Mumbai Court June 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.
IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited Vs. HUBTOWN Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
1. The Plaintiff seeks a decree in the sum of over Rs.33 Crores in this Summary Suit. The Plaintiff is a company engaged in the business of providing trusteeship services. The Defendant is a public company engaged in the business of real estate development. The suit is in respect of a guarantee provided by the Defendant on behalf of its group company, Rubix Trading Pvt. Ltd. ('Rubix'), for a loan extended to the latter by Deutsche Investments India Pvt. Ltd. ( DIIPL ) inter alia on the security of certain assets. The Plaintiff acted as a security trustee for and behalf of the lender, DIIPL, to hold upon trust, and enforce, the security. Rubix, the principal borrower, having failed to repay the loan, the Plaintiff demanded payment from the Defendant under the guarantee. The Defendant having failed to pay, the present suit is instituted by the Plaintiff. The facts of the Plaintiff's case may be briefly stated as follows : 2. By a Facility Agreement dated 1 December 2009, executed between...
Fulsingh Naik College, Pusad through Principal and Another Vs. Sayyad ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The employee had filed complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 before the Industrial Court contending that the employer indulged in unfair labour practice by not granting permanency and not paying the emoluments accordingly. The Industrial Court allowed the complaint, by the order dated 25th November, 2011 and directed the employer to grant permanency to the employee from 29th September, 2001 and to make available to him all the emoluments accordingly. The order passed by the Industrial Court was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 375 of 2012. One of the challenge was that the employee should have approached the Grievances Redressal Committee of the University under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1994 ) and the Ind...
Dr. Kirankumar Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through the Principal Secr ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
S.S. Shinde, J. 1. This Petition takes exception to the decision dated 6th September, 2014 taken by the Selection Committee, the communication dated 25-28th January, 2015 and also seeks directions to Respondent no.4 to issue approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Professor by direct recruitment/deputation on 6th September, 2014 in Respondent no.5 college. 2. The petitioner possesses degree of M.Sc. Mathematics and also has been awarded Ph.D. in mathematics by Respondent no.4 university. It appears that respondent no.5 college invited applications from the eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Professor. It appears that three posts were advertised. Out of three posts, two posts were to be filled up from the category of Associate Professors by promotion and one by direct recruitment. The allotment of posts, by promotion and direct recruitment, was in the ratio of 75 and 25 respectively. The petitioner is serving with Respondent no.5 college as Assistant Professor. ...
Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs. Khar Gymkhana
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
1. This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 10th July, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal)for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue urges the following questions of law for our consideration: "(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for continued registration u/s. 12A of the I. T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that in view of the Amendment to Section 2(15), the activities carried by the assessee were commercial in nature and therefore, cannot be considered as for a "charitable purpose" under Section 2(15) of Income Tax Act, 1961? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for continued registration u/s. 12A of the IT Act, 1961 brushing aside the nature of activities of the assessee viz...
Siva Bulk Limited and Another Vs. M.V. AODABAO IMO No. 9086928 and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
1. The above Notice of Motion is taken out by the Applicant i.e. Defendant No. 1 Vessel -- m.v. AODABAO inter alia for the following reliefs: "(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to vacate and/or set aside the order of arrest of the 1st Defendant vessel M.V. AODABAO dated 7th March 2016; (b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order and direct the Plaintiff to deposit in this Hon'ble Court a sum of USD 250,000.00 as security towards the loss and damage sustained by the owners of the 1st Defendant vessel as a result of the order of arrest dated 7th March 2016." 2. The circumstances in which the Notice of Motion is taken out by the Applicant, are briefly set out hereunder: 2.1 The Plaintiffs Siva Bulk Limited is a Company registered in Singapore and engaged in the business of shipping. Defendant No. 1 -- m.v. AODABAO is a Vessel flying the flag of Hong Kong and currently at Port Alang, Bhavnagar District, Gujarat. Defendant No. 2 -- m.v. AO HONG MA is a Vessel which is also flying t...
M/s. Sarathi Enterprises Vs. Union of India, Through Executive Enginee ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
Oral Judgment: (Peranoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant finally, as the matter is fixed for the final hearing. 2. In nutshell, the case of the Appellant-Original Respondent, is that-On 22 July 2010, a tender was invited for providing and fixing vitrified tiles flooring over existing flooring from Ground to sixth Floor at Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai . The work was awarded to the Appellant by letter dated 22 July 2010. The Appellant by letter dated 5 August 2010, recorded the verbal discussion with the Executive Engineer whereby, the Executive Engineer has directed to use only Johnson vitrified tiles and no other equivalent brand. The Appellant has further informed the Respondent that the Appellant intends to use some other equivalent brand as per condition of contract. By letter dated 16 August 2010, the Respondent again reiterated that only Johnson vitrified tiles and no other equivalent brand be used as the client has approved Johnson vitrified tiles ...
Shobhabai and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
Oral Order: 1. This Court (Coram : T.V.Nalawade, J.) by it's order dated 01.07.2015 had stayed the proceedings in SCC No.196/2014 pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Biloli by passing the following order: 1. Notice. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice for respondent No.1. Notice to respondent No.2 is made returnable on 05th August, 2015. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued for interim stay of the proceeding on the ground that inquiry as required under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not made even when the present petitioners, accused are not residing within local jurisdiction of the learned Judicial Magistrate. In view of this submission stay is granted to the proceedings of SCC No.196/2014 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class till next date. 2. Respondent No.2, who is the Complainant in SCC No.196/2014, has chosen not to cause an appearance either through an Advocate or in p...
Fayaz Gulam Godil Versu Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Kantawala in support of these appeals. 2. In his submission the appeals raise substantial questions of law and as proposed in the Memo of Appeal in Appeal No.24 of 2015 which is identical to the other appeal. Mr. Kantawala has taken us through these proposed questions to submit that one of them is based on the contention raised before the Tribunal that a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rostam Parvaresh vs. Union of India reported in 2010 (259) ELT 342 would bind the Tribunal. Secondly, whether it is legal and proper for the Tribunal to not consider the position with regard to applicability of section 111 and section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. This is not a case where the Indian currency was tried to be smuggled out of India. This was a case of an alleged smuggling of foreign currency, but the act was complete on the appellants leaving the Indian shores and reaching Hong Kong. Thereafter, having returned from Hong Kong allegedly with ...
Ravindra Narayan Malap Vs. The President, Guhagar Education Society an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order and judgment dated 30th September, 2005 passed by the School Tribunal, Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:- 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to Kunabi community which is included in Other Backward Class category by the State of Maharashtra. The respondent no.1 society is running a Secondary and Higher Secondary School at Ratnagiri district. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.1 decided to promote one Mr.D.M.More, a peon working with them on the post of Lab Assistant from the academic year 2000-2001 and therefore causing a clear vacancy. The respondent no.1 vide their letter dated 12th May, 2000 addressed to the District Employment and Self-Employment Guidance Centre, Ratnagiri called for the list of eligible candidates ...
Madhu Ramesh Jain Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Jun-06-2016
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has taken exception to the common order passed by 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon on 5th September, 2015 below Exhibits-26 and 46 in Regular Civil Suit No.260/2015. Both the aforesaid applications were filed by the present petitioner. The petitioner has filed the aforesaid civil suit seeking a declaration that the two orders both dated 6th August, 2015 passed by District Collector, Jalgaon (Respondent No.1) be declared null and void and consequently be quashed and set aside. Along with the civil suit, the petitioner had also filed an application seeking interim injunction by invoking the provisions under Order 39 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code). 3. Respondent No.1 has filed his written say raising a preliminary objection as regards to the jurisdiction ...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »