Mumbai Court April 2015 Judgments
Dr. Ujwal Narayanrao Chirde Vs. Union of India through Secretary, Mini ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2015
K.R. Shriram, J. 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The petitioners in these six petitions are all post graduate medical students of ESI-PGI MSR, MGM Hospital, Parel, Mumbai400 012. (for convenience referred to as respondent no.2, though the Dean of this Medical College is respondent no.2). All the petitioners having successfully passed MBBS and the entrance examination for post graduation, following the selection process conducted by respondent no.6 were given admissions in respondent no.2 The respondent no.5-Employee State Insurance Corporation, New Delhi, through Medical Commissioner established respondent no.2 as well as ESI-PGI MSR, Andheri (East), Mumbai (for convenience referred as respondent no.7 though the Dean of this medical college is respondent no.7) for rendering medical services and for conducting medical courses. The respondent no.5 has taken a decision to close down post graduate courses in Maharashtra being conducted in responde...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. V.S. Dempo and Company Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-29-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. These two appeals filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') have been filed against two orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'I.T.A.T.') both dated 30 December 2005 passed for assessment year 1995-1996 and 1996-1997. 2. Both these appeals were admitted on 27 November 2006 on the following common substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in law in setting aside the order passed by the CIT without giving any finding, whether the lease hire charges and refund of duty on export proceeds on other services, received by the assessee was operational income attributable to the business of the Assessee or not? While admitting the petition this Court had directed that besides these two appeals one more appeal being Income Tax Appeal No.63 of 2006 should also be heard together. However, counsel for the parties state that the iss...
Tag this Judgment!The Principal, Industrial Training Institute and Another Vs. Anant Niv ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-28-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. The petition challenges the award dated 30.10.2010 passed by the Labour Court at Buldhana, in Reference No. 69 of 2004. The Reference Court has answered the reference in the affirmative and directed reinstatement of an employee with continuity in service and also full backwages. The Labour Court has recorded the finding that there was violation of Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short "the I.D. Act), the termination has been effected by way of punishment without holding an enquiry. 2. The facts of the case are as under: The respondent was appointed initially by an order dated 23.11.1995 as an Assistant Store Keeper with effect from 01.12.1995 in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 purely on temporary basis for a period of 5 months, with a condition that the appointment is liable to be terminated even before expiry of the tenure of appointment without issuing any notice. The respondent-employee was required to execute an undertaking stating that the t...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagat Kalicharan Makhijani Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2015
V.M. Kanade, J. 1. All these Petitions can be disposed of by a common order. In all these Petitions, results of Common Entrance Test (CET) which was held on 14/03/2015, which were declared on 25/3/2015 are challenged. 2. Two Writ Petitions were filed at Nagpur Bench; one was filed at Aurangabad Bench and two Writ Petitions and one PIL were filed at Bombay Bench. The Hon'ble Chief Justice was pleased to pass an order, directing that all these Petitions should be clubbed together and should be heard by this Bench. 3. Brief facts which are germane for the purpose of deciding these Petitions are as under:- 4. Director of Technical Education framed rules for admission to the first year of full time two year post graduate degree course for Master of Business Administration (MBA), Master of Management Studies (MMS) and Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management (PGDBM) and Post Graduate Diploma Course in Management (PGDM) for the Year 2015-2016 [hereinafter referred to as the said Courses] ...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurang Ramchandra Ghorpade Vs. Vijay Gopala Lohar and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2015
Common Judgment : 1. These two appeals can be conveniently disposed of by this common Judgment, as the parties are the same, the facts are common, and the points needing determination are also the same. 2. The appellant is the original complainant. He had, based on the dishonour of two cheques issued in his favour by the respondent No.1 herein, filed two different complaints, alleging the commission of two distinct offences, both punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I.Act hereinafter) by the respondent No.1. After holding two different trials in respect of the said two cheques, the learned Magistrate found the respondent no.1 not guilty and passed an order of acquittal in both the cases. The appellant is aggrieved by the said orders of acquittal. He has, therefore, after obtaining special leave of this court, as contemplated under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code hereinafter) filed the present two appeals, challenging the said orders o...
Tag this Judgment!Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/s. Jindal Drilling and Indu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2015
1. By these petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Arbitration Act), the petitioners have impugned the arbitral award dated 9th October 2013 allowing some of the claims made by the respondents. By consent of the parties, all the aforesaid petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment in view of the identical facts and being common award rendered by the arbitral tribunal. The petitioners herein were the original respondents in the arbitration proceedings whereas the respondents herein were the original claimants. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these petitions are as under: 2. Some time in the month of October 2005, the petitioners floated a tender for charter hire of a Floating Production, Storage and Off-loading vessel (FPSO). Pursuant to the said notice inviting tender, Messrs. Discovery Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the said DEPL') submitted its bid ...
Tag this Judgment!Uran Education Society a Registered Public Charitable Trust and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2015
Oral Judgment: (Annop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties in view of the urgency expressed and the issues raised. 2. The petitioners, an unaided private school, imparting education in pre-school and elementary school, have filed this writ petition referring to the provisions of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 21A and 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 11, 12 of the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Rule 12(b) of the Maharashtra Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Manner of admission of Minimum 25% children in Class I or Pre-school at the entry level for the children belonging to disadvantaged group and weaker section) Rules 2013 (The Rules 2013). Rule 12 of the Rules 2013 read as under: 12. Procedure for reimbursement. (a) Schools shall provide free education to all children admitted under these rules till the completion of their elementary ...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Greatship (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax Mumbai-I a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-2015
B.R. Gavai, J. 1. An interesting question as to whether the Notification No. 14/2010-ST dated 27.2.2010 is clarificatory / declaratory in nature or as to whether it brings about substantive change in law arises for consideration in the present Appeal. The question to be decided in the present Appeal revolves around the interpretation of Notification No.1/2002-Service Tax dated 1.3.2002, as amended by Notification No.21/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009 and the Notification No.14/2010-ST dated 27.2.2010. 2. The facts which are not in much dispute are as under :- (a) The appellant had entered into two contracts with M/s. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) for supply of Cantilever type jack-up rigs named, Greatdrill Chetna and Greatdrill Chitra. They were required to provide offshore drilling services to ONGC in terms of the contract dated 27.2.2009 and 8.5.2009. These rigs were hired by the appellant from M/s. Greatship Global Energy Services Pte. Ltd., Singapore, on bareboat charter ba...
Tag this Judgment!Shrimant Chhatrapati Udyanraje Pratapsinhmaharaj Bhosale and Another V ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2015
1. This Civil Revision Application challenges order dated 22 February 2005 made by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara, holding that it has jurisdiction to try the suit instituted by the respondent no. 1 original plaintiff. 2. The petitioner original defendant no. 1 relying inter alia upon the Bombay Rent-Free Estates Act, 1852 (Bombay Act XI of 1952), the Exemptions from Land Revenue (I) of 1863 (Bombay Act No.II of 1863) and Exemptions from Land Revenue (No. II) Act, 1863 (Bombay Act VII of 1863), by his application dated 5 July 2003, had urged that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts was expressly, or in any case impliedly barred, since the suit properties which form the subject matter of Special Civil Suit No. 16 of 2003 were 'Saranjam Properties' and raised questions as to entitlement thereof. A preliminary issue was framed under Section 9A of the CPC (as applicable to the State of Maharashtra) and by the impugned order dated 22 February 2005, the Civil Court, has answer...
Tag this Judgment!Fancy Builders Private Limited and Others Vs. The Memon Co-operative B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2015
1. By these petitions filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the said Arbitration Act) the petitioners have impugned the arbitral awards passed by the learned arbitrator allowing the claims made by the respondents and dismissing the claim filed by the petitioners. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these petitions are as under:- 2. Both the parties had filed their respective claims before the learned arbitrator which were heard by the same arbitrator and were disposed off by separate awards. The respondents are the co-operative bank registered under the provisions of Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 and the area of the operation of the respondents was in the City of Mumbai and other cities of Gujarat. 3. Since the learned counsel for the parties have placed their arguments in the Arbitration Petition Nos.125 of 2014 and 129 of 2014, the facts in the aforesaid two matters are summarized and dealt with in detail. It ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »