Mumbai Court March 2005 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.
Laxman S/O Tukaram Vs. Smt. Bendrabai Wd/O Tukaram Karwate and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR339; 2005(3)MhLj506
K.J. Rohee, J.1. These two appeals have arisen out of the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 209/1984 allowing the appeal and decreeing Regular Civil Suit No. 618/1982 for partition and separate possession. In order to appreciate the controversy, it would be better if the parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendant.2. One Tukaram Karvate had three wives viz. Narmadabai, Janabai and Bendrabai. Padminibai is the married daughter of Naramabadai. Narmadabai predeceased Tukaram. Tukaram died on 9-3-1955 leaving behind him two widows viz. Janabai and Bendrabai and daughter Padminibai (the daughter of predeceased wife Narmadabai). Tukaram left behind him agricultural land, house and movable property described in Schedule A attached with the plaint. Soon after the death of Tukaram, Janabai adopted Laxman on 18-6-1955 with the consent of her co-widow Bendrabai. At that time Laxman was about 3 years old. Janabai died on 17-2-1981.3. Bendrabai an...
Philips Employees Union Vs. P.T. Jagtap and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR406]; (2005)IILLJ954Bom
1. Rule is issued on both petitions. Respondents waive service. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.2. These two petitions have been filed on behalf of the employees who had accepted Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) under a Memorandum of Settlement dated December 10, 2001. Writ Petition No. 3112 of 2004 has been filed by the recognised Trade Union whereas Writ Petition No. 3175 of 2004 is filed by some of the employees who have accepted VRS under the Settlement dated December 10, 2001. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the petition are Additional Commissioner of Labour and State Government and Respondent No. 3 is the company. By the said Memorandum of Settlement it was, inter alia, agreed that the benefits stated therein were inclusive of any benefits available under Mumbai VRS 2001 Scheme which were to be formulated as per the Settlement dated December 10, 2001. It is the grievance of the petitioners that there was shortfall in payment of VRS amounts and the employees were paid le...
Carl Estate Private Limited and anr. Vs. Jagdish J.N. Counte and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR630
Britto N.A., J.1. These appeals are filed by both the parties in Special Civil Suit No. 45/99 against the Judgment/Decree dated 27-4-01 of the learned First Addl. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa.2. The parties hereto are hereinafter referred to in the names as they appear in the Cause title of the said Civil Suit.3. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a written agreement styled as an agreement for construction and sale, dated 13-4-96. By virtue of this agreement the plaintiff agreed to purchase from the defendant a flat admeasuring 88 sq. mts. For a price of Rs. 5,50,000/- A sum of Rs. 4,00,000 /- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant by cheque dated 13-4-94 by way of earnest money and the balance amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was to be paid at the time of delivery of possession of the said flat which was to be completed not later than twelve months from the date of the agreement.4. However, the plaintiff got out of the said agreement. The entire controversy in the suit i...
Shri Sai Sewa Shikshan Mandal Ramtek and anr. Vs. Presiding Officer, S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR415; 2005(6)BomCR225
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. On 27-1-2003, the Hon'ble Apex Court has in Civil Appeals Nos. 624, 625 and 626 of 2003, directed the High Court to decide writ petitions expeditiously. The respondent employees in all these writ petitions accordingly moved applications for grant of fixed date hearing, which were listed before this Court for the first time on 24-1-2005. The applications were considered in presence of both the parties and writ petitions were heard thereafter on merit from 24-2-2005 onwards. Hearing continued for almost six dates.2. In all these writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner No. 1 Institution and petitioner No. 2 school are challenging the judgment of the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur, dated 6-4-1999, whereby the School Tribunal has quashed and set aside the termination of services of employees and has ordered their reinstatement from 29-6-1991 with back wages and costs.3. The Advocate for the petitioners contends ...
Petrofils Co-operative Ltd. and Vs. Industrial Development Bank of
Court: DRAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC112
1. Both these appeals can be disposed of by this common order as issues involved in both the appeals are same, parties are same and submissions made therein by all the Advocates are also identical.2. Both the appeals are filed by the appellants/original defendants being aggrieved by the order dated 3.2.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Original Application No. 166 of 2001. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer dismissed the application taken out by the appellants praying for direction to the applicant Banks to produce on record the requisite documentary evidence to show that they had obtained necessary clearance from the Cabinet Committee constituted for the purpose of giving clearance to the dispute before agitating the same in a Court/ Tribunal. It was further prayed that pending production of the documentary evidence, an ex parte order passed by the learned Presiding Officer against them, be forthwith vacated.3. I h...
Rakesh Ramani Vs. Ito
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Reported in: (2006)5SOT547(Mum.)
This miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is arising out of order dated 26-2-2003 passed in IT (SS) A. No. 11 /M/2002 pertaining to block period 1-4-1989 to 16-7-1999. The assessee prays for rectifying the order of the Tribunal on the ground that certain mistakes have crept in the order. Before we come to the particulars of mistakes pointed by the learned counsel, it would be proper to narrate the brief facts of the case.A search action was carried out under section 132 of the Income-Tax Act 1961. One suitcase was found in the possession of assessee, as per Panchnama dated 16-7-1999. This suitcase contained the jewellery of the value of Rs. 36,90,453. On 16-7-1999, Rakesh Ramani, assessee, and his employee Shri Bharat were found by the Police at Ernakulam having possession of the said jewellery. At that time, the assessee failed to adduce any documentary evidence, explaining the source of acquisition and could not account for jewellery found in the said suitcase.Therefore, ...
The Regional Director Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Homa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR625; [2006(108)FLR671]
ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Mehta for the appellants and Mr. Gelani for the respondents. This appeal is filed by the Regional Director Employees' State Insurance Corporation Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'the ESI Corporation') against the order of the Employees Insurance Court Mumbai dated 6th May 1998 in Application (ESI) No. 138/1988. That was an application filed by the present respondents for a declaration that they are not liable to pay contribution as claimed by the corporation for the period in question and that orders of the opponents/Corporation dated 15/9/1987 and 13/9/1988 directing the applicants to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,61,000/- and odd and Rs. 9,161/- and odd were illegal and invalid. The contentions of the applicants/respondents were accepted by the Insurance Court and their application was allowed and necessary declaration was given and, therefore, the Corporation has filed and preferred this appeal.2. The claim and contention of the applicants/respond...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ace Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR598; (2005)195CTR(Bom)1; [2006]281ITR210(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. This appeal filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('I.T. Act' for short) by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai City-II, Mumbai was admitted on the following substantial question of law : ' Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 54E in respect of the capital gain arising on the transfer of a capital asset on which depreciation has been allowed and which is deemed as short term capital gain under section 50 of the Income-tax Act, 1961' 2. The assessment year relevant herein is AY 1992-93. 3. The respondent [hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'] is a private limited company. The assessee was a partner in a firm called M/s.D.Manekji and Associates. The said firm was dissolved in the year 1984 and the assessee was allotted a flat against the balance standing to its credit in the capital account with the firm. The assessee had shown...
Prasadnagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR430; 2005(3)BomCR478; 2005(2)MhLj310
A.H. Joshi, J.1. This is a writ petition by a Co-operative Housing Society. The challenge in the petition can be referred by quoting the prayer Clause (i) thereof.'i) issue a writ of, writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus whereby quash and set aside the Ready Reckoner and the amendment thereto (Annexure-II and III respectively) in respect of the petitioner's layout situated at Jaitala, Nagpur issued by the respondent No. 3 as being illegal and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 300A of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of Bombay Stamp Act, 1958.'2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Society has 122 members to whom one plot each has been allotted, out of which the sale deed of 64 plots has been executed in favour of the allottee members concerned. Sale deed in favour of remaining members is to be executed, however, due to the increased market value and stamp duty, as prescribed by the ready reckoner impugned, sale deed could not be executed.3. All co...
National Bicycle Corporation of India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Ramlakhan Sara ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR370; [2005(106)FLR154]; 2005(2)MhLj980a
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of counsel. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents waives service. By consent, taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. This petition is directed against an order of the Industrial Court dated 31st August, 2004 by which the Industrial Court (i) allowed a complaint under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971; (ii) held that the petitioner had committed an unfair labour practice by retiring the first respondent before he attained the age of superannuation; and (iii) directed the petitioner to pay to the first respondent his salary for the period between 1st January, 1999 and 31st December, 1999.3. The petitioner before the Court is the National Bicycle Corporation of India Limited. Hind Cycles Limited which was run by the Birla Group of Industries had a factory at Worli, Mumbai, in which the manufacture of bicycles and bicycle part...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »