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.
KevIn George Vaz Vs. Cotton Textiles Exports Promotion Council
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR555
Dharmadhikari S.C., J.1. This chamber summons has been taken out by the original defendant for the following reliefs:(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the award/judgment dated 6th August, 2004, passed by the Labour Tribunal, Hong Kong, is not conclusive as to any matter therein and that the same has been passed in violation of the provisions of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an appropriate order of permanent injunction, or such similar order/s or direction/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, to restrain the plaintiff from acting upon, or taking any steps in pursuance or furtherance of the award/ judgment dated 6th August, 2004, passed by the Labour Tribunal, Hong Kong;(c) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to withdraw the warrants of attachment:(i) On the ownership premises of the defendant situate at Cecil Court, 4th Floor, 26, Mahakavi Bhushan Marg, Mumbai 400 039;(ii) On moveable property of the defendant lying ...
Shalinibai Wd/O Trimbakrao Begde and ors. Vs. Narayan S/O Harnaji Bhal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR369; 2006(6)MhLj752
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned advocate for the appellants, the respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5. None present for the remaining respondents though served.This appeal arises from the Judgment dated 28-1-1987 passed by the learned Single Judge in First Appeal No. 88/1967. The learned Single Judge while allowing the said first appeal has set aside the decree of dismissal dated 1-2-1967 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur in Special Civil Suit No. 16/1965.2. The trial Court had dismissed the suit on merits as well as on the point of limitation, whereas the learned First Appellate Court held the suit to have been filed within the period of limitation and further directed partition of the land with direction to defendants to put the plaintiff in possession of his half share in the suit property and further direction for enquiry regarding the mesne profits.3. Few facts relevant for the purpose of decision are that : The property bearing Survey Nos. 57, 58, 60 and 158 ha...
Dunlop India Ltd. and ors. Vs. S.K. Laul and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-2006
Reported in: (2007)208CTR(Bom)280; [2007]288ITR315(Bom)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the rival parties. Perused the petition. Facts:2. The petition is directed against the order dated June 29, 1992, passed by the appropriate authority under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. The petitioners have also challenged the constitutional validity of the said section. Mr. Mistry submits that in view of the apex court judgment in the case of C.B. Gautam v. UOI reported in : [1993]199ITR530(SC) , the issue regarding constitutional validity of Section 269UD does not survive since it has already been decided and the validity of the legislation is upheld by the apex court. He, however, submits that while confirming the constitutional validity, the apex court read down the provisions of Section 269UD of the Income-tax Act. Hence the acquisition of the property under Section 269UD has to be in consonance with the principles of natural justice.Submissions:4. Mr. Mistry submits that the petitioners would be entitled for an opportunity of hearing...
Narsinnghrao Shivaji Dharmaji Industrial Home for the Blind Vs. Suresh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR333; 2007(3)BomCR709
Karnik D.G., J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 30th April 2005 passed by the Divisional Welfare Officer, Mumbai in an appeal against the order of the petitioner dated 12th June 1999, terminating services of the respondent.2. The petitioner is a charitable trust established in the year 1917 or thereabout. Late Mr. Narsingrao Shivaji Dharmaji settled a sum of Rs. 80,000/- upon the trust for carrying out charitable objects like rehabilitation of visibly impaired persons in the society. After the enactment of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (for short 'the BPT Act') the petitioner was registered as a public charitable trust. The petitioner is running a school for giving vocational training to the visually impaired persons. Since the year 1990 or thereabout, petitioner has been receiving grant from the Government. The grant is sanctioned under the Government Physically Handicapped Special School Code (for short 'the Code') framed by the government in the year 198...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›