Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1921)23BOMLR1132
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The petitioners applied to this Court for an order under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act directing the Chief Co-Revenue Authority to refer a case for the decision of the High Court under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act VII of 1918.The application was refused and the petitioners now ask us to grant them leave to appeal to the Privy Council. It has been contended for the opponents that no appeal lies from a decision of the Court refusing to make an order under Section 45.2. Section 48 says :-Every order under this Chapter shall be executed, and may be appealed from, as if it) were a decree made in the exercise of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court.3. Section 49 says :-The costs of all applications and orders under this Chapter shall be in the discretion of the High Court.4. It would certainly appear at first sight that Section 48 only contemplated that orders directing an act to be done or forborne should be appealable as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1996(5)BomCR52
A.C. Agarwal, J.1. The appellant is the original defendant. He has preferred the present appeal seeking to impugn the judgment and decree passed on October 6, 1987 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem, in Special Suit No. 43 of 1986. Under the decree the defendant has been directed to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 71, 432/- with interest at 18% per annum from the date of the suit till actual payment. He has also been directed to pay the costs of the suit.2. The suit was filed on December 18, 1986 under the provisions of Order XXXVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides for filing of summary suits. After the suit summons was served the defendant caused his appearance to be filed on March 23, 1987. The plaintiff on April 14, 1987 filed an application for summons for judgment. On August 10, 1987 the defendant filed an application for leave to defend. By the impugned judgment and decree leave to defend is refused and the decree prayed for in the suit is pas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)72ITD155(Mum.)
1. The appellant, Smt. Rajrani Gupta, runs a sex and health clinic named "M/s Kayakalp International" and a beauty clinic named "Monalisa". Her husband, Dr. Sohanlal Gupta, is a dental surgeon. Her son, Dr. Arunkumar Gupta, is also a qualified doctor, being a Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicines & Surgery (B.A.M.S.). Her daughter-in-law, Dr.Renu Gupta, is also a qualified doctor and has the same qualifications as that of her husband, Dr. Arunkumar Gupta. There is another entity called "Dr. Sohanlal Gupta (HUF)" in which all the abovementioned persons are members. The entire family was residing at Bathinda, Punjab, upto mid-July 1991. Because of the terrorist activity in the State of Punjab, they moved to Bombay in 1991, where the appellant has been running the aforesaid sex and health and beauty clinics. Her family members have also been working with her as salaried employees.She has set up three branches of her sex and health clinic in Mumbai.The first one was set up at Borivali in 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. Complainant- Manik alias Gangajirao Zugara More has filed this complaint against Rajasthani and Gujrathi Charitable Foundations Poona Hospital and Research Centre-O.P.No.1 and also against Port Trust Hospital, Wadala, Mumbai-O.P.No.2 alleging medical negligence on their part in respect of treatment given by both hospitals to his son-Mahendra More. 2. According to the complainant, Mahendra slipped off his motorcycle on Sinhagad Road at about 10.30 p.m. on 23/02/1997. One passerby took him to Madhukar Hospital on Sinhagad Road and since his son has having head injury, he was brought to Poona Hospital/O.P.No.1 and admitted in the said hospital. He was admitted in Intensive Care Unit (I.C.U.) of O.P.No.1 and necessary treatment was given. According to the complainant, his relative used to wait day and night outside I.C.U. to monitor the health of Mahendra. Necessary medicines, injections and equipments were brought. His son was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)70ITD330(Mum.)
1. A group of migrants, in the aftermath of partition, led by Mr.Parmanand Deepchand Hinduja came and settled in Bombay. They felt the need for medical care. These persons banded together and on account of their efforts, a small outdoor clinic was opened in December, 1951. In February, 1953, the clinic was converted into an indoor hospital with 30 beds which was progressively increased to 70. In 1954, the persons who started the clinic in a small way, formed a society which was named the "National Health and Education Society". It was registered under the Societies Registration Act on 13th April, 1954. In 1963 a new 100 bed hospital was commissioned in the same plot of land. Gradually this 100 bed hospital increased its activities and in 1972 ventured into medical research. The research institution also came to be recognised by the Government of India. The name of the hospital, after the advent of the research centre, was changed from National Hospital to "P.D.Hinduja National Hospita...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: 1. Petitioner has filed these four petitions under section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for interim measures. The respondents have raised various issues which are common in all the four matters. By consent of parties, all the four matters are heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Some of the relevant facts of the above four matters are as under : Arbitration Petition No.290 of 2014 (a) Respondent no.1 is borrower. Respondent no.2 is a guarantor to the loan obtained by respondent no.1. The respondent no. 3 and 4 are the debtors of respondent no.1 and 2 and have been joined as parties to secure the claim of the petitioner against respondent no.1 and 2. (b) On 31st December, 2011 the petitioner and the respondent no.1 and 2 entered into a loan agreement. Petitioner granted loan of Rs.28,35,000/- to the respondent no.1 and 2 on the terms and conditions described in the said agreement. Respondent no.1 executed demand promissory note on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2008Bom88
ORDERS.J. Vazifdar, J.1. This is the plaintiffs application for leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.2. The questions that arise in this case fall into two categories. The first is whether leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent can be granted after the plaint is not only presented under Rule 1 of Order IV but is also admitted and entered in the register under Rule 2 of that Order of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The second is whether the plaintiff is entitled to leave under Clause 12 even assuming the first question is answered in the affirmative. I have answered the first question in the negative and the second in the affirmative.FACTS3(A) It is admitted that the plaint was presented on 29-9-2004 that it was admitted on 10-12-2004 without leave having been sought or obtained.(B)(i) The defendant took out Notice of Motion No. 745 of 2005 raising a preliminary issue of jurisdiction under Section 9(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and for a declaration that this C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1.By this petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 petitioner seeks an order of injunction restraining the respondent in any manner utilizing the amount of Rs.14,59,19,989/- received by the respondent from encashment of the bank guarantee and for a direction to the respondent to secure the petitioner to the extent of the said amount by depositing the same in this court. The respondent has raised a preliminary objection about territorial jurisdiction of this court to entertain, try and dispose of the present petition filed under section 9 of the Act in its affidavit in reply. This court has thus directed both the parties to address this court on the preliminary objection raised by the respondent. Some of the relevant facts on this issue are as under: 2. By Piece Rate Work Contract executed on 16th June, 2010 at Chennai by and between the petitioner and respondent, the petitioner was awarded the project of construction of automotive test tracks at GARC, Chen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2006Bom231; 2006(4)BomCR311; 2006(3)MhLj438
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The defendant has taken out this Chamber Summons for revocation of the leave granted by me by an order dated 26-10-2005 under Clause XII of the Letters Patent to file the present suit against the defendant in this Court.2. The suit is filed to recover a sum of Rs. 28,61,938/- together with interest at 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation for the goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff raised invoices in respect of the said sales. The supply however was made pursuant to a contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant as pleaded in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the plaint.3. Neither, counsel made an application to lead evidence. Mr. Kutty, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, confined his submissions in support of his case that the leave was granted correctly only on the basis of the contract having allegedly been entered into in Bombay. Mr. Tulzapurkar, the learned Senior cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(2)BomCR537
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The learned Single Judge while dismissing Notice of Motion No. 2455/2000 with regard to prayer (a) taken out by the Vessel m.v. 'Sea Success I' and her owners S.S. Shipping Corporation Inc. in Admiralty Suit No. 32/2000 has referred to the Division Bench the following question for its decision:'Whether a claim for unpaid insurance premia in respect of a ship amounts to 'necessary supplies' within the meaning of section 5 of the Admiralty Courts Act, 1861 so as to constitute maritime claim?2. The aforesaid question is also involved in Appeal No. 739/2000 arising out of Notice of Motion No. 1376/1998 in Admiralty Suit No. 30/1998 and, therefore, both the aforesaid appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Besides the aforesaid question common to both appeals, there are distinct and separate issues involved which we shall deal with at an appropriate stage.3. At the outset, we may observe that we afforded extensive hearing to the learne...
Tag this Judgment!