Mumbai Court February 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.
Chandramani Vs. Shashikala
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. This Court had issued notice for final disposal of this Second Appeal on 14th July, 2014 having been prima facie convinced that the dispute between the parties was required to be resolved by having measurements from the experts from the concerned Govt. Department, since it was found, while issuing notice, that both the Courts on their own based their findings on the basis of papers, maps etc., placed before them, i.e., without appointing a Surveyor from the concerned Govt. Department, to find out the exact claim of the parties to the dispute. 2. Upon service of notice, learned Adv. Mr. Karmarkar appears for the respondent sole. Mr. Karmarkar fairly states that it would be proper that both the parties to the dispute know the exact measurements of the properties they own and posses, as they have purchased their respective properties for payment of valuable consideration. It is in this context, both the parties have, therefore, agreed for having a final disposal of this ...
Bestways Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Yazaki India Pvt. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
P.C. 1. This petition filed by the original accused seeks two reliefs i.e. quashing of criminal complaint being Regular Criminal Case No.0402136 of 2012 filed against the petitioners under Section 407 read with 34 Indian Penal Code and for quashing the order dtd. 30th July, 2013 passed by the trial court allowing amendment of the complaint to change the name of the complainant. 2. Petitioner no.1 is a Private Limited Company that carries on the business as transporters. Petitioner no.2 is the Managing Director, Petitioner no.3 is it's Director and Petitioner no.4 is the authorised signatory of Petitioner no.1. The respondent filed complaint against the petitioner contending that the goods entrusted to the petitioner for the purpose of delivery have neither been delivered to the consignee nor returned to respondent no.1, consignor. The complaint was filed by "Tata Yazaki Autocomp Limited" on 11th March, 2013. Later the complainant filed the application at Exhibit '26' seeking to amend i...
Shivraj Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, School Edu ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition takes exception to the impugned order dated 11.06.2015 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. There is further prayer, seeking directions to the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to absorb the petitioner in the service of Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar as Para Teacher / Primary Teacher, as per the Government Resolution dated 31st July, 2009, and 1st March, 2014. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner served more than two Years i.e. from 1st October, 2005 to 31st January, 2008, in the service of Zilla Parishad Schools. But the respondent authorities have not considered the total service of the petitioner, and rejected his claim without giving any opportunity to satisfy the respondents, about his service in Vasti School. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also invited our attention to the various documents placed on record, showing qualifications of the petitioner. It is submitted th...
Soham Shah Vs. Indian Film Company Limited and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
1. By this review petition, the applicant seeks recall of the order dated 27th June, 2014 passed by the then designate of the Hon'ble Chief Justice thereby appointing a counsel of this court as the sole arbitrator. By an order dated 17th November, 2014, S.J. Kathawala, J., the then learned designate of the Hon'ble Chief Justice by consent of parties substituted the earlier arbitrator appointed by an order dated 27th June, 2014. It is not in dispute that the review petitioner has filed written statement before the learned arbitrator. 2. Ms.Panda, learned counsel for the review petitioner invited my attention to the arbitration application filed by the original applicant and would submit that admittedly, the applicant no.1 was a company incorporated in Cyprus and admittedly was a body incorporated in the country other than India. She submits that since one of the party to the arbitration agreement was a corporate incorporated in the country other than India, the arbitration would be an i...
Chandrashekhar Vs. Dr. Balkrishna and Others
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
1. Heard Shri P.D. Randive, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri M.B. Naidu, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.6 and 7. 2. The petitioner-defendant has challenged the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application filed by him under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission to amend the written statement. 3. It is undisputed that the trial of civil suit has commenced. The application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to amend the written statement does not show that inspite of due diligence, the petitioner could not bring on the record the facts sought to be brought on the record by the proposed amendment. In view of this, the learned trial Judge does not have the jurisdiction to consider and allow the amendment application, in view of the bar created by the proviso below Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, as held in the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidyabai and others vs. Padmala...
The Principal Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Daman Commis ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2016
1. This is one of a several Notices of Motion seeking that a quite substantial delay in the filing of these Appeals be condoned. As the facts in all these cases are broadly similar, we have dealt with the present Notice of Motion as the main case for this judgment; the others will follow suit. 2. The present Appeal arises from an order dated 2nd January 2009 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad and the CESTAT s subsequent order dated 29th May 2009 in a rectification of mistake application by the present Appellants. We are not in this Notice of Motion examining the merits of the present Appeal. We only note that the CESTAT order-in-appeal was passed in a proceeding that emanated from an Order-in-Original dated 10th January 2008 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Daman and a subsequent order dated 30th July 2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Daman. 3. Copies ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Parrys (Eastern) (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2016
P.C. 1. This Appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") challenges the order dated 13th February, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The Assessment Year involved is A.Y. 2005-2006. 2. The Appellant urges the following questions of law, for our consideration: (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that capital gain arising from transfer of depreciable assets was liable to be set off against brought forward Long Term Capital Loss without appreciating that under section 50 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 such capital gain is treated as Short Term Capital Gain? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that capital gain arising from transfer of depreciable assets was liable to be set off against brought forward Long Term Capital Loss without appreciating that according to Section 74 of the ...
Jalinder Ranganath Lahare and Others Vs. Indian Seamless and Metal Tub ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Feb-18-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. These petitions were admitted by this Court on 16/06/2008 and 11/02/2004 respectively and the hearing of these petitions was expedited. 2. I have heard Mr.Shahane, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr.Upadhye, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent / Management for quite some time. Both the learned Advocates have taken me through the minute details of their pleadings before the Industrial Court and the material available. Considering the order that I would be passing hereunder, I am not adverting to their entire submissions since it would result in making certain observations on the merits of the matter, when I am inclined to remand Complaint ULP No.35/1999 and 46/1999 to the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar. 3. The undisputed facts before this Court are as under: [a] The petitioners were performing work in the respondent / premises at the time of the filing of Complaint (ULP) No.35/1999 and 46/1999. [b] The petitioners contended in the complaint that they ha...
International Air Transport Association Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2016
1. At the request of the parties, the Petition is disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 2. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the following orders: (a) The assessment order dated 23rd March, 2015 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the "Act"); (b) The order dated 30th April, 2015 rejecting the Petitioner's rectification application made under Section 154 of the Act; and (c) The order dated 29th September, 2015 imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act consequent to the Assessment order dated 23rd March, 2015. 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that it is a foreign company. Therefore, governed by Section 144C(1) of the Act. In terms thereof, the Assessing Officer is required to pass a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) before he passes a final order under Section 143(3) of the Act. In this case, the assessment order dated 23rd March, 2015 was passed under Section 143(3) of th...
Kailas Sitaram Adagale and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2016
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No.324 of 2007 is preferred by the Original Accused, who stands convicted by the Judgment and Order dated 5th March 2007 of Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.308 of 2005 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for two months, challenging his conviction and sentence. Whereas, Criminal Appeal No.686 of 2007 is preferred by the State seeking enhancement of sentence of the Appellant. Thus, as both these Appeals are arising out of one and same Judgment of the Trial Court, they are being decided by this common Judgment. 2. Brief facts of the Appeals can be stated as follows:- PW-1 Neha Malviy, at the time of incident in the year 2005, was serving at Info-sys Company in Kalyani Nagar as Customer Care Associate. Prior to that, she was serving on the same post at Wipro Spectromat. At that time, her Company had pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »