Mumbai Court January 2016 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.
Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. B.T. Patil and Sons Belgaum Constructio ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2016
1. By the Arbitration Petition No.891 of 2010 filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short Arbitration Act?), the petitioner has impugned the orders/decisions dated 17th December 2009, 29th December 2009 and the award dated 25th January 2010 as corrected by the order dated 22nd February 2010 in so far as it allows the claims, or part thereof, in favour of the respondent is concerned and by the Arbitration Petition No.893 of 2010 filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has impugned the orders/decisions dated 17th December 2009 and 29th December 2009 (as corrected by the arbitrator's letter dated 4th January 2010) and the award dated 25th January 2010 as corrected by the order dated 22nd February 2010 in so far as it allows the claims, or part thereof, in favour of the respondent is concerned. 2. By consent of the parties, both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order and ...
Central Railway Caterer's Association and Others Vs. Union of India an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2016
B.P. Colabawalla J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. By these Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners challenge the Railway Catering Policy 2010 to the limited extent that the classification and categorization of Railway Stations based on their annual earnings are per se illegal, arbitrary and unjust and have no nexus with the actual sales and/or footfalls on the catering units on such Railway Stations. The Petitioners also challenge the technical criteria, evaluation and selection process contained in the tender document dated 9th October, 2013 issued by the Railways for provision of refreshment rooms. 3. It is the case of the Petitioners that as a result of classification and categorization of Railway Stations on the basis of their annual earnings, the members of Petitioner No.1 (in Writ Petition No.2753 of 2013) who were originally allotted small static catering ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City -I Vs. Sunny Sounds (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2016
M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. This Reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue, seeks our opinion on the following question of law:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) that assessee's business of Dubbing and sound recording is a manufacturing/ processing activity and assessee is entitled or investment allowance on plant and machinery?". 2. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue states that in the present Reference Application the tax effect involved is admittedly less than Rs.20 lacs. In the above view, we enquired of Mr. Suresh Kumar- whether the Circular No.21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes(CBDT) would also apply to the pending Reference made under Section 256 (1) of the Act. At this, Mr. Suresh Kumar pointed out that a bare reading of the Circular d...
Messrs Miscellenary Marketers Vs. Messrs Sun-N-Sand Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit, with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties heard forthwith. 2. By way of the above Civil Revision Applications the applicants seek to invoke the Revisionary Jurisdiction of this Court against the common judgment and order dated 08.05.2015 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, by which the Appeals being Appeal No.16 of 2011 and Appeal No.17 of 2011 filed by the Applicants came to be dismissed and the cross objection No.3 of 2011 filed by the original Plaintiffs came to be allowed and resultantly, the decree passed by the Trial Court dated 27.01.2011 came to be confirmed. Both the above Civil Revision Applications involve common facts which can be conveniently narrated as under: 3. The Civil Revision Applicants are the original Plaintiffs in LD Suit No.59 of 1995 and the Defendants in LE and C Suit No.17/17 of 1996. The Respondents are the original Defendants in the said LD Suit No.59 and 1995 and the Plaintiffs in LE and C Suit No...
M/s. Nagpur Distillers Private Limited and Another Vs. The State of Ma ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-08-2016
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Considering the nature of controversy and as requested by the parties, matters have been heard finally at the stage of admission by issuing Rule, and making it returnable forthwith. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioners before this Court are dealers within the meaning of said term as defined in Section 2[16A] of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, (Act No. LIX of 1949) (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation Act? for short). The Local Body Tax (LBT) is being charged on goods imported by them within city limits of respondent no.2 Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The tax is assessed on goods imported by them for use, consumption or sale within the city limits. As they are dealers whose annual turnover exceeds Rs. 50 Crores, the tax is being recovered from them. Other dealers whose annual turnover is less than Rs.50 Crores, are exempted from paying any tax on such goods. 3. Petitioners state that they are required to pay the local body tax at 8.5% and hence,...
Bajarang Labour Co-operative Society, through its Secretary and Others ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-08-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. These writ petitions can be disposed by common judgment as same issue is raised in all the petitions. 2. Heard Shri A.S. Kilor, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Shri P.C. Madkholkar, learned Advocate for the respondent No.3 and Smt. S.S. Jachak and Shri V.P. Gangane, learned Assistant Government Pleaders for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3. The petitioners are the Labour Co-operative Societies registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1960). The petitioner societies applied to the respondent No.3-Nagpur District Labour Co-operative Societies Federation Limited requesting for grant of membership. It is the case of the petitioner societies that the respondent No.3-Federation had pointed out certain deficiencies in the applications submitted by the petitioner societies. According to the petitioner societies, they complied with the requirements and removed the deficiencies. According to th...
Nikhil Wagle and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2016
1. Rule has been already issued in this Public Interest Litigation and the same is pending for final disposal. This Public Interest Litigation has appeared on board from time to time under the caption of Directions? for reporting compliance by the Union of India with the directions issued earlier. The occasion for filing the present Public Interest Litigation is an incident of the early morning of 28th November 2002 in Mumbai in which the Fourth Respondent, who is a popular Hindi Cine-star, was allegedly involved. During the pendency of this Petition, he was convicted by the Court of Sessions for various offences including those punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(for short M.V.Act?). It is alleged that he was found driving a car while he was under the influence of alcohol. 2. The order of conviction passed by the Sessions Court was set aside by learned Single Judge of this Court (Criminal Appeal No.572 of 2015 d...
Pandurang R. Shet, Technical Officer (TCP) – Group 'B' V ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-07-2016
Oral Judgment: (F.M. Reis, J.) 1. Heard Mr. V. A. Lawande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. D. Lawande, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. The above Writ Petition inter-alia prays for a writ of mandamus or direction to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 07.09.2007 and 23.09.2009 and also a direction to the respondent no.1 to grant regularisation with effect from the initial date of appointment and for other consequential benefits. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner successfully completed three years of diploma course in Handloom Technology on 30.07.1979 and was appointed as a Master Craftsmen by the respondent no.2 on 12.09.1979. The sanction was granted by the respondent no.1 for creating the post of Master Craftsman, Technical Assistant ( Design ) for the development of the Handloom industry on 21.10.1980. The petitioner and the others had filed a Writ Petition No. 79/1990 before this Court in...
Cedric Bosco Savio Lobo Vs. State of Goa represented by its Chief Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-07-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. Ms. M. Pinto, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. S. Kalangutkar, learned Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4. 5. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.10.2015 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application no. 164/2012 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, "C" Court Mapusa. According to the petitioner, who appears in person, the order impugned reflects complete non-application of mind to the facts of the case by the learned Magistrate and is founded upon unsustainable grounds. The petitioner further submits that only two reasons have been stated by the learned Magistrate in rejecting the complaint filed by him for initiating action in accordance with section 340 of Cr.P.C for filing of complaint against the respondent nos. 3 and 4 for offences punishable under Sections 193, 19...
Tukaram Maruti Dubal and Others Vs. Tatya Khashaba Khandagale (decease ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2016
Common Judgment: 1. The learned counsel for the parties agree that both these petitions can be disposed of with a common judgment and order. 2. The writ petition no. 4704 of 1991 has been instituted by the landlord of the suit property, questioning inter alia the orders dated 10 October 1978 and 29 April 1991 made by the Tenancy Aval Karkoon (AK) and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) dismissing the landlord's application for recovery of possession of the suit property on the ground of bonafide requirement for personal cultivation in terms of Section 33B of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (Tenancy Act). 3. The writ petition no. 3894 of 1991 has been instituted by the tenants questioning the orders dated 27 August 1974, 20 January 1990 and 29 April 1991 made by the AK, Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) and the MRT ordering the eviction of the tenants on the ground of default in payment of rents for three years, in terms of Section 25 of the Tenancy Act. 4. Both th...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »