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.
Ramesh Silk Mills and ors. Vs. Sheetal D. Kamdar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR494
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. In September 1979, the original landlord instituted a suit for eviction, RAE and R. Suit No. 1230/4235 of 1979, against the Petitioners under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. The ground for eviction that was set up was a default in the payment of rent since 1st December 1978. The premises which form the subject matter of the suit for eviction were transferred to the Respondent by a Deed of Conveyance dated 29th March 1990. The Deed of Conveyance contains a reference to several suits which were instituted by the original landlord against his tenants. Among them the schedule to the Deed of Conveyance specifically refers to the suit for eviction that was instituted against the Petitioners. The conveyance provides that the entire property admeasuring 2289 s...
Sajan Jagannath Nakase Vs. Sandhya Sajan Nakase
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR44
B.R. Gavai, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. Shri Sajjad Hussain, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent.2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gondia in HMP No. 17/2004 below Exh.22 dated 24th October, 2005, thereby rejecting the application of the present petitioner for amendment of the Hindu Marriage petition.3. The petitioner has filed petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage. The ground raised in the said petition is that the respondent-wife was suffering from epilepsy and due to attacks of epilepsy, her behaviour used to be abnormal and that would adversely affect the children of the petitioner from his first wife. After filing of the petition, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the Hindu Marriage petition. By way of said amendment, the petitioner also sought declaration th...
Nilkanth S/O Ramji Akarte Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secret ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR294; 2007(2)BomCR479; 2006(5)MhLj132
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of Mr. V.R. Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. T.D. Khade, learned AGP for the Respondents.2. Mr. Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that on 17.3.1977 the petitioner was appointed in the post of Lecturer in Biochemistry in the Government Medical College, Nagpur. On 25.7.1994 the petitioner was promoted as Professor in Biochemistry and posted at Government Medical College, Nagpur. It is submitted that the petitioner was to be superannuated on 31.7.2006, however, just less than one year before his superannuation, he was transferred from Government Medical College, Nagpur, to Shri Vasantrao Naik Government Medical College, Yavatmal. The petitioner challenged the said order of transfer before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, however, could not get interim relief and therefore, petitioner was relieved by the respondents from Nagpur on 11.8.2005. Therefore, o...
New Woodlands Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Mr. Chandrakant T. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR74
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. The 1st Petitioner herein is a cooperative housing society having its building on Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg (formerly known as 'Pedder Road') in South Mumbai. The 2nd Petitioner is its Managing Committee member.2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the No Objection Certificate dated 19th October 2001 issued by Respondent No. 2 -Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) (constituted under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976) in favour of Respondent No. 7. This N.O.C. permits Respondent No. 7 to demolish his old four storey building 'Govind Niwas' situated behind the building of the 1st Petitioner Society and to construct over there a 18 storey tower for the claimed reason of housing the erstwhile 31 occupants of this building. This permission to demolish and to construct the new building with a Floor Space Index (FSI) of 2.5 is given under the Development Control Regulation (DCR) 33(7) ...
Progressive Education Society and ors. Vs. NitIn Krishnarao Nimabalkar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR165; [2006(111)FLR653]; 2006(4)MhLj747
R.M. S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Admit. By consent, heard forthwith. This appeal arises from the Judgment delivered by the learned single Judge on 22-3-2006 in Writ Petition No. 317 of 1996. The same is sought to be challenged on three counts : firstly, that the learned single Judge failed to consider the fact that one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice was offered to the respondent (No. 1) by Money Order after issuing the order of termination. Secondly, the learned single Judge failed to take note that the Tribunal did not afford the opportunity of being heard in the matter to the appellants/petitioners before the disposal of the appeal, and thirdly, the entire backwages have been ordered to be paid, ignoring the law on the point of grant of relief in that regard. Reliance is sought to be placed in the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Uattar Pardesh State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. and Anr. v. Udai Narain Pandey reported in : (2006)ILLJ496SC .2. Perusal of the impugne...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Rocket Engineering Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
Reported in: 2008(223)ELT347(Bom)
ORDER1. Heard rival, parties.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that following substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court.A. Whether the assessee i.e. the supplier of inputs to the job worker is liable to pay Central Excise Duty on the scrap generated at the job workers end, which is not received back from the job workers within the specified time in terms of Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.3.1986 as amended r/w Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules?B. Whether scrap generated at the job workers end out of the processing of the inputs is required to be returned to the supplier and, if it is not returned back whether the supplier of inputs is required to pay appropriate Central Excise thereon?3. Having heard rival parties and having examined the findings recorded in the order in original, it is not in dispute, that the assessee had paid duty on the scrap generated at the factory of the job worker for the period April 1999 to March 2000. Ther...
Rajlingu Pentu Parkewar Vs. Sayamabai Rajlingu Parkewar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3710; I(2007)DMC396
ORDERAnoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner/husband has challenged the reversal order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloll, dated 3-7-1996, whereby the respondent No. 1's revision application has been allowed and the judgment and order of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Biloli, dated 16-9-1995 was set aside. That resulted into grant of order in favour of the respondent/wife to pay Rs. 400/- per month for her maintenance from the date of application i.e. 11-2-1993.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner basically contends that the respondent being the second wife, she is not entitled for maintenance. The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Biloli, therefore, was correct.3. After considering rival submissions, undisputed position on record is that on earlier occasion the respondent had filed application for maintenance i.e. Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 124 of 1979. The said matter was compromised on 15-7-1972. On s...
Prabhubhai J. Rathod Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)MhLj173
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.2. The present petition arises from the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court on 8-7-2005 in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 39 of 2005 in exercise of powers delegated to him by the Hon'ble Chief Justice under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'. By the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner for appointment of an arbitrator has been dismissed.3. The contention of the petitioner is that the arbitration clause between the parties required appointment of two arbitrators in case the arbitral claim exceeds Rs. 3,00,000/- and that the arbitral claim put forth by the petitioner under his application under Section 11 read with Sections 12, 14 and 15 of the said Act filed before the learned single Judge disclosed the total claim of Rs. 5,48,680/-. It was, therefore, necessary for the learned single Judge to app...
Khatunbi Wd/O Mohammad Sayeed and ors. Vs. Aminabai W/O Mohammad Sabir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR310; 2007(2)BomCR900; 2006(6)MhLj759
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned advocates for the parties.2. This appeal arises from the judgment dated 2nd February, 1988 passed in First Appeal No. 4 of 1978. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has set aside the judgment and decree dated 29-4-1977 passed by the trial Court in Special Civil Suit No. 226 of 1973 and has ordered issuance of preliminary decree for partition of the property, while declaring the shares of the parties and also giving directions for rendition of the accounts from 5-6-1986 till the respondent/plaintiff gets the possession of the 1/7th share in the property.3. Though the impugned judgment and decree is sought to be challenged on various grounds, it is not necessary to deal with all those grounds and suffice to refer to only one ground which relates to non-compliance of mandatory provision of law comprised under Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellate Court while passing the impugned judgment.4. Few facts re...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Modern Denim Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2006
Reported in: (2006)(106)ECC298
1. The issue in dispute in these two appeals filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) is the liability of 100% E.O.U. to levy of additional excise duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, when the goods are cleared into the domestic tariff area. The respondents were extended the benefit of exemption from payment of Additional Excise Duty (AED) in terms of Notification No. 127/84 by the lower appellate authority.2. We have heard both sides. The revenue challenges the order of the lower appellate authority on the following grounds: Notfn. No. 125/84-CE dtd. 26/05/84 pertains to excise Duty Payable under Section 3 of the Act while notfn No. 127/84-CE dtd. 26/05/84 pertains to additional duty of excise payable under Section (3) of the Additional Duty of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. In terms of Section 3 of the Act, excisable goods produced or manufactured in an 100% EOU are liable t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »