Mumbai Court May 2004 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.
Pacific Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. East India Hotels Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR330; 2005(1)BomCR427
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. 1. The Civil Revision Application impugns the order of a learned Single Judge of the Small Causes Court at Bombay, rejecting the Petitioner's application for the unconditional withdrawal of R.A.E. Suit No. 503/952 of 1999 filed by it against the Respondent and another Defendant.2. Mr. Jagtiani submitted that the impugned order is not capable of being revised by the Small Causes Court. The question of law that therefore falls for consideration is whether an order rejecting an application to withdraw a suit unconditionally is capable of being revised by the Small Causes Court under Section 29(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Bombay Rent Act'). I have come to the conclusion that it does. A consideration of this question necessitates a consideration of a question of law of general importance. It is, whether, as contended by Mr. Jagtiani, only those orders that relate to recovery of possession, or...
Rasilaben Kantilal Kansara and Madhusudan B. Kocha Vs. Sumitra Amritla ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR275; 2004(3)MhLj1090
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. This Chamber Summons relates to the time for making payment of the balance of the purchase price, in view of the order dated 23rd February, 2004, passed by this Court, whereby applicant's offer was accepted and sale of the flat bearing No. B/21 at Sea-Gull Apartment, 4A, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai, was confirmed for an amount of Rs. 55,00,000/-, being the highest offer received on that date. The sale was conducted under the Rules and Conditions of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules (for short 'High Court Rules.')2. The applicant, in pursuance to the said order has already deposited Rs. 13,75,000/- being 25% of the aforesaid purchase price with the Court Receiver on 23rd February, 2004, and the sale of the said flat was confirmed on usual terms and conditions, which provided for payment of balance purchase price within four weeks from the date of confirmation of the sale by this Court. The case of the applicant herein is that he was expecting a large paym...
Maharashtra State Financial Corporation and Etc. Vs. Devidas K. Virkar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Bom323; I(2006)BC367; [2005]123CompCas423(Bom)
ORDERAnoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard advocates for both the parties, on preliminary submissions.2. Petitioner, Maharashtra State Financial Corporation (for short MSFC) has filed present miscellaneous petition for recovery of its debts, against respondents by invoking provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short SFC Act) The modes of recovery of dues are provided under the SFC Act.3. Parties have confronted with the Judgments delivered by our Court as reported in : 2003(4)BomCR271 (Rebello, J.), Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Ltd. v. Naresh Kunjilal Gupta and unreported judgment in Miscellaneous Petition No. 13 of 2000 Maharashtra State Financial Corporation v. Jai Bharat Leather Industrial Co-op Producer Society Ltd. and others (R. J. Kochar, J.) on 12th October, 2000. The preliminary submission revolve around the following issue whether Miscellaneous petition for recovery of dues against defaulting borrowers, by the Finance Corporations, under the SFC Act, n...
Tanba S/O Nusaji Mahajan Vs. Pandhari S/O Nusaji Mahajan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR325; 2004(6)BomCR782; 2004(4)MhLj109
S.T. Kharche, J. 1. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the unsuccessful plaintiff has filed this second appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 21st December, 1990 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 132 of 1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby the appeal came to be dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 22-7-1987 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff seeking relief of declaration of easement of way has been confirmed.2. Brief facts are required to be stated as under :The plaintiff and the defendant are real brothers and they are in all five brothers by name; Pandurang. Tanba (plaintiff), Kishna, Pandhari (defendant) and Bhagwan. It is contended that the joint family of all the brothers owned agricultural land which was the subject matter of partition. The agricultural lands were divided by metes and bounds by the partition dated 22-3-1976 and each brother were allotted respective s...
Central Bank of India Vs. Keshaorao Narayanrao Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC259; 2004(6)BomCR791; 2004(4)MhLj788
S.T. Kharche, J.1. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant Central Bank of India has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29-3-1990 passed by the learned District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 153/1988 whereby the appeal came to be dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 8-4-1988 directing the defendant to pay Rs. 42,000/- with interest @ Rs. 12% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation, was confirmed.2. Brief facts are required to be stated as under :The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 42,000/- with interest against the defendant on the contentions that the plaintiff is owner and the landlord of the building situated on plot No. 1 Survey No. 30/1 at Umarkhed. He contended that the defendant-Bank was inducted as a tenant in this building on the monthly rent of Rs. 2,550/-. The defendant-Bank did not pay the rent for the period Septembe...
Udaipur Distilleries Co. Ltd. Vs. O.D. Mohindra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Bom)230; [2004]271ITR84(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The compulsory purchase order passed by the appropriate authority under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been challenged in this petition mainly on the following grounds. Firstly, it is contended that the order passed Under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is bad in law. Secondly, it is contended that the order passed Under Section 269UJ of the Income-tax Act on February 22,1990, declining to rectify the wrongful deduction of Rs. 5,06,200 from the total consideration is bad in law. Thirdly, it is contended that in view of the failure on the part of the Central Government to pay the said consideration amount of Rs. 5,06,200 within the time stipulated under the Act, the order passed Under Section 269UD(1) of the Act stands abrogated and the immovable property purchased Under Section 269UD(1) stands revested in the petitioner as per Section 269UH(1) of the Act. Accordingly, it is submi...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ganesh and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2004
Reported in: II(2005)ACC462; 2005ACJ551
P.B. Gaikwad, J. 1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, filed present appeal challenging the award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and I/C Judge, Labour Court, Latur, dated 16.3.1999 in Workmen's Compensation Application No. 95 of 1997.2. The facts in nutshell, leading to the present appeal, are that:Truck bearing registration No. MHQ 2581 belongs to opponent No. 1 Vithal Manaji Boyane, r/o Kava, Tq. and District Latur, It was further claimed that the said truck was insured with original opponent No. 2 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., through its Branch Manager, Latur. The applicant, the present respondent No. 1, Ganesh s/o Narayan Pitle was engaged by opponent No. 1 Vithal Manaji Boyane as cleaner on the said truck on the monthly salary of Rs. 2,000 along with bhatta of Rs. 25 per day. It was further claimed that on 21.10.1996, the applicant was on duty as cleaner on the said truck. It was further alleged that on 21.10.1996 in the evening, the ...
Mr. Rajendra Thacker Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)BomCR1; (2004)106BOMLR598
R.S. Mohite. J.1. These two writ petitions seek to prevent the proposed regularisations of several unauthorised constructions in Mumbai city. Since both the petitions are filed in public interest, arise out of a common background of facts and involve the same questions of law, they are being heard and disposed of together.2. A brief chronology of the relevant facts is as under :(a) According to the petitioners they learnt from Newspaper reports that 154 buildings had been erected in an irregular manner by committing violations of the provisions of the Development Control Rules. These violations were mostly in the R-ward and K-ward of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, comprising of areas in Dahisar, Borivali, Kandivali, Andheri and Bandra. From the facts available, the petitioners noted that a few architects were responsible for these violations and that there was a nexus between the officers of the Bombay Municipal Corporation and these few architects, in as much as, on noticing the ir...
Udaipur Distilleries Co. Ltd. Vs. O.D. Mohindra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-2004
Reported in: [2004]140TAXMAN267(Bom)
ORDER UNDER SECTION 269UDPrinciple of natural justicePursuant to statement under Chapter XX-C in Form No. 37-I filed by petitioner and P , the order under section 269UD was passed on 29-8-1989 and possession of property taken on 13-9-1989 and apparant consideration was paid on 27-9-1989. The said property was auctioned on 23-3-1990 and auction purchaser was put in possession of said property on 8-6-1990. However, the instant petition was filed in July 1990 inter alia on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice. Held : On the date of filing of instant petition, not only the transaction between the petitioner and the Central Government was completed but even the property purchased by latter was auctioned and auction purchaser was put in possession, therefore, the case of the petitioner would clearly fall within the category of concluded transactions and hence, the validity of order passed under section 269UD(1) on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice wa...