Court : Mumbai
M.S. Sonak, J. 1. Rule. With the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The two petitioners in this petition, who claim to be students belonging to minority community, question the legality and validity of the requirement specified in clause 18(18) of the Information Brochure for admission to Post Graduate Technical Courses for Academic Year 2016-17 (Brochure). The impugned clause requires minority candidates seeking admission to Post Graduate Technical Courses to attach 'Domicile Certificate' alongwith the application form for Centralised Admission Process (CAP). 3. Mr. C.K. Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioners, has made the following submissions: (a) The very requirement of "domicile" in State of Maharashtra in order to be considered against the minority quota in minority institutions within the State of Maharashtra, is ultra vires the provisions contained in Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
K.R. Shriram, J. 1. The Reliance Industries Limited (respondent no.1) and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Jamnagar Gujarat (respondent no.2) entered into a scheme of amalgamation under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act 1956. The provisions of section 391 r/w 394 of the Companies Act required obtaining of an order from the High Court in whose jurisdiction these companies are registered, sanctioning the Amalgamation Scheme filed by both, the transferor, as also the transferee company. The purpose and the object as to why both, the transferor and the transferee company had to obtain order from the court sanctioning the Scheme of Amalgamation is that, such a scheme of amalgamation must bind the dissenting members, as also, all the creditors of both the companies. As per the Scheme, from the appointed date, the assets/undertakings of the transferor company, viz., respondent no.2 was to, without any further Act, instrument or deed, stand transferred to and vested in or deemed to have bee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
P.N. Deshmukh, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. All these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment as substantial question involved therein to a large extent is common. 3. In Writ Petition No.6889/2014, petitioner has challenged order dated 17/1/2014 passed by respondent no.1 Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating his caste claim of belonging to `Mahar' (Scheduled Caste) and prayed for quashing of the same. In Writ Petition No.2591/2014, petitioner has challenged order dated 1/8/2013 passed by respondent no.2 Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating her caste claim of belonging to `Mahar' (Scheduled Caste) and prayed for quashing of the same. In Writ Petition No.6586/2014, petitioner has challenged order dated 4/7/2013 passed by respondent no.1 invalidating her caste claim of belonging to `Korku' (Scheduled Tribe) and prayed for quashing of the same. 4. In nutshell, it is the case of petitioner Badalsingh s/o Bharosa ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging orders revoking their registration as Multi System Operators. These registrations have been granted under the Cable Television Network Rules, 1944 (for short the Rules?). The petitioners are engaged in the business of securing signals from television channels distributed to them through cable operators to the end users. Since the two petitioners carry on identical business, but the facts leading to the revocation of registration of their case are slightly different, we would set out the facts in Writ Petition No. 58 of 2015 firstly. 3. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and operating from the address mentioned in the cause title. It is engaged, inter-alia, in the business of cable distribution service as Mult...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The question involved in these Writ Petitions is whether the sales made and subject matter of the order of assessment in the first Petition are within the State of Maharashtra so as to be taxable under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (for short the MVAT Act?) and therefore the action of the Respondents treating it as such can be said to be ex-facie illegal. Since the point involved and summed up above is common to all the Petitions, for the purpose of the present Judgment, we take the facts from Writ Petition No. 4552 of 2015. It is undisputed that since the controversy involved in these Writ Petitions is similar, common arguments have been canvassed. Hence, we dispose of all the Writ Petitions by this common Judgment. 3. The facts in Writ Petition No. 4552 of 2015 are as under: The Petitioner is registered dealer under the provisions of the MVAT Act and the Central Sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have challenged common order dated 28 May 2015 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee-Respondent No.2, invalidating the caste certificates of the Petitioners as belonging to Thakur-Scheduled Tribe?, issued by the Competent Authority. 3. The case of the Petitioners is as follows: i) On 5 January 1924, father of Petitioner No. 1 and real uncle of Petitioner No. 2 admitted in the primary school and on 9 December 1925, father of Petitioner No.2 and real uncle of Petitioner No.1 admitted in the primary school, where their social status was described as Thakur?. ii) On 6 September 1950, by exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 342 of the Constitution of India, the President was pleased to initially issue the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. As far as the then State of Bombay was concerned, the relevant portion is to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Arbitration Petition No.1359 of 2010 and the Arbitration Petition No.1360 of 2010 are filed by the petitioner under Sections 47, 48 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for declaration that the foreign awards both dated 16th February 2010 are enforceable as decrees of this Court and for direction to enforce and/or execute the said two awards as decrees in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. 2. Chamber Summons Nos.639 of 2011 and 638 of 2011 are filed by the petitioner in the arbitration petitions respectively for an order and direction to the respondent to disclose the details of various assets, all pending litigations, list of all creditors, debtors etc. and for furnishing security in favour of the petitioner, for an injunction and for attachment of the assets. 3. Notices of Motion No.373 of 2013 and 374 of 2013 are filed by the respondent inter alia praying for dismissal of the Arbitration Petition Nos.1359 of 2010 and 1360 of 2010 respectively. No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
A.K. Menon, J. 1. By this appeal, the revenue has proposed the following questions to be substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the payments of wheeling and transmission charges made by the assessee to entities like Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited (MSETCL) and Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (PGCIL) for the use of transmission lines or other infrastructure i.e. plant, machinery and equipment could not be termed as rent under the provisions of section 194I of the Act and consequently the provisions of sections 201 and 201(1A) could not be applied? (b) Without prejudice to the above, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, payment of WT charges to entities like MSETCL and PGCIL should have been treated as fees for technical services and tax should have been deducted at source u/s.194J of the Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. Almost 20 years ago, on or about 5th June 1994, there was a collision at the port of Marmagoa, Goa between m.v.Sanjeevani owned by the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant vessel owned by the 2nd defendant. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the collision was entirely due to the negligence and total and wanton dis-regard to good seamanship, collision regulations and other principles of safety and navigation by those manning the 1st defendant-vessel. The plaintiffs are claiming a sum of Rs.13,33,70,000/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. on the said amount. 2. The defendants filed written statement and counter claim on 30.4.1996, almost 19 years ago, in which it is alleged that the incident of collision was caused by acts or omissions of the plaintiffs-vessel m.v. Sanjeevani and her complement. In the alternative it is claimed that the incident was occasioned by act of God and/or perils of the sea. The defendants are counter claiming for a decree in the sum of Rs.10,95,330/- with inte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Common Judgment: (A.P. Bhangale, J.) 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. Facts in Writ Petition No.1907 of 1998 : 2. On or about 13.3.1981, the petitioner/Company was awarded a Contract bearing no. W.188.C.360 with the respondent/Railway to supply two lakh ten thousand units of Monoblock Prestressed Concrete Sleepers (hereinafter referred as 'MPCS units') to the Railways. The respondents had enhanced the above order by further two lakh MPCS units of 60 KG specifications. The petitioner/Company manufactured and supplied the MPCS units and have received payments from the respondents. On 24.9.1990, the respondent awarded the first repeat order for manufacture and supply of 7,50,000/- (seven Lakh fifty thousand) and 82,000 (eighty two thousand units) inclusive of adhoc orders sanctioned by Railway Board vide letters dated 10.5.1989 and 7.12.1989. Accordingly, the petitioners have manufactured and supplied MPCS units. 3. On 24.3.1995, further repeat ad hoc order of one ...
Tag this Judgment!