Mumbai Court May 2015 Judgments
Star India Private Limited Vs. Kaleidoscope Entertainment Private Limi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-2015
1. By this petition 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 September, 2011, made by the arbitral tribunal, in so far as claims of the petitioners are rejected. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are are under: 2. The petitioners were originals claimants, whereas the respondents were original respondents in the arbitral proceedings. The respondents had also filed a counter claim against the petitioners in the arbitral proceedings. The respondents have not challenged the impugned award rejecting the counter claims made by the respondents. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described in this judgment as claimants and the respondents as were described in the arbitral proceedings. 4. In the month of November 2007, the respondents through its managing director Mr.S.S. Bedi @ Bobby Bedi approached the claimants counterpar...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrashekar Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Dep ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-08-2015
Shinde, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner by way of this petition challenges the order dated 30th October, 2013 issued by the Caste Validity Committee No.1, Nashik Division, Nashik in File No. NAVI/JAPRAPS/GACHANDDA/MAHAR/INVALID/2013-14/2950/Nashik invalidating the claim of the petitioner. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the entry in the revenue record i.e. Village Form No.14 of the year, 1938 shows that the caste of petitioner's grandfather as Mahar (SC-37). In the year, 2001, the petitioner had taken admission in primary school of Zilla Parishad and his school leaving certificate shows his caste as Hindu Mahar. The school leaving certificate of the petitioner after passing 10th standard shows his caste as Hindu Mahar. It is contended that the caste certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner on 10.6.2011 as belonging to Mahar caste. The petitioner has been granted admission to 1st Year Eng...
Tag this Judgment!Mahavir Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Dev ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-08-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith heard with the consent of the parties. 3. This Writ Petition is filed with following prayers: A] For a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 herein to issue the Appointment Order in favour of the petitioner on the post of Class-III/Class-IV employee in Zilla Parishad, Nanded w.e.f. May 2008 along with all consequential benefits including salary, seniority, backwages etc. B] For a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein to take appropriate legal action against the concerned Erring Officer on account of not giving the appointment to the petitioner on the post of Class-III/Class-IV employee in Zilla Parishad, Nanded. C] For a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 herein to decide the petitioners representation dated 07.01.2013 and 25.09.2013 and to ...
Tag this Judgment!Dattatray Vs. The Aurangabad Municipal Corporation
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-08-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, heard finally. 2. This Petition is filed with following prayer: By issuing a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions respondent No.1-Municipal commissioner, Aurangabad, may please be required to pay full `Pension' and other retrial (sic) benefits, in the light of `Decision of Standing Committee (Resolution No. 106/09)' i.e. Appellate Authority, Dated 18th August 2009, within stipulated period, with interest. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner was working as `Ward Officer' of Municipal Corporation. There was some dispute regarding recovery of amounts from Contractors. With allegations of irregularities, the petitioner was suspended by order dated 7th August, 2006 by framing charges. By order dated 22nd September, 2006, the Inquiry Officer was appointed. It is the case of the petitioner that, without considering...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Vs. M/s. Maharashtra State Electr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-2015
A.K. Menon, J. 1. By this appeal, the revenue has proposed the following questions to be substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the payments of wheeling and transmission charges made by the assessee to entities like Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited (MSETCL) and Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (PGCIL) for the use of transmission lines or other infrastructure i.e. plant, machinery and equipment could not be termed as rent under the provisions of section 194I of the Act and consequently the provisions of sections 201 and 201(1A) could not be applied? (b) Without prejudice to the above, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, payment of WT charges to entities like MSETCL and PGCIL should have been treated as fees for technical services and tax should have been deducted at source u/s.194J of the Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary Depar ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-08-2015
Shinde, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally at admission stage. 2. This petition has been filed with the following prayers: B-1) Quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dtd. 27.08.2014 passed by Maharashtra Prathmik Shikshan Parishad, Mumbai and Order dtd. 19.09.2014 passed by the Education Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Z.P. Aurangabad, the petitioners may be allowed to get their regular pension and other benefits as usual. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were appointed under the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad and were promoted subsequently as Kendra Pramukhs and on completing their tenure, retired on superannuation on different dates. 4. The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources formulated a scheme called as SarvaShiksha Abhiyan. The said scheme was given for implementation to the State Government. Budgetary provision has been made for giving appointments on contract basis and pay them honorarium. The pet...
Tag this Judgment!Shailesh Vs. The Commissioner of Police Nagpur City and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-2015
A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus thereby challenging the order dated 23rd November, 2014 bearing D.O.No.DET/MPDA/Zone-III/PCB/11/2014 passed by the Respondent No.1 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (for short 'the M.P.D.A. Act') thereby directing the Petitioner to be detained, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. 2. The circumstances under which the impugned detention order dated 23rd November, 2014 was issued and the material on the basis of which the detaining authority drew its subjective satisfaction are set out in detail in the grounds of detention annexed with the detention order. That the entire facts of the present case are not required to be reproduced and/or narrated herein. However,...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Vs. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad Thr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-08-2015
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition takes exception to the selection process adopted by Respondent No.1 for filling up the posts of Store Keeper, advertised vide Exh.A to the Petition. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the selection process conducted by Respondent No.1 is contrary to the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court and by giving go by to the merit criteria. It is submitted that, the petitioner, who participated in selection process for the appointment on the post of Store Keeper, secured 45 marks out of 70 marks. It is submitted that, the petitioner stood first in merit list in written examination. It is submitted that, though it was not provided in the Government Resolution to have the oral interview, contrary to Government Resolution dated 19th October, 2007 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Maharashtra, oral interviews were conducted and marks were assigned to such oral interview. Since petitioner has secured highest marks...
Tag this Judgment!Nilesh Shivaji Sapkar Vs. State of Maharashtra through Secretary Labou ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-2015
K.R. Shriram, J. 1. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The petitioner initially was appointed for a fixed period of six months from 1st December 2010 to 31st May 2011 by respondent no.4 purely on temporary basis. Thereafter, on an application made by the petitioner, respondent no.4 offered to impart training to the petitioner. 3. The training was to be in two parts, the first part for six months and the second part was for a period of five months. The petitioner would have become eligible for the second part of the training only if he had completed successfully the first part of training. For the training period, the petitioner was entitled to a consolidated stipend. The terms and conditions are reflected in a letter dated 2nd July 2011 and letter dated 1st December 2011. Clauses 9, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21 in the letter dated 2nd July 2011 read as under: 9) You will sincerely and diligently undergo the training in all areas in the Company, both on the job and exter...
Tag this Judgment!Sarika Vs. The Chief Executive Officer and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: May-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: A] By issue of Writ of certiorari or orders or directions in the nature of writ of certiorari Honble Court may quash and set aside the order dtd. 18/04/2013 at Exhibit-F, issued by the respondent no.1 C.E.O. cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as Agriculture Officer and appointing respondent no.3 in place of petitioner. C] By issuing Writ of mandamus or directions or orders in the nature of writ of mandamus the respondent Nos.1 be directed to permit the petitioner to resume the post of Agriculture Officer in Panchayat Samiti, Lohara; and for that purpose issue necessary orders. The relevant facts for the purpose of deciding present Petition, as disclosed in the Memo of the Petition are as under: 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that, the Petitioner possessed B.Sc. [Agri] degree, and therefore, was eligible for appointment...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »