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.
Wasim Mohammed Sayyed Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Additi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2016
Oral Judgment: (Per S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, the brother of the detenu, challenges the order of detention dated 10th July 2015 and the continued detention of Mr. Siraz Mohammed Sayyed (the detenu?). The Petitioner states that the order of detention has been passed on 10th July 2015 invoking Sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA?). 2. The order of detention is passed with a view to prevent the detenu in future from abetting the smuggling of goods as well as from engaging in transporting of smuggled goods. The order of detention was served on the detenu on 13th July 2015 and he was taken in custody. 3. The Petitioner states that on 10th July 2015, a communication was issued by the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security), Home Department, Government of Maharashtra (the Detaining Authority?) containing the grounds...
Yusuf Kagzi and Others Vs. Avigo Trustee Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2016
1. This appeal (Company Appeal No. 59 of 2014) impugns an order passed by the Company Law Board, Mumbai Bench (CLB?) in a petition filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. By the impugned order, CLB accepted the case of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of oppression and mismanagement, and dissolved the Board of Directors of Appellant no.2 and reconstituted the same. CLB also declared resolutions passed in certain meetings of the Board as also General Body as illegal and set aside the same. 2. The Appellants' case may be briefly stated thus: Respondent nos. 1 and 2 had invested a sum of Rs. 40 crores in Appellant No.2 Company (Company?), under a Share Subscription cum Shareholders Agreement (SSSA?) dated 24 March 2008 entered into between promoters of the Company who are represented by Appellant no.1, Respondent nos. 1 to 3 and the Company. After acquiring land and setting up a new factory, the Company commenced production around 10 October 2009. Pu...
Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. and Another Vs. M/s. Roadway Solution (I) ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2016
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V.Mohta, J.) Admit. Heard finally by consent. 1. The Appellant (Original Respondent) has filed this Appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Amendment Act, 2005) (The Arbitration Act) thereby challenging an exparte order dated 1st January 2016 passed by the learned District Judge-II Pune, in Misc.Application No.1009 of 2015 in OMP No.101009 of 2015, filed under section 9 of the Arbitration Act by the respondent herein, for reliefs of injunction on apprehension of invocation of the contractual Bank Guarantees. 2.The Agreement in question is dated 15th April 2011 being a construction contract entered into between appellant no.1 and respondent no.1 at Mumbai. It was for strengthening and widening up of existing road, service, Toll plaza and connected aspects on Pune-Satara section of NH 4 in NHDP Phase 4 BOT basis. In terms of the contract the appellant has submitted four performance Bank Guarantees, which were renewed from time to time ...
Young Boys Educational and Industrial Circle through its president Hab ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-07-2016
Oral Judgment: (Shinde, J.) 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. This petition has been filed with the following prayers: A) By a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, or order or directions in the like nature, the letter dated 09.04.2015, issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Nasik Division, Nasik,may kindly be quashed and set aside. B) By a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, or order or directions in the like nature, the respondents be directed to sanction the staff as proposed by the petitioner as per its proposals and as recommended by the authorities like the Education Officer and Deputy Director of Education. C) By a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, or order or directions in the like nature, the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner Institution to fill up the vacancies as per the proposals submitted by the petitioner, without compelling the petitioner Institution to abso...
Nelson Heredia and Others Vs. The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-07-2016
1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 8.1.2015 passed by the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, North Zone, Mapusa Goa, by which the petitioners are disqualified for a period of 5 years from the date of the order. 2. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:- The petitioners were the members of the Board of Directors of M/s Sapana Garden Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. M/s Sapana Garden Co-operative Housing Society Ltd is a Co-operative Housing Society Ltd registered under Goa Co-operative Housing Societies Act, 2011( the Act? for short). The Board of Directors/Managing Committee of the society consist of 9 members. The new Board of Directors of the said Society was elected on 4.6.2014 and the petitioners are amongst 9 elected members. They were also members of the Board of Directors of previous committee. 3. The members of the Board of Directors of the society have their own businesses and professions and they are performing their duties as the memb...
The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay Vs. M/s. Veer ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-07-2016
Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard learned Additional Government Pleader Shri S.M. Uike for the applicant The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay and learned counsel for the respondent Shri Rishikesh Chitale. 2. Following questions are referred to this Court under Section 61 of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Act, 1959 (earlier Bombay Sales Act, 1959) (for short, the said Act?), thus: (1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the order of assessment was governed by Sub section (5) of Section 33 of the Act and not by Sub section (3) of Section 33 of the Act inspite of the fact that the sales tax officer had assessed the dealer under Sub section (3) of Section 33 of the Act and, therefore, Explanation (1) to Section 36(2)(c) could not have been invoked for levy of penalty under the said Section 36(2)(c)? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct...
M/s. Meher Farms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sociedade Patriotica Dos Baldios Das No ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-07-2016
1. Heard Ms. A. Agni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners/Plaintiffs and Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents/Defendants. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents waives service. 3. The present Writ Petition is filed by the original Plaintiffs challenging the Order passed by the Adhoc District Judge-1 (FTC) North Goa, Panaji, in Misc. Civil Appeal no, 46 of 2014 dated 14.07.2015, by which the Appeal of the Plaintiffs against the Order of rejection of the temporary injunction application filed by the learned Trial Court is dismissed. 4. The brief facts of the case as stated are as follows: The parties are referred to as their original status. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its office at Mumbai and Goa. The Plaintiff urther pleaded that to expand its business, the property belonging to the defe...
B.I.F.R. and Another Vs. KMA Limited and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2016
1. Company Application No.593 of 2011, filed by an individual Applicant, who was a workman of the company (In Liquidation), seeks a direction against the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay, for adjudication of claims of workmen and secured creditors of the company (In liquidation), in accordance with Sections 529A and 530 of the Companies Act, 1956 and payment of dividend accordingly. Company Application No.620 of 2011 is an application by a trade union claiming to represent 63 members, who were workmen of the company (In liquidation), also for adjudication of the claims of workmen. It also seeks quashing of an adjudication made by Official Liquidator in respect of 11 workmen set out in a resubmitted report, being OLR No.158 of 2010, of the Official Liquidator and re-adjudication of the claims on the basis of an order and judgment passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No.144 of 2005 dated 2 July 2005. 2. The facts of the case may be briefly set out as follows: (i) In o...
Eknath Daval Thete (since deceased) through his legal heirs Vs. Ganpat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2016
1. By this Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the appellant herein (original defendant no.2) has impugned the judgment dated 26th August 1993 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Nashik dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 2nd January 1987 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pimpalgaon-Baswant, District-Nashik allowing the suit filed by the respondent no.1 herein (original plaintiff). For the sake of convenience, the parties to these proceedings are described in the later part of the judgment as they were described before the trial Court. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this second appeal are as under:- 2. Gat No.876 admeasuring 23 Ares assessed to Rs.0.97 ps., Gat No.885 admeasuring 1-59 hectares assessed to Rs.8.19 ps. and Gat No.873 measuring 55 Ares assessed to Rs.0.69 ps. of Palkhed in Niphad taluka are the suit lands. The suit lands were ancestral an...
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Thane Vs. Official Liquidator, H ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2016
P.C. : 1. The Company Application taken out by the Applicant “ Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - challenges an adjudication order of the Official Liquidator, by which a claim filed by the Applicant in respect of PF dues was rejected. The controversy in the matter mainly pertains to damages and interest payable by the employer “ Zadona Electronics Ltd. (in liquidation) “ respectively under Sections 14B and 7Q of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (PF Act?) on delayed payments of PF dues. 2. Zadona Electronics Ltd. (in Liqn.) (Company?) was wound up by an order passed by this Court on 20 June 2007. The Applicant lodged a claim before the Liquidator of the Company for payment of PF dues of employees of the Company in the aggregate sum of Rs. 22,35,38,083/-. These dues included employer's contribution (12% of wages), employees' contribution (12%), administrative charges and insurance charges as well as damages and interest towards d...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »