Mumbai Court April 2015 Judgments
XYZ Vs. Union of India (Through the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Jus ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-2015
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The Petitioner, an informer of the Customs Department has filed the present Petition for a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the Respondents and their sub-ordinate officers to forthwith release the balance amount of reward due and payable to the Petitioner and for declaration that the actions on the part of the Respondents by not disbursing / paying the balance amount of reward to the Petitioner by gross abuse of the powers conferred upon them as, illegal, without justification, null and void and for other consequential reliefs. 2. The Petitioner is an informant of the Customs Department and provides the information to the Respondents which has enabled the Respondent Department to collect huge amount of revenue in the treasury of the Government. It is contended by the Petitioner that when a person acts as an informer, he risks his security and safety, which ultimately enables the Respondent Department to garner reve...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Macmen foods and Others Vs. M/s. Mohonsons Engineering Services P ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-24-2015
Oral Judgment : 1. This second appeal challenges the order dated 26 April 2005 of the Additional District Judge, Margao (hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), by which the order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao, (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court') dated 30 January 2004 was confirmed and upheld. By the impugned order, the suit filed by the respondents (original plaintiff) seeking recovery of amounts due for work done was decreed by the trial Court and upheld in appeal. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellants (original defendants). The appeal was admitted on 29 March 2007 on the following substantial questions of Law: That both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court passed the Judgment and Decree overlooking the provisions i.e. Sec. 102 of the Indian Evidence Act for the following reasons. (a) That the learned Trial Court and the First Appellate Court disregarded and did not address themselves to the fact that there was no evidence on record ad...
Tag this Judgment!Haresh Advani of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant Vs. Suraj Jagtiani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-2015
1. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Arbitration Act), the petitioner seeks to impugn the arbitral award dated 22nd March 2014 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. M/s.Regency Hotels Pvt. Ltd. was the owner of a plot of land at Village Sahar, Talukar Andheri. In the year 1995, the issued capital of M/s.Regency Hotels Pvt. Ltd. was 24,500 shares of Rs.100/- each i.e. Rs.24,50,000/- of which 11,025 shares (45%) were held by the petitioner, 11,025 shares (45%) was held by the respondent and remaining 2,350 shares (10%) was held by one Gul Kripalani. 3. By an Agreement dated 28th July 1996, the said three shareholders agreed to sell 50% of their respective shareholding in the said compan...
Tag this Judgment!Haresh Advani of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant Vs. Suraj Jagtiani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-2015
1. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Arbitration Act), the petitioner seeks to impugn the arbitral award dated 22nd March 2014 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. M/s.Regency Hotels Pvt. Ltd. was the owner of a plot of land at Village Sahar, Talukar Andheri. In the year 1995, the issued capital of M/s.Regency Hotels Pvt. Ltd. was 24,500 shares of Rs.100/- each i.e. Rs.24,50,000/- of which 11,025 shares (45%) were held by the petitioner, 11,025 shares (45%) was held by the respondent and remaining 2,350 shares (10%) was held by one Gul Kripalani. 3. By an Agreement dated 28th July 1996, the said three shareholders agreed to sell 50% of their respective shareholding in the said compan...
Tag this Judgment!Jose Alberto D'souza Vs. Felicia Leitao, (Owner) and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-23-2015
1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant/original claimant against the judgment and award dated 28.7.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salcete, Margao, (Presiding Officer for short) in Claim Petition No. 165 /2007, by which the claim petition of the appellant is partly allowed. The appellant was granted total compensation of Rs.95,225/- together with 9% interest. 2. Parties are referred to as per their original status in the claim petition. 3. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- On 24.7.2006 at about 12.30hours the claimant along with his minor daughter and her schoolmate were proceeding to his residence at Macazane on his motorcycle. When they reached on the road between St. Alex High School and Curtorim Church, a Matiz Car bearing No. GA-02-J-8126 was proceeding in the same direction and it was behind the motorcycle. When the claimant reached the culvert existing on this part of the road and close to the house of one Mr. S...
Tag this Judgment!Sharad Patil Adult and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-2015
A.S. Oka, J. 1. Very important issues have been raised by these two Public Interest Litigations. By these Petitions attention of the Court is invited to various illegalities and irregularities committed while collecting the donations/ funds/articles for the benefit of the persons affected by the natural and other calamities. PIL No.149 of 2009 invites attention of the Court to alleged large scale fraud committed by some of the Co-operative Sugar Societies Factories and other entities while collecting funds for Kargil war heroes and for the families of the deceased soldiers in Kargil war, in the name of Warna Bharatiya Sena Madat Nidhi. 2. As far PIL No.148 of 2009 is concerned, it will be necessary to make a reference to orders passed by this Court from time to time. Paragraphs 1 of order dated 21st January, 2010 1. The petitioner by the present petition has drawn attention of this Court to collection of monies by various co-operative institutions in the District of Kolhapur for the Ka...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Salgaonkar Mining Industries P ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Apr-23-2015
Oral Judgment: (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) 1. This appeal, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for short), assails the order dated 17/01/2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). 2. The impugned order relates to assessment year 1997-1998. This appeal was admitted on 06/08/2007 on the following substantial questions of law: A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.20,05,744/- being provision for doubtful debt on the ground, that the provision for doubtful debt are doubtful for recovery and therefore cannot be equated with liability, which is contrary to provisions of Section 115JA, by ignoring the finding of the CIT(A) that the entire provision represented advances towards sister concern and not trade debts and that it was an adhoc provision made towards advances of doubtful recovery and therefore cannot be treated as unascertained liability u/s 115JA ? B) Whether on the facts and i...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Gandhi Builders and Developers Vs. Shyamlal s/o Ramchandra Yadav ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-23-2015
Oral Judgment: 1. This appeal filed by the original plaintiff takes exception to the order passed by the trial Court refusing to grant any interim injunction in favour of the appellant during pendency of the suit. 2. It is the case of the appellant plaintiff that on 26-11-2007, an agreement was entered into with the predecessor of the respondents original defendant. As per said agreement, the parties agreed that the work of developing the property in question which was an open plot for the purposes of constructing an apartment scheme should be undertaken by the appellant subject to various terms and conditions. According to the appellant, it was permitted to develop said property subject to the original defendant paying a sum of Rs.531 per square foot as consideration. Initially, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid to the original defendant. The balance amounts were to be paid in the manner prescribed in the agreement. According to the appellant, on 18-3-2011, a notice came to be issu...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanraj Ishwar Gawali Vs. The State Of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-2015
1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd January 2015 delivered by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.409 of 2014, convicting the appellant who was the sole accused in the said case, of an offence punishable under section 307 of the IPC, and sentencing him to suffer RI for 7(seven) years, and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer RI for 3(three) months. 2. The prosecution case, as put forth, before the trial court, may briefly be stated thus: The appellant and Raju Chandanshive (PW 2) were known to each other. There used to be quarrels between the appellant and the said Raju, and the appellant had threatened to kill Raju. The appellant's mother Suman (PW 1) had asked Raju to go to reside at the village of the parents of his wife, and accordingly, Raju had gone to reside at Chincholi, Taluka Pandharpur. On 2nd April 2014, Raju had come to Pune to meet his mother. He stayed in the house of his mother for one day. On 3rd April 2014, a...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Murlidhar Nikam Deputy Director (Administration and Finance) Vs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-2015
NareshH. Patil, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner's contention is that he was appointed on probation for a period of two years on 30th August, 2012 on the post of Dy. Director, (Administration and Finance) by the respondents 1 and 2. 3. An exhibition was organized by Grahak Panchayat at Goregaon between the period 28th September, 2013 to 30th September, 2013. The petitioner was deputed to attend the said exhibition at Goregaon. He was entitled to claim TA in respect of his expenses incurred on traveling starting from his home and ending upto his home, since the same being official holiday in the department of Bureau of Indian Standard. From 28th September, 2013 he was deputed to attend office and then attend the exhibition center. The petitioner had put in six months service but on 16th April, 2014 he received a memo alleging that (i) he had submitted a false TA/DA claim despite using his staff car vehicle on 28th Sep...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »