Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-29-2014
1. By an order dated 8th February 2010 passed by this Court, this Court framed the following preliminary issue : "Whether this Court has jurisdiction to decide the originating summons which has been taken out by the plaintiff in view of the suit being filed in the Small Causes Court under Section 41 of the said Act after the originating summons was filed?" 2. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties have accordingly addressed this Court on the preliminary issue framed by this Court. None of the parties have led oral evidence on the preliminary issue. Since the issue of jurisdiction is raised by the defendant, learned senior counsel appearing for the defendant addressed this Court first followed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this preliminary issue are as under:- 3. Defendant is a lessor of a large piece of land admeasuring 48057 sq. yards described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. By an Indenture of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on : Feb-10-2014
Uma S. Bora, Member: 1. ICICI Bank Ltd through its power of attorney holder Mr.Vishal Umeshchandra Shrivastava, Aurangabad challenges in this appeal the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum,Ahmednagar on 8.3.2007 while deciding consumer complaint No.515/2006. 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are as under. Complainant Vasant Nawale resident of Bhende Tq.Newasa, Dist.Ahmednagar had purchased tractor of John Deer of L and T company on 30.5.2005. The said tractor was purchased from Matruchhaya Sales and Service bearing No.MH-17D-1137. For purchasing said tractor complainant had availed loan of Rs.5 Lakhs from the appellant. Said loan was to be repaid by six monthly instalment of Rs.28750/-. It is alleged by the complainant that first instalment was due in January 2006 but due to some financial constrain he could not deposit said instalment. Accordingly, he informed the appellant about his inability to deposit first instalment. Even then on 18.5.2006 some musclemen accomp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-03-2014
1. This is joint petition filed by the Employees' Union and one of its members/ employees challenging the Office Memorandum dtd. 26.06.2009 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Defence by which the House Rent Allowance/Transport Allowance/Small Family Allowance was excluded for the purpose of computing Overtime Allowance admissible to the employees under the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948. 2. The only grievance put forth on behalf of the employees is exclusion of the HRA/Transport Allowance/Small Family Allowance for the purpose of computing Overtime Allowance, which the employees were getting previously by virtue of the provisions of sub-Section 1 and 2 of Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948, which specifically provides that where a worker who works for more than nine hours in any day or for more than 48 hours in a week, he shall in respect of overtime work be entitled to wages at the rate of twice his ordinary rate of wages. Sub-section (2) explains the term ordinary r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-04-2014
Andrew Ang J (delivering the judgment of the court): 1. This is an appeal under s 81(5) of the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2008 Rev Ed) ("the IT A") against the decision of the High Court judge ("the Judge") dismissing the appeal of the appellant Comptroller ("the Appellant") against the decision of the Income Tax Board of Review ("the Board") in Income Tax Appeal Nos 3 and 4 of 2010. The Board had allowed the appeal of the respondent insurance company ("the Respondent") against revised assessments raised on it by the Appellant seeking to tax the gains made by the Respondent on the disposal of certain shares ("the Shares") that had been held by the Respondent in its related companies [C], [D] and [E]. 2. The significance of this case lies to some degree in the fact that it is the first local case dealing with the income tax treatment of investment gains accruing to insurance companies. At its core it revolves around the single issue of whether the gains arising from the Respondent's dispo...
Tag this Judgment!