Mumbai Court June 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.
Deepak Dhansing Patil Vs. Girish Damodar Deo and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR589; 2005(5)BomCR134; 2005(3)MhLj1009
S.A. Bobde, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith.Mr. Ketkar waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents.Heard by consent.2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order rejecting his application for dismissal of the suit on the ground of jurisdiction. The petitioner-defendant has sought eviction of the respondents-plaintiffs on the basis that the petitioner is a gratuitous licensee vide para 2 of the plaint at Exh. 'A'. On these averments, they have sought a declaration that the defendants are gratuitous licensees and their license be terminated and revoked.3. This suit is admittedly filed in the Court of Small Causes at Pune. It is a settled law vide Ramesh D. Mehra v. Indravati D. Mehra, 2001(4) M.L.J. 483 : 2001(4) B.C.R. 417 that a suit against a gratuitous licensee will lie only before a Civil Court and not the Court of Small Causes in view of Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882.4. Having regard to the settled position in law that the question of juri...
Feroze Homi Duggan Vs. Jean N. Duggan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR12; 2005(6)BomCR310; 2005(3)MhLj1140
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present application has been taken out for striking out the amendment which has been carried out pursuant to an order passed by the Appeal Court on 24-6-2004 in Appeal No. 228 of 1997.2. The sole ground on which the present application is made is that the amendment has been verified not by the petitioner himself but it has been verified by the constituted attorney of the petitioner and the constituted attorney is not entitled to verify the petition which has been filed by the petitioner because the grant which has been sought in the petition is not a limited grant but the full grant.3. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant in support of the chamber summons has inter alia relied upon the provisions of Section 241 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and High Court (Original Side) Rules 379 and it has been contended that a constituted attorney can only apply for a limited grant. Once the present petition is converted for full grant by petitioner himself bein...
Liverpool and London Steamship Protection and Indemnity Association Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR17; 2005(6)BomCR278; 2005(3)MhLj1050
S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present motion has been taken out for the appointment of Commissioner for recording evidence in the suit as also it has been prayed that the evidence of one witness namely Ms. Lynn Cook who is staying in Liverpool, United Kingdom be recorded on video conferencing. The affidavit in support of the application states that that the said witness is unable to come to India for recording her evidence because she is staying along with two minor children. The present motion is taken out under Order 26, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Advocate appearing for the defendant No. 1 opposes the present notice of motion and contends that this Court could not exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Order 26, Rule 5 and appoint the Commissioner. In any event, he submits that the evidence should not be recorded by video conferencing. It has been contended in support of the argument that the demeanour of the witness is essential to be noted by the Court while examini...
Kashinath S/O Ramkrishna Chopade Vs. Purushottam Tulshiram Tekade and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR519; 2005(6)BomCR267; 2005(4)MhLj471
S.T. Kharche, J.1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 18-7-1989 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 92 of 1985, whereby the appeal came to be dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 18-12-1984 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., in Regular Civil Suit No. 31 of 1981 has been confirmed and it was declared that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit site which is described by letters A-3, A-4, A-12, A-2 and A-3 in the suit map Ex. 32. The defendants were also directed to deliver the vacant possession of the suit site described by letters A-3, A-4, A-12, A-2 and A-3 in the suit map Ex. 32 after removing the construction from it with further direction that if the defendant fails to remove his construction over the above described suit site, the plaintiffs would be entitled to get it removed at their own costs...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Diwakar S/O Daulatrao Rohankar an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC254; 2007ACJ215; 2006(1)ALLMR321; 2005(6)BomCR284; 2005(4)MhLj773
S.T. Kharche, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties finally.2. This appeal can be disposed of at the admission stage itself because the question of law that arises for consideration is, whether the Insurance Company is liable in a case where the death occurs by travelling in a goods vehicle?3. Mr. Pophaly, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company contended that the accident occurred on 5-2-1993 at about 1.30 p.m. at village Sukli. The deceased female child Swati of the age of 11 years was travelling by sitting on the mud guard of the motor vehicle, i.e. tractor bearing registration No. MH-27/A-2354 owned by respondent No. 4 and driven by respondent No. 3.4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation in view of the decisions of Supreme Court in New India Assurance Com. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, AIR 2002 SCW 5259, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajit Kumar, 2003 (3) T.A.C. 273 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd...
Kirit Chandrakant Dhruv Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(186)ELT275(Bom)
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the Respondent.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.Learned Counsel for the Respondent waives service. By consent taken up for hearing.2. By this petition the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 29th April, 2005 passed by the Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Customs and Central Excise, Mumbai. We have perused the order dated 15th April, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court sitting on the Criminal Jurisdiction in Criminal Application No. 1348 of 2005, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the matter is notified for hearing on 23rd June, 2005 before the Settlement Commission and the learned Judge has also adjourned the matter to 24th June, 2005, so as to enable the settlement proceedings to as completed on 23rd June, 2005.3. Shri Kantawala for the Petitioner strongly contends that the Respondent had deliberately got the above matter preponed before the Settlement Commission and got the ...
Sanjay Sampatrao Gaikwad Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-2005
Reported in: II(2006)ACC424; 2006ACJ656; AIR2005Bom409
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Since common questions of law and facts arise in both these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.3. In both these appeals the Railway Claims Tribunal by its order dated 25th and 26th of July, 2001 had allowed the applications filed by the appellants herein and had been awarded with the compensation for the injuries suffered by them on account of violent attack in the form of stone-throwing by the strangers towards the moving trains through which they were travelling as the passengers. The compensation was awarded holding that the incident to be an untoward incident within the meaning of the said expression under Section 24A read with Section 123(C ) of the Railways Act, 1989, hereinafter called as 'the said Act'. The Tribunal had also awarded interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the applications, besides the costs. The Orders of the Tribuna...
Satish Dalichand Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Bom442; 2006(1)BomCR922
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. The appellant challenges the order dated 2nd November, 2001 passed by the learned single Judge in the First Appeal No. 1192 of 2001. By the impugned order, the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 8th June, 2001 passed by the Trial Court on preliminary issue of limitation was dismissed while confirming the order of the Trial Court and holding that the suit filed by the appellant was barred by the law of limitation.3. Few facts relevant for the decision are that the appellant claims to be monthly tenant of a suit shop) situated on the ground floor at Gulab Baug, Laxmi Bazar, M.G. Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai. Undisputedly, he is in possession of the said premises. A notice under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1888, which is now called as the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, hereinafter called as 'the said Act', came to be issued to the ...
Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-2005
Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT1109Tri(Mum.)bai
1.1 Appellants is an assessee under Central Excise Act 1944 having an EOU. The issue involved in this case is valuation of the goods cleared from an EOU to Domestic Tariff Act (DTA) after obtaining the permission of Development Commission and within the DTA quota: 1.2 Vide a notice dtd 1.5.2000 it was proposed to recover duty amounting to Rs. 10,60,813/- on clearances of goods effected in DTA during the period December 1999 to March 2000 to a buyer, on the grounds - i) The buyer, M/s Khandelwal Agencies, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as Khandelwal for short) was a related person in terms of section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and sale price of Khandelwal should be therefore be the assessable value. ii) The additional duty was recoverable under rule 9(2) and penalty under rule 173Q was called for 1.3 After hearing the appellant, the lower authority confirmed the duty demands & imposed penalty of Rs 2500/- ; CCE (A) upheld the order, and hence this appeal. a) the penalty impos...
Megabytes International Pte. Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-2005
Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT89Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants herein who had supplied citric acid from China to M/s. Marsina Enterprises, Thane, are aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva, rejecting their request for re-export of the goods on the ground that the importer failed to retire documents and to make payment to the bank and failed to fake delivery of the goods which were therefore shifted to customs bonded warehouse.3. We find that the adjudicating authority has recorded detailed findings as to why the appellants' request cannot be entertained, as under :- "From the facts on record., it is evident that the goods, in question, were shipped from XINGANG, CHINA vide bill of lading No. CISNNSA 300407 dated 21-6-2002, to Nhava Sheva, India. The B/L mentions following details : Issued by M/s. CHINA SHIPPING CONTAINER LINKS CO. LTD.(1) Shipper : Shanxi Dimine International Trading Co. Ltd.(2) Consignee : To order of Bank of India, Singapore(3) Notify party : Megabytes International Pte. Lt...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »