Mumbai Court January 2016 Judgments
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!M/s. Amritlakshmi Machine Works and Another Vs. The Commissioner of Cu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. This Full Bench has been constituted on a reference made on 23rd April, 2015 by a Division Bench of this Court in Amritlakshmi Machine Works and Others v/s. The Commissioner of Customs (Import) (303 ELP 161). This reference has arisen when the Division Bench in Amritlakshmi Machine Works (supra) was considering four appeals (two by the partnership firm and two by its managing partner) under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) from a common order dated 7th May 2012 of the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). All the four appeals raised the following substantial question of law: Whether the Tribunal has erred in imposing simultaneous penalties on both partners and partnership firm? This reference arose as in the view of the Division Bench in Amritlakshmi Machine Works (supra) there was a cleavage of opinion on the above issue between the decisions of two Division Benches of this Court. In Texoplast Industries v/s. Additional Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!Sachee Agro Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
P.C. 1. Heard. 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for calling of the records of public notice No.PS-7/ 2015 from File No.XVI/13/13/N/PS/CC/2015 dated 14/9/2015 issued by respondent No.4 and after perusing the same quashed and set aside the same as it has been issued contrary to the public policy and constitutional guarantee of equality. 3. The petitioner deals in the business of poppy seeds. The petitioner imports the poppy seeds for its business from various countries including Turkey. Since the business of import of poppy seeds is controlled by respondent No.4- The Narcotics Commissioner, respondent No.4, in exercise of his powers, has issued a public notice dated 14/9/2015. The said public notice, which concerns the import from Turkey, provides that the applicants, who are in category 'A' and have imported poppy seeds from Turkey to India at least for three financial years during the last five financial years, will be allotted a quantity from the provisiona...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkrishna Govindrao Dandi and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, th ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
G.S. Patel, J. 1. The ten Petitioners claim to be the duly elected Directors of the Maharashtra State Handloom Cooperative Federation Limited ( MAHATEX ), of which the Managing Director is arrayed as the 3rd Respondent to this Petition brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioners claim that they were elected as Directors at an election held on 31st March 2011 for a statutorily mandated five year term. They claim, however, that their five year term commences not from the date of the election, viz., 31st March 2011, but from the date when the Collector held the first meeting of the newly elected Directors on 16th January 2012. This meeting was called to elect the Chairman and Vice Chairman of MAHATEX. According to the Petitioners, they are entitled as a matter of law and as a matter of right to serve out an entire period of five years from 16th January 2012 to 16th January 2017. The Petitioners challenge a letter dated 31st March 2015 by which elections have be...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh G. Rege Vs. Anjali R. Rege
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-2016
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 2. The following proceedings are pending between the parties in Family Court No.3 at Pune presided over by Judge (Smt. Swati Chauhan): a. PA 850 OF 2005 for divorce on account of cruelty and desertion (Petitioner Vs Respondent 1) b. COUNTER CLAIM OF RESPONDENT 1 in PA 850/2005 claiming maintenance c. PC 41 OF 2005 claiming maintenance (Respondent 2 Vs Petitioner) d. PB 32 OF 2007 claiming money (Respondent 1 vs. Petitioner) e. PB 9 OF 2009 for declaration of benami properties bought by Petitioner in the name of Respondent 1 (Petitioner Vs Respondent 1) f. Darkhast No.71 of 2015 in PC 41 of 2005 for recovery of arrears of alleged interim maintenance for 4 months (Respondent 1 Vs Petitioner) g. Darkhast No.72 of 2015 in PA 850 of 2005 for recovery of alleged arrears of interim maintenance for 4 months (Respondent 2 Vs Petitioner). 3. By Miscellaneous Application No.110 of 2015, the Petitioner applied to the Principal Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Akbar Hussain Khan Vs. Saira Khan
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-28-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. This writ petition challenges two judgments and orders, one dated 30/5/2015 and the other dated 23/2/2012. Both these judgments and orders have been delivered in Criminal Revision applications filed against the orders impugned therein. Now, on instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted her challenge in this writ petition to the judgment and order dated 30/5/2015 passed in Criminal Revision application no.127/2013 by the Addl. Sessions Judge-I, South Goa, Margao. 3. After grant of maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month by Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margao, the petitioner raised a challenge and pleaded for modification of the order of maintenance by filing another application under section 127 Cr.P.C. on the ground that there was a change in the circumstances. This application was rejected by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 8/...
Tag this Judgment!Amita and Others Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-28-2016
Oral Judgment : 1. By this appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the said Act) the appellants-original claimants have challenged judgment dated 22/01/2015 passed by the learned Commissioner under Employees Compensation Act by which the application preferred by them under Section 22 of the said Act has been dismissed. 2. The appellants are the dependents of one Prakash who was employed as a driver with the respondent No.2. On 31/05/2011 when said Prakash was driving a car, the same met with an accident resulting in said car turning turtle resulting in death of said Prakash. According to the appellants, the accident occurred during the course of and out of employment with respondent No.2. Said Prakash was getting salary of Rs.5500/- per month and was aged about 24 years when the accident took place. Hence claim for compensation came to be filed. 3. The respondent No.1Insurance Company took the stand that the accident occurred on account of a vo...
Tag this Judgment!Akbar Hussain Khan Vs. Saira Khan
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jan-28-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. This writ petition challenges two judgments and orders, one dated 30/5/2015 and the other dated 23/2/2012. Both these judgments and orders have been delivered in Criminal Revision applications filed against the orders impugned therein. Now, on instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted her challenge in this writ petition to the judgment and order dated 30/5/2015 passed in Criminal Revision application no.127/2013 by the Addl. Sessions Judge-I, South Goa, Margao. 3. After grant of maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month by Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margao, the petitioner raised a challenge and pleaded for modification of the order of maintenance by filing another application under section 127 Cr.P.C. on the ground that there was a change in the circumstances. This application was rejected by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 8/...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Venkat and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved by the acquittal of present respondents from the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 and 306 of Indian Penal Code vide judgment and order dated 20th March, 2014 passed by the learned 3rd Adhoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Ambajogai in Sessions Case No.14 of 2001, the State has preferred present appeal. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is as under:- That, deceased Mahananda was married to present respondent no.1 - Venkat on 1st April, 2000, who was son of brother-in-law (brother of wife) of the complainant PW 1 - Ashruba. In that marriage, dowry of Rs.18,000/- was given to the respondents. After the marriage, deceased Mahananda started residing at the house of the present respondents at village Nandadi, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. For about five months after the marriage, deceased Mahananda was treated well by the respondents. Thereafter, however, respondent no.1 Venkat, deceased accused Balbhim and respondent no.2 ...
Tag this Judgment!Umadevi and Others Vs. Union of India, through the General Manager
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-28-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Admit. The learned counsel for the respondent waives service of notice. Heard the matter finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The Railway Claims Tribunal Bench at Nagpur has dismissed the Claim Application No. OA (IIu)/NGP/2010/0149 for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of death of one Kiran s/o Somaiya Yennam, who alleged to have died in an untoward incident. The claimants who are the dependents of the deceased filed Claim Petition under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act), which was dismissed on 14.11.2013, against which this appeal under Section 23 of the said Act, has been preferred. 3. Before the Tribunal, the following issues were framed as under: [1] Whether the applicants prove that they are the dependents of deceased Kiran s/o Somaiya Yennam? [2] Whether the respondent railway proves that deceased Kiran s/o Somaiya Yennam was not a bona fide passenger on 04....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »