, 1996 and also for payment of Rs.1.87 crores as per particulars of claim, Exhibit-Q to the plaint or in the alternative Rs.27.42 lakhs as per particulars of the claim, Exhibit-R to the plaint and for an injunction against defendant No.2 from suing or claiming any amount from the DRT under an MOU dated 10th July, 1996(which prayer has become infructuous as the plaintiff and defendant No.2 have settled their disputes)...
Chaya Baliram Bhore Vs. The State of Maharashtra, School Education and ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-01-2015
Shinde, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has tendered across the Bar a compilation of documents, which is taken on record and marked as X for identification purpose. 2. This petition has been filed with following prayers: B. The order dated 24.11.2010 (Exhibit-A) passed by the respondent No.4 Education Officer refusing grant of approval to the petitioner's appointment as Peon may kindly be quashed and set aside and instead the respondent No.4 may kindly be directed to grant approval to the petitioner's appointment w.e.f. 01.02.2010. C. The respondent no.4 may kindly be directed to pay to the petitioner her regular salary and also release the arrears of salary payable to her w.e.f. 01.02.2010. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief, as disclosed in the petition, is as under: The petitioner's husband was appointed as peon with the respondent No.3 school in the year, 1994. His appointment was on...
Board of Trustees of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Vs. Three Circles Con ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2015
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 25th April, 2009 passed by the arbitral tribunal 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 was the original respondent to statement of claim and was the claimant to the counter claim before the learned arbitrator. The respondent herein was the original claimant to the statement of claim and was the respondent to the counter claim. 3. On or about 21st March, 1996, the petitioner invited tenders for reclamation behind service berth in the quadrangle between the container berth approach and service berth approach. The petitioner issued amendment to the tender documents on 3rd April, 1996 which was to be treated as part of the said contract. Some of the terms and conditions of the original contract wer...
The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. M/s. Jasubhai Foundation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2015
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. This appeal of the Revenue challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 14th November, 2012. The assessment year in question is 2007-08. 2. The Tribunal dealt with an appeal of the Revenue, cross objections of the assessee and an appeal by the assessee. All these were directed against a common order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 14th February, 2011. Mr. Malhotra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue in support of this appeal submits that this appeal raises substantial questions of law. They are formulated at pages 4 and 5 of the paper-book. They read as under: A. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in granting exemption u/s. 10(33) and 10(38) to the tune of Rs.25.96 lakhs and Rs.3.21 lakhs respectively, when this income forms a part of the income from property held under trust and therefore can only be claim...
Pranda Jewelry Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Aarya 24 kt and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2015
1. This Notice of Motion is taken out in a copyright infringement and passing off suit. The case of the Plaintiffs may be shortly stated as follows. 2. Plaintiff No.1 is in the business of branded jewellery. Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3, respectively, hold 49 % and 51 % equity in Plaintiff No.1. Plaintiff No.1 designs, markets and sells inter alia gold sheet articles of deities and religious symbols under the brand name 'Prima Art'. Plaintiff No.1 creates the drawings for each of these articles on computers using specialized softwares through qualified graphic designers in its employment. Based on these drawings, the articles are manufactured by Plaintiff No.3 in Thailand, and imported from Thailand and sold in India by Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. The product drawings are claimed to be original artistic work within the meaning of the Copyright Act, 1957, and of which the Plaintiffs are owners. The Plaintiffs have produced these drawings along with the plaint. The Plaintiffs claim to be entitled to...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›