Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. This appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Amendment Act, 2015) (with effect from 23 October 2015) by the Appellant/Original (Purchaser) Petitioner, as the learned Single Judge rejected Section 9 application filed by the Petitioner thereby refused to grant any protective order/injunction for short against the Respondent (Seller) from assigning, selling, transferring, alienating and/or creating third party rights, title or interest in respect of the two barges or parting with possession thereof in favour of any other person so described in Exhibit M to the petition. 2. The issue of jurisdiction, as stated to be raised specifically, however, not decided and dealt with on 25 February 2016 when Section 9 application was rejected finally. The Respondent applied for Speaking to Minutes. By order dated 2 March 2016, it is recorded as under: 5. Hence, the following line to be added in paragraph 6 in second last li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally. 2. The Appellant (original Respondent) has challenged judgment dated 9 June 2015 by invoking Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Arbitration Act ). 3. The learned Judge, by impugned judgment/order, allowed Section 34 Application filed by the original Claimant/Respondent and passed the following order : The impugned award dated 4th May 2012 in so far as the issue of jurisdiction rendered in paragraph 17.1 (i) of the impugned award holding that the arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the claimant's claim for the sum of USD 37,505.60 claimed in the invoices listed in Annexure B of the request for Arbitration dated 20th July 2010 is set aside. Rest of the award is upheld. No order as to costs. At the request of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, operation of the order passed today is stayed for a period of two weeks from today. 4. The learned Judge has recorde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. On 8th September, 2015, a Division Bench of this Court hearing Income Tax Appeal No. 989 of 2015 and Income Tax Appeal No. 991 of 2015 was unable to agree with the view taken by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Orient (Goa) Private Limited reported in 3 Vol. 325 Income Tax Reporter Pg. 554. It, therefore, came to the conclusion that judicial discipline demands that instead of taking a contrary view it should request that a larger bench be constituted so as to resolve the disagreement. It, therefore, directed the Registry to place the papers and proceedings of the two Appeals before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice so as to obtain suitable directions for placing the following question of law for opinion of a larger bench. Q. Whether, while dealing with the allowability of expenditure under section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the status of a person making the expenditure has to be a nonresident before the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. This is an Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Arbitration Act"), filed by the Appellants-Petitioners, thereby challenging Judgment and order dated 22 December 2015, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby Chamber Summons No.905 of 2013 filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 5, (Original Respondent Nos.1 to 5) is allowed and revoked the leave granted to the Appellants under Clause XII of the Bombay High Court (Letters Patent) Act, 1866 (for short, "the Letters Patent Act"), by holding that "this High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the Arbitration Petition" filed by the Appellants under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. 2. The Appellants and the Respondents and their relations with each other and the Companies in question are described in the Appeal. "Appellant No.1 and Respondent No.1 are brothers. Appellant No.2 is the wife of Appellant No.1 and Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are the Directors of Res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By this chamber summons, the applicants (original respondent nos.1 to 5) seek revocation of the leave granted by this Court on 31st July 2013 to the original petitioners under Clause XII of the Letters Patent to institute and prosecute the proposed petition in this Court against the respondents on various grounds. 2. Though the applicants have applied for revocation of the leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, Dr.Sathe, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants without going into the issue as to whether any such leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent was required to be obtained by the petitioners or not, contends before this Court that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the Arbitration Petition No.1036 of 2013 filed by the petitioners under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Arbitration Act?) and thus leave granted by this Court be revoked. For the sake of convenience, parties descri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') challenges the order dated 6 July 2000 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal'). The impugned order of the Tribunal disposes the revenue's appeal for the block period 1 April 1986 to 12 September 1996. 2. This appeal was admitted by this Court on 29 July 2002 on the following substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- as 'on money' receipt in the period from 1986 to 1989, was without jurisdiction, patently illegal and invalid, there being no evidence or material in support? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the third member of the Tribunal erred in holding that he is bound to accept the view of one of the two members inspite of the fact that he has a third view? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in not allowing any ded...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short Arbitration Act?) the petitioners have impugned the arbitral award dated 17th July 2015 passed by the arbitral tribunal dismissing the claim filed by the petitioners. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 2. The petitioners were the original claimants whereas, the respondents were the original respondents in the arbitral proceedings. The petitioner no.1 is an association of persons consisting of Jain individuals situated at Nashik and is operative in Nashik. The respondent no.1 is a Federation of all the Jain groups located all over the world. The petitioner no.1 is also a Member of the respondent no.1. The respondent no.2 was the President of the respondent no.1 for the period 2014-15. The respondent no.3 was the Vice President of the respondent no.1 for the tenure of 2014-15. The petitioner no.2 is a Member of the petitioner no.1. The respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
(For convenience, the various sections in the official copy of this judgment begin on new pages, and portions of some section-ending pages may therefore be blank. This is deliberate and is to be ignored.) CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...................................................................................4 CHRONOLOGY.......................................................................................8 ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMERS....................................................... 18 CTR™S PATENT....................................................................................24 THE DTL TENDER SPECIFICATIONS ............................................32 CTR™S CASE IN INFRINGEMENT.................................................... 33 THE CONTESTING EXPERT OPINIONS......................................... 36 SCHEMATICS.......................................................................................40 COMBINATION PATENTS and MOSAICING.................................
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. In all these petitions, common questions of fact and law are raised and, therefore, they can be disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. 3. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India involve a challenge to the orders of Medical Council of India (`MCI') and Maharashtra Medical Council ('MMC') against Petitioners/Doctors for breach of professional code of ethics. 4. We would take the facts in two petitions so that the principal arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the Respondents can be appreciated. Facts i n Writ Petition No.562 of 2014 (O.S.) : 5. In Writ Petition No.562 of 2014, the Petitioner-Dr. Shashikant Patel is a citizen of India. He is registered as a medical practitioner with Respondent no.2 MMC bearing registration no.47177. The Petitioner was appointed as a Professor of Anatomy by the medical college namely Melmaruvathur Adiparasakthi Insti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By this petition filed under Sections 46 and 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Arbitration Act), the petitioner seeks a declaration that the arbitral award dated 8th June 2011 is enforceable as a decree of this Court and seeks payment of cost. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the laws of Italy and has its registered office at Italy. The respondent is a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at Mumbai. 3. Some time in the year 2005, according to the petitioner, the petitioner and the respondent were introduced to one another by Mr.Enzo Fiorentino who was the agent of the respondent in Italy. It is the case of the petitioner that in the month of December 2005, a meeting took place between the representatives of the petitioner and the respondent in Naples, Italy at which it wa...
Tag this Judgment!