Mumbai Court May 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.
Motibagh Co-operative Housing Society Limited and anr. Vs. Pune Munici ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Bom304; 2005(3)ALLMR27; 2005(4)BomCR549
Bobde S.A., J.1. The petitioners in both these petitions are owners of land situate at Yeravada, Pune, within the limits of Pune Municipal Corporation, Motibagh Co-operative Housing Society Limited is owner of land admeasuring 83 areas bearing Survey No, 152/1 and final Plot No. 70/3. Udaysing Narayanrao Borawake, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2890 of 1993, is the owner of an adjoining piece of land admeasuring 46.304 sq.ft. bearing Survey No, 152/2.2. Both the plots of lands are covered by the same Town Planning Scheme. They are in the residential zone. They are reserved for parking. The Planning Authority has changed the reservation of both these plots. That reservation has been changed for the purpose of a bus terminus of the Pune Municipal Transport Corporation. This change of reservation is challenged in these petitions. These petitions, therefore, have been taken up together for disposal by this judgment.3. The lands belonging to the petitioners have undergone various chang...
Nirmala Manherlal Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR893; 2005(5)BomCR206; 2005(3)MhLj829
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The petitioner entered into an agreement with M/s Diamond Creek dated 19th July, 1980. By that agreement M/s Diamond Creek agreed to acquire, assign and transfer all the benefits of the Agreement dated 13th November, 1978 between M/s Unique Enterprises (India) and M/s Diamond Creek together with right to occupy, enjoy and possess the premises. The price was set out. The transaction was to be completed within 15 days of the Agreement. The petitioner lodged the agreement with the Collector for an endorsement whether the document was properly stamped. On 5th March, 2003 the petitioner received a demand notice by hand delivery informing that the agreement submitted was impounded under Section 32 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. The petitioner was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 87,200/- as stamp duty and Rs. 1,74,000/- as penalty, thus aggregating to a sum of Rs. 2,61,600/-. It is the case of the petitioner that she informed the respondents that th...
Annasaheb Champatrao Gulhane Vs. Managing Director, Maharashtra State ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR203
Kharche S.T., J.1. This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 17-2-2001 passed by the learned 2nd joint Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Nagpur, in Misc. Judicial Case No. 23.9 of 1995, whereby the application of the applicant for setting aside ex parte decree dated 31-1-1995 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 441 of 1990 was allowed under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Mr. Pophlay, learned Counsel, for the applicant contended that the applicant was employed with the defendants/non applicants and he retired from service on 31 -8-1986. Thereafter the applicant was re-employed by issuing an appointment order and his salary remained unpaid from June 1987 to 19-10-1987 amounting to Rs. 26,973,30. He contended that the defendants had appeared in the said suit and filed their written statement on 7-12-1990. However, the defendants had chosen to remain absent and their Counsel had withdrawn his power on 17-12-1992 and consequently the suit was decreed by the 2...
Pravinchandra Dhanjibhai Kotak Vs. Murli Agro Products Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR19; 2005(5)BomCR172; 2005(4)MhLj156
Kharche S.T., J. 1. This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 5-5-2001 passed by the learned 9th Joint Civil Judge, Jr.Dn., Nagpur, in Misc. Judicial Case No. 262 of 2000, where by the application of the original defendant for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 8-8-2000 in Regular Civil Suit No. 458 of 2000 was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 3.000/- under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Mr. Chhabra, learned Counsel, for the applicant contended that the application filed by the defendant for setting aside the ex parte decree has been brought beyond the period of limitation, as the decree was passed on 8-8-2000 whereas the application was filed on 4-12-2000. He contended that the application should not have been registered. In support of these submission, he relied on the decision of this Court in Vijay Prabhakar Salunke v. Kamini S. Dadarkar, : (2001)3BOMLR702 . He contended that the suit summons was served on Ravikumar, who...
Kum. Rujuta A. Borkar Vs. Goa University, Through Its Registrar,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR704
N.A. Britto, J.1. The petitioner, in this petition has taken exception to a part of Ordinance No. 5.15(iv) of Goa University Ordinances on the ground that the same is arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional.The said Ordinance reads as follows :-' (iv) The revised marks obtained by a candidate after revaluation as accepted by the University shall be taken into account for the purpose of amendment of his/her result, if applicable, in accordance with the rules of the University in that behalf, but these marks shall not be taken into account for the purpose of award of scholarships, prizes, medals and/or the order of merit.'As stated above, the challenge is to the underlined portion of the said Ordinance.2. Some basic facts are required to be stated to dispose of this petition.3. The petitioner appeared for final year B.A. Degree course in the year 2003-2004 with English as major subject and secured a third rank, obtaining 504 out of 700 marks. However, the petitioner being dissatisfied w...
Shri Subash G. Narvekar, Ex-Chairperson, Mapusa Municipal Council Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR341
A.P. Lavande, J.1. All these petitions can be disposed of by common Judgment since common question of law is involved in all these three petitions.2. The relevant facts in each of the petitions are as under:WRIT PETITION NO. 116/2001:The petitioner, at the relevant time, was the Chairman of the Mapusa Municipal Council. Pursuant to the Judgment dated 8th June, 1999, passed by this Court directing the State of Goa to refer the complaint to the Goa Public Men's Corruption (investigation and Inquiries) Commission ( hereinafter, referred to as 'the Commission'), the Government referred the complaint to the Commission by way of reference under Section 9(2) of the Goa Pubic Men's Corruption (Investigation and Inquiries) Act, 1988 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act'). Before the Commission, the petitioner raised several preliminary objections. However, the Commission was pleased to reject the same and directed preliminary investigation. Consequently, preliminary investigation into the matt...
Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR311; 2005(4)MhLj485
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Heard Shri Bhandarkar, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Khan, Advocate for respondent No. 2.2. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner - employer challenges the order dated 27-1-1993 passed by the School Tribunal in appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, (hereinafter referred to as MEPS Act), preferred by present respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 complained of termination of his services in violation of provisions of MEPS Act and filed said appeal. The School Tribunal has allowed the said appeal and has directed the petitioner to reinstate him on the post of Assistant Teacher. Though this Court has admitted the petition for final hearing, no interim orders are passed and as such, respondent No. 2, who has been reinstated is continuing in service even today.3. Shri Bhandarkar, Advocate for the petitioner invites attention of ...
Special Land Acquisition Officer (Highways) Vs. Pratapsingh Shoorji Va ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)MhLj301
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present reference is filed by the SLAO under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land sought to be acquired is in respect of area admeasuring about 1982 sq.mts situated at Kanjurmarg, Bombay. The public purpose for which the said land is proposed to be acquired is Jogeshwari-Vikhroli Link Road. On 18-3-1995 a notification was issued under Section 126(2) of the MRTP Act, 1966 and same was published in the Government Gazette on 26-6-1975. The land in question forms part of CTS No. 122(pt) is more particularly located on the eastern side of Central Railway Line between Kanjurmarg Railway Station and Vikhroli Railway station. On 13-3-1975 an award was passed under Section 11 of the LA Act and the SLAO has determined the value of the land at Rs. 20/- per sq.mts after giving various other allowances such as distance and valuation of structure and ultimately an award has been passed in favour of the Claimants for a sum of Rs. 8,00,189.957-. The claimant bei...
American Dry Fruit Stores Vs. Adf Foods Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)BomCR837
Karnik D.G., J.1. This motion is taken out by the plaintiffs for the appointment of a Receiver and for an order of injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner using the registered trademarks belonging to the plaintiff No. 1 firm and from using any other deceptively similar marks so as to pass off the first defendants' goods as of the goods of the first plaintiff.BASIC FACTS2. The plaintiff No. 1 is a registered partnership firm and plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the four partners of plaintiff No. 1 firm. The plaintiffs claim that the plaintiff No. 1 is the proprietor of the suit brand names and the trade marks (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit trade marks') which are the subject matter of the suit. The defendant No. 1 is a public limited company which was promoted by the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 and the defendant Nos. 2 and 3. By a memorandum of understanding dated 6th February, 1992, the first plaintiff and its partners granted a licence to the fi...
Goenka Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-2005
Reported in: (2005)(103)ECC139
1. The appellants filed two Bills of Entry dated 3-12-1998 describing the goods as "Viscose, Rayon, Filament Yarn - Sub-standard, no claim basis of Denierage 50 to 500 and 75 to 120." All the relevant documents were annexed to the said Bill of Entry and the price declared was US $ 2 per kg. (CIF). The goods were subjected to examination and assessed provisionally after enhancing the value to US $ 2.25 per kg. on the ground that the said party had earlier imported identical goods from the same supplier at the rate of US $2.25 per kg.2. Subsequent samples were drawn and sent to SASMIRA for testing the grade of the yarn. As per the test report obtained from SASMIRA the goods were of first quality as against the sub-standard declared by the importer. It was further found by the custom authorities that yarn of first quality grade have been imported by the other importers at higher value ranging from US $ 2.49 to 2.70 per kg.3. Based upon the above facts, the appellants were issued a Show C...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »