Mumbai Court June 2006 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.
Smt. Housabai Pandurang Tawar Vs. Subhash Shripati Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR537; 2006(5)MhLj765
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the relevant documents on record. 2. Admit. 3. Mr. Sadavarte waives notice for respondents. 4. As short question is involved, appeal is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent. 5. This Appeal from Order takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the II Additional District Judge, Kolhapur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 74 of 2004 dated August 11, 2005, whereby the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the Appellant came to be set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the Trial Court with direction to frame the issue as to whether the plaintiff is/was an agriculturist and refer the said issue to the revenue authorities. The Trial Court is further directed to refer issue No. 4 framed by the Trial Court as to whether defendants prove that the sale deed of the year 1967 is barred by the provisions of the Bombay Prevention Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, to be decided b...
Babu Rasul Mujawar Vs. Sadashiv Govind Hazare and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Bom305; 2006(4)BomCR539; 2006(5)MhLj768
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Admit. 3. Mr.Lagu waives notice for respondents. 4. As short question is involved, appeals are heard forthwith for final disposal by consent. 5. These appeals question the correctness of the Judgment and Order passed by the Appellate Court dated 27th August, 2005 in Regular Civil Appeal Nos.101 of 2001 and 159 of 2003 respectively. Both these appeals have been disposed of by common Judgment. 6. Briefly stated, the respondent No. 1 is the owner in respect of the suit land. A Mortgage deed was executed some time in 1968 with regard to the suit land in favour of the appellant. While the said Mortgage deed was subsisting, agreement to sell the said land came to be executed in favour of the appellant in the year 1975. Later on, on 23rd September, 1996, the respondent owner filed suit for redemption of mortgage deed being R.C.S.No.275/96. During the pendency of the said suit, the appellant filed suit for specific performance being R.C....
Dilip S. Dahanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. and State of Maharashtr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2006
Reported in: III(2007)BC132; 2006CriLJ3653; 2006(5)MhLj257
D.B. Bhosale, J. 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. The respondents waive service. By consent, rule is heard forthwith. 2. These three petitions have given rise to a short yet important question that whether the appeal court on presentation of an appeal against the order of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the Act') has power to direct payment of compensation, awarded by the learned Magistrate, in whole or any part thereof, as a condition for suspending substantive sentence. 3. In all the three petitions, the orders impugned are similar. In the first two writ petitions, the learned Addl.Sessions Judge has directed the petitioner-accused to pay five lacs rupees within four weeks as a condition precedent for suspending the substantive sentence of SI for one month and compensation quantified as Rs.fifteen lacs under Section 357(3) of the Criminal procedure Code (for short, 'the Code'). In the third petition an amount of Rs.three lacs has been directe...
Shri Arun V. Subhedar Vs. Shyamacharan Bhagwati Prasad Tiwari and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR542; 2006(6)MhLj92
D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waives service. By consent of Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The First Respondent instituted a declaratory suit, RAD Suit No. 918 of 2000 before the the Court of Small Causes for a declaration and injunction. The suit was instituted in respect of an open space admeasuring 10' x 10', described as being next to Shop Nos.8 and 9, abutting on N.S. Road, Pandurang Niwas, Mulund (West), Mumbai. According to the First Respondent, the suit premises were let out to him in the year 1965-66 on a monthly rent of Rs.162/-. The suit was instituted on an apprehension that the Petitioner, the original Defendant, was attempting to get the premises vacated by recourse to unlawful means. An application for interim relief was moved before the Trial Court. By an order dated 7th March 2001, the Learned Trial Judge discharged the interim notice and...
Shiv Shyam Sales Enterprises. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Two ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR193
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioner a Partnership Firm dealing in Gas Hot Plates as importer and retailer has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the orders dated 17th January, 1989 passed by the respondent No. 2 Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Administration - I), Nagpur Division, Nagpur whereby the said authority has upheld the tax liability of the petitioner for two different periods and has set aside the orders under Section 62 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act passed on 5th August 1988, directing refund of the tax amount already paid by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner states that the establishment of petitioner is registered under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, and he has been filing return regularly. He has filed return for the period 25.10.1984 to 21.11.1985 and, it is the case of the petitioner that he is not liable to pay sales tax on sale of gas hot plates being purchased from out of Ma...
Rajendra Dattatraya Sawarkar and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR20; 2006(44)MhLj113
D.D. Sinha, J.1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner No. 1 is seeking direction to respondents to consider the case of petitioner for grant of appointment on the compassionate ground in view of the Government Circular dated 22nd October, 1990 as well as Government Resolution dated 26th October, 1994, on the ground that the petitioner No. 2, who is the father of petitioner No. 1, was prematurely retired from service.2. It is submitted that petitioner No. 2 was serving in Class III category with Respondent No. 3 and in the year 1987 he was compulsorily retired from service w.e.f. 1-10-1987. It is contended that Petitioner No. 2 himself on 26-2-1991 submitted an application to the respondents for grant of appointment on compassionate ground to petitioner No. 1. However, the respondents did not take any steps pursuant to the said application and therefore, petitioner No. 1 on 15-4-1994 submitted another application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground to the concerned ...
Rbi oers Optees Association Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2006
Reported in: [2006]286ITR241(Bom)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. Perused petition.3. This petition is at the instance of an unregistered association, formed by the employees of the Reserve Bank of India, who have opted to retire under the 'Optional Early Retirement Scheme' (OERS) framed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).4. The petitioner-association has challenged the letter dated October 20, 2005 issued by the first respondent holding that the exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not allowable with respect to ex gratia payment made to the employees of the Reserve Bank of India who have opted to retire under the 'Optional Early Retirement Scheme', since the scheme did not conform to the provisions of Rule 2BA of the Income-tax Rules.5. The petitioner-association is also seeking directions against the Income-tax Department not to initiate action against the employees in view of the alleged exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Act available to the members of the association wi...
Morarjee Gokuldas Spg. and Wvg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Chandrakant Dhopate and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)BomCR395; [2006(111)FLR944]; 2006(5)MhLj655
D.G. Karnik, J.1. By this petition the petitioner-company challenges the judgment and order dated 12th December, 2000 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, dismissing its revision application against the order of the Labour Court.2. Respondent No. 1 (for that the respondent) was employed initially as a clerk by the petitioner company by a letter dated 22nd December, 1971. The respondent was made permanent as a punch operator in the E.D.P. Department on 12th June, 1972. The respondent was then promoted as an Input Output officer on 1st July, 1986. On 15th February, 1995 the petitioner terminated services of the respondent. The respondent challenged the termination of his service as an unfair labour practice falling under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short 'MRTU & PULP Act'). The petitioner resisted the complaint made by the respondent of unfair labour practice under item 1 of schedule IV o...
Natrajan Chandran Vs. Apna Sahakari Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)BomCR407; 2006(5)MhLj778
D.G. Karnik, J.1. The petitioner is a member of the Royal Industrial Co-operative Society Limited (for short 'the Society') and has been allotted Gala number C-16 in the said Society. The society has also issued a share certificate in the name of the petitioner by virtue of which the petitioner is entitled to possess the said gala. In common parlance, the petitioner is the owner of Gala number C-16.2. It appears that the petitioner intended to sell the said Gala number C-16 and the respondent No. 2 firm of which the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 at the relevant time were the partners desired to purchase the same. A memorandum of understanding was executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 in August, 1989. The memorandum states that the petitioner would sell the Gala number C-16 to respondent No. 2 for a consideration of Rs. 9 lakhs which was to be paid in three instalments. Clause (9) of the memorandum specifically states that the parties were to execute a formal agreement of sale ...
Jagannath Vishnu Kore Vs. Kamalabai Maruti Kumbhar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ691
A.S. Oka, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. I have also heard the learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 as well as respondent No. 4. These three appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment as the same arise out of a common judgment delivered by the learned Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sangli in three claim petitions filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.2. The present appeal is preferred by the original opponent No. 1 in a claim petition who is the owner of the truck bearing registration No. MXL 5543. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in First Appeal No. 181 of 1991 are the original claimants. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in First Appeal No. 182 of 1991 are the original claimants and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in First Appeal No. 184 of 1991 are the original claimants. The other parties of the appeals are the driver of the truck and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The truck was allegedly insured with the said insurance compa...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »