Mumbai Court January 2016 Judgments
Ramkrishna Bajaj (HUF), Wardha and Others Vs. The Commissioner of Weal ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This reference under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 is arising out of total eight reference applications moved by different assessees after adjudication of their grievances by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench (hereinafter referred to as ˜the ITAT™ for short) in eight wealth tax appeals. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1981-82. The questions referred are identical in all matters and, therefore, only one/common reference has been made, which governs the eight wealth tax matters. 2. The questions referred to by the ITAT vide its order dated 18th June, 1990, are as under : (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the value of the interest of the partners in the firms on the basis of the value of the shares as quoted in the market as on 31/03/1981 notwithstanding the fact that the firms' previous year ended on 30/06/1981 ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Govindrao Sardar Vs. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilha Parishad ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is an employee of Gram Panchayat Pimpalkhuta, Panchayat Samiti, Amravati takes exception to the order dated 21-1-2015 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati whereby the appeal filed by Gram Panchayat, Pimpalkhuta under Section 61(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short, the said Act) has been allowed and the order dismissing the petitioner from service has been upheld. 2. The facts relevant are that the petitioner came to be appointed as a Water Supply employee of Gram Panchayat Pimpalkhuta on 3-10-1986. According to the petitioner, services rendered by him were satisfactory and without any complaints. On 12-12-2012, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to furnish explanation with regard to an allegation of indecent behaviour with a lady computer apprentice. The petitione...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd. Vs. M/s. Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. In this appeal, the appellant/petitioner in an Application under Section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 challenges order dated 15.10.2015, passed by the learned Company Court in Company Petition No.11/2015. The petitioner has sought winding up of respondent Company on the ground that the respondent Company, is unable to pay its debt of Rs.102,26,78,728/- to it. Learned Company Court has by an order dated 15.10.2015, postponed consideration of the matter to 27.01.2016, on the ground that some Arbitration proceedings are pending and the same amount is also subject matter of claim before the Arbitrator. 2. This Court has admitted the matter on 02.12.2015, and kept it on 12.01.2016, as the matter before the Company Court is scheduled to come up on 27.01.2016. Shri Balbir Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/appellant has pointed out that the arbitration proceedings are now coming up on 16.01.2016. 3. In this situation, we have heard ...
Tag this Judgment!Sadashiv Ramchandra Arve Vs. Kashinath Virupax Hingmire, since decease ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
1. By this second appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the appellant has impugned the order and judgment dated 2nd December, 1992 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangli dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant (original defendant no.3). In the Regular Civil Appeal No.27 of 1986, the appellant had impugned the decree for specific performance passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli on 31st October, 1985 in Special Civil Suit No.26 of 1983 which was filed by the respondent no.1 (original plaintiff) inter alia praying for specific performance of an agreement dated 1st October, 1974. 2. The suit properties are Gat Nos. 817, 820 and 828 situated within the limits of Village Boragaon, Taluka Tasgaon, District Sangli. There is no dispute that the suit properties belonged to Mr.Ramchandra Hari Arve. The said Mr.Ramchandra Hari Arve had no issue out of the wedlock with defendant no.2. It was the case of 203-SA381.93 the plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkrishna Bajaj (HUF), Wardha and Others Vs. The Commissioner of Weal ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This reference under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 is arising out of total eight reference applications moved by different assessees after adjudication of their grievances by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench (hereinafter referred to as the ITAT for short) in eight wealth tax appeals. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1981-82. The questions referred are identical in all matters and, therefore, only one/common reference has been made, which governs the eight wealth tax matters. 2. The questions referred to by the ITAT vide its order dated 18th June, 1990, are as under : (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the value of the interest of the partners in the firms on the basis of the value of the shares as quoted in the market as on 31/03/1981 notwithstanding the fact that the firms' previous year ended on 30/06/1981 ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of t...
Tag this Judgment!NTPC Ltd. and Another Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
1. By the above Chamber Summons, the Defendant Reliance Industries Ltd. has prayed for the following relief: That in the event of this Hon'ble Court coming to the conclusion that the Defendant has not been granted leave, by the order dated 25th November, 2014, passed by this Court in the present Suit, to produce additional documents which are annexed to the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of Mr. B.K. Ganguly dated 24th February, 2015, the Defendant be granted leave to produce additional documents as per the list appended in Schedule hereto. 2. It is necessary to point out at the very outset that the above Suit filed by the Plaintiff NTPC Ltd. ( NTPC ) (formerly National Thermal Power Corporation Limited) against the Defendant Reliance Industries Limited ( RIL ) is pending in this Court since the last 10 years. In fact 7 years have passed since the hearing of the Suit being expedited in the year 2008 by the then Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court. As more particularly se...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Uni Klinger Ltd. Vs. Subhash Baburao Kambale and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This petition was admitted by this Court by order dated 13.08.2004. Prior thereto, by an order dated 09.02.2004, ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C) was granted, which was confirmed while admitting the petition. Prayer clause (C) reads as under: Grant stay to the operation and execution of the impugned judgment and order dated 28/08/2003 passed by the Learned Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) Nos.222, 223, 224 and 225 of 1991 marked at Exhibit C to the petition during the pendancy of the petition. 2. The order dated 13.08.2004 reads as under: Heard Shri V.N.Upadhye, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pradeep Shahane, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Respondent No.5, though served, absent. Rule. Interim stay in terms of clause (4) of the order dated 28/08/2003, impugned in this petition and status quo in respect of employment, as on today. 3. It is undisputed that except Respondent No.1 in this petition, namel...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Govindrao Sardar Vs. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilha Parishad ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is an employee of Gram Panchayat Pimpalkhuta, Panchayat Samiti, Amravati takes exception to the order dated 21-1-2015 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati whereby the appeal filed by Gram Panchayat, Pimpalkhuta under Section 61(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short, the said Act) has been allowed and the order dismissing the petitioner from service has been upheld. 2. The facts relevant are that the petitioner came to be appointed as a Water Supply employee of Gram Panchayat Pimpalkhuta on 3-10-1986. According to the petitioner, services rendered by him were satisfactory and without any complaints. On 12-12-2012, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to furnish explanation with regard to an allegation of indecent behaviour with a lady computer apprentice. The petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Philip J. Vs. Ashapura Minechem Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
1. In all these four writ petitions, the parties are one and same and they raise a common question of law as to whether a prosecution launched under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( NI Act for short) against a partner alone without joining the partnership firm can be maintainable. Hence, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. By these petitions, the original accused is challenging the order dated 23rd July 2013 in Criminal Revision Petition No.7 of 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon, Dist. Raigad, thereby confirming the order of issue of process dated 3rd January 2012 in Summary Case No. 312 of 2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shrivardhan under section 138 of the NI Act. 3. Brief facts, relevant for deciding the question of law involved in these petitions, are stated as follows: The partnership firm of the petitioner by name M/s Alamgiris and respondent no.1 a company registered under the Companies Act, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Amisha Girish Ramchandani Vs. Divisional Manager (Personnel Branch) Mu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
1. Rule Returnable after six weeks for disposal. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has placed on record a Division Bench Judgment dated 22nd July 2015 of this Court (Coram: Smt Vasanti A.Naik and A.M.Badar, JJ) in Writ Petition No.3288 of 2015 (Dr.MRS HEMA VIJAY MENON VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and ORS, whereby it is specifically observed in paragraph 7 as under : "7. A woman cannot be discriminated as far as maternity benefits are concerned, only on the ground that she has obtained the baby through surrogacy. Though the petitioner did not give birth to the child, the child was placed in the secured hands of the petitioner as soon as it was born. A newly born child cannot be left at the mercy of others. A maternity leave to the commissioning mother like the petitioner would be necessary. A newly born child needs rearing and that is the most crucial period during which the child requires the care and attention of his mother. There is a tremendous amount of learning that ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »