Mumbai Court July 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.
Naiknaware and Associates and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)MhLj488
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. Writ Petition No. 9165 of 2003 is filed by the firm of builders called Naiknaware & Associates from Pune. They have challenged a notice dated 20.9.2003 issued by the Pune Municipal Corporation on the basis of Government of India Notification dated 16.6.1992. By this communication they were required to stop their construction activity.2. Writ Petition No. 5279 of 2005 was filed by one Mr. J.M. Lunawat who also is a builder in Pune. He has challenged the communication dated 8.7.2004 whereby he was informed that his application for grant of No Objection Certificate and sanction to his building plans cannot be granted. This circular was issued on the basis of notification dated 16.6.1992. He has therefore challenged that notification also. In fact, he has challenged the earlier circulars issued by the respondents. Then there are several interlocutory prayers. Basically the challenge is to the notification dated 16.6.1992 and contentions raised in favour of the petition...
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mr. Shabbir M. Attarwala Hu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ2860; 2006(5)BomCR102; 2006(6)MhLj473
J.H. Bhatia, J. 1. Rule. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.2. Facts leading to the filing of this petition are briefly stated as follows:A motor accident had taken place on 5th May 2003 wherein one Farida Shabbir, aged about 35 years, who was proceeding on her scooter, was knocked out by a Dumper and in that accident, the said Farida Shabbir died leaving behind her husband, one minor daughter and one minor son. They filed an application being Application No. 1798 of 2003 before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as the 'MACT'), seeking compensation. The offending vehicle/Dumper was owned by respondent No. 4 and was insured with the petitioner-Insurance Company. In spite of service, respondent No. 4 did not appear to contest the matter. The petitioner contested the petition by filing a Written Statement, whereby the petitioner also sought liberty under Section 170 of the Motor V...
Adolfo John Carvalho Vs. Elias Fernandes and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR485; 2006(5)MhLj772
Desai Ranjana, J.1. The petitioner had filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 165 of 2004 against the State of Goa, Deputy Director of Panchayat, Village Panchayat of Merces, The Secretary, Village Panchayat Merces, Panjim Planning Development Authority and M/s. Mark Builders (respondents 1 to 6 respectively) complaining about various illegalities committed by respondent 6 therein - M/s. Mark Builders. It was the case of the petitioner that M/s. Mark Builders had made construction in violation of approved plans and construction license. Details of the alleged illegalities were set out in the petition.2. The petitioner had averred in that petition that after noticing the illegalities committed by M/s. Mark Builders, the petitioner by complaint dated 12.6.2003 brought them to the notice of the Panchayat, in terms of Section 66 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'the said Act'). It was his case that as per section 66 of the said Act, the Panchayat is bound to take actio...
State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Court ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR267; 2007(1)BomCR205; 2006(5)MhLj838
B.R. Gavai, J.1. Since the facts and the law points involved in these three petitions are common, same are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. By way of present petitions, the petitioners challenge the common judgment and order passed by the learned Industrial Court dated 9th March, 1994, thereby allowing the complaints filed by the respondent No. 2 herein-original complainants.3. The respondent No. 2 in these writ petitions who are employees of the petitioners, had filed Complaint Nos. 122/86, 123/86 and 126/86, under Section 28 read with Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act' for the sake of brevity). It was alleged in the said complaints that the complainants were initially appointed as Mazdoor on daily wages by the present petitioners. It was further alleged that the complainants were brought on Converted Regular Temporary Employee (hereinafte...
Laxmi Travels Vs. G.E. Countrywide Consumer and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC422; 2006CriLJ3704
ORDERAnoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 4-4-2006, passed by the Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), 5th Court, Aurangabad, whereby, an application filed by the complainant was rejected, thereby, it has been held by the Court that the J.M.F.C., Aurangabad has jurisdiction and authority to entertain and decide the complaint in question.2. The basic transaction between the parties took place at Nagpur. The parties are residing at Nagpur. The cheques are also presented at Canara Bank at Nagpur. As it was bounced, the endorsement also made by the Canara Bank at Nagpur. However, the complainant had issued notice of demand from Aurangabad and as there was no compliance of the same, the present complaint has been filed at Aurangabad.3. Both the parties have relied on K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, reported in : 1999CriLJ4606 . The Apex Court while considering the scheme of Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) and specially Sections 138, 139 and 118 o...
Shri Manjit Singh S/O Moolsingh Sethi Vs. Maharashtra Assembly, Mahara ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)MhLj834
V.M. Kanade, J.1. The Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is seeking appropriate writ to quash the impugned order dated 11th/12th April 2006 whereby the petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment of 90 days for the breach of privilege by the petitioner.FACTS:2. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this Writ Petition are as under:3. The petitioner is a citizen of India and President of Fight for Right Bar Owners' Association, Mumbai. A decision was taken by the Government of Maharashtra imposing a ban on the Dance Bars in various hotels in Mumbai. A meeting was organized by the Dance Bar Girls Association and it is alleged that the petitioner was invited to attend the meeting. Large number of bar girls attended the said meeting. A news item appeared in daily 'Sakal' in its issue dated 31/3/2005. In the said news-paper, a report was published under the caption of 'Wives of the Ministers shall not be allowed to ...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rama S/O Dnyanoba Shinde and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1105; 2007(3)BomCR379; 2006(6)MhLj177
A.H. Joshi, J.1. This appeal is listed for final hearing. It is seen that this Court (Division Bench - R.J. Kochar and A.D. Mane, JJ.) admitted this appeal on 7-9-1998. It is seen that substantial question of law as required by Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act has not been framed.It is seen that first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 30 reads as follows:30.Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and, in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in Clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees:2. The learned Advocate for the appellant was therefore called upon to address on the point of substantial question of law. The learned Advocate urged that ground Nos. 2 and 8 involves substantial question of law.3. After hearing the parties in view of the fact that the appeal is already admitted by Division Bench, this Court frames follow...
Hanmanth S/O Bhimrao SaThe Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR691; 2006(6)MhLj249
S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. The agricultural lands, situated at village Makni, taluka Omerga, district Osmanabad, were acquired by the State for public purpose i.e. of Lower Terna Project. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1894' for short), was issued on October 30, 1980. After following the procedure laid down under the provisions of the Act of 1894, undisputably award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 was passed on February 20, 1982. The compensation was offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, by issuing notice under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 to the persons interested. The amount of compensation was received under protest by the persons interested, and thereafter had filed applications for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. These applications were transferred by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the learned District Judge at Osmanabad and in turn, they were made over ...
Western (i) Shipyard Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Service Tax
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-2006
Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC246
1. The appellants are registered as a ship repair unit and have entered into agreement with the Board of Trustees of the port of Mormugao under which the port has licensed the appellants to use certain portion of land and water within the port area for the purpose of providing newly built floating dry dock and for ship repairing within the said premises on payment of licence fee of Rs. 96 Lakhs per year. The ship repair activity of the appellant in the port area were considered to fall under the category of port services and since the appellants have not registered themselves with the service tax authorities nor paid any service tax a demand was raised and confirmed against them for an amount of Rs. 7,11,18,000/- along with interest and a penalty of Rs. 99,000/- was imposed for the period 16-7-2001 to 31-3-2004.2. The learned advocate Shri Hidaytulla for the appellants invited our attention to the decision of Tribunal in the case of Homa Engineering Works v. C.C.E. - 2006 (1) S.T.R. 1...
Kesari Steels Ltd., Kotdwar Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-2006
Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC327
2. These three appeals involve identical question as such they are being disposed of by common order, though the appellants are different parties.3. The appellants are said to be High Seas buyers of Heavy Melting Scrap which is freely importable goods prior to amendment of Foreign Trade Policy. The Foreign Trade Policy Public Notice No. 16/2004-09 dated 15.10.2004 as amended by P.N. No. 18/2004-09 dated 21.10.2004 & P.N.No. 30/2004-09 dated 27.12.2004 & P.N. No. 51/2004-09 dated 31.10.2005, as per Para 2.32 of Hand Book of procedures (Vol.I), in case of import of metal scrap in un shredded, compressed or loose form, the exporter shall furnish following documents to the Customs at the time of clearance of the goods - i) Pre-shipment inspection certificate as per the format in Annexure I to Appendix 28 from any of the Inspection & Certification agencies given in Appendix-28 to the effect that: a) the consignment does not contain any type of arms, ammunition, mines, shells, c...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »