Mumbai Court November 2007 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.
Commissioner, Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and anr. Vs. Fairdeal Con ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ARBLR312(Bom); 2008(1)BomCR403; (2008)110BOMLR20
ORDERS.A. Bobde, J.1. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether the order in question made by the Sole Arbitrator dated 23.11.2005 is an executable award.2. The order in question declares that the respondent is entitled to certain payments without a specific direction to the applicants to pay the sums to the respondent.3. The respondent has instituted a claim of money against the applicant -Kolhapur Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the 'applicant'. 4. The claim arises in respect of a contract for collection of octroi on the entry of goods within the limits of Kolhapur city in or about 1995-96 whereunder the respondent was appointed as an agent for such collection. There were some disputes between the parties and, therefore, the agreement with the respondent was terminated. The respondent then invoked Clause 19 of the Agreement which provided for arbitration and one Dr.Nitin Kareer was appointed as an Arbitrator to decide the dispute. The Arbitra...
Smt. Nutan Damodar Prabhu Wife of Damodar S. Prabhu and Shri Damodar S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: III(2008)BC588; (2007)109BOMLR2779; 2008(1)MhLj889
N.A. Britto, J.1. Does the learned JMFC, Margao has territorial jurisdiction to try the Complainant's complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881? 2. That is a short question for consideration before this Court, in this petition filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Code (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) challenging the order dated 13/08/2007 of the learned JMFC, Margao. 3. Heard learned Counsel on behalf of both parties. 4. The facts are hardly in dispute. The accused have only disputed the Complainant's allegation that the Complainant had advanced loan in cash of Rs. 63 lakhs at Margao. There is no dispute that the Complainant as well as the accused reside within the jurisdiction of the JMFC, Panaji. The subject cheques bearing No. 24112 dated 16/11/2004, and bearing No. 24111 dated 19/11/2004, for Rs. 30 lakhs each were given by the accused to the Complainant drawn on Bank of Goa, Ltd., Santa Cruz Branch, which is also situated within the juris...
Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Tulsiani ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR146; 2008(2)BomCR226; [2008(116)FLR656]; (2008)IILLJ239Bom; 2008(1)MhLj178
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. In First Appeal No. 844/2004, the appellant is a Corporation incorporated under Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, 'ESI Act'). The respondent is a Co-operative Society incorporated and registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 having its registered office at Tulsiani Chambers, 212, Nariman Point, Bombay 400 021.2. On 2-4-1986 an Officer from the appellant visited the respondent's premises for inspection. On 8-9-1988, the appellant sent a letter to furnish complete and correct information in respect of the respondent-society. On 4-1-1989, the appellant issued a letter to the respondents reminding them of the unpaid dues. On 5-1-1989, the appellant's officer visits the respondent's premises to verify the records.3. On 10-1-1989, the appellant issues a letter to the respondents informing them that they are covered by the ESI Act and requesting immediate compliance. On 17-1-1989 a show cause Notice by the appellants issued to the re...
Pharma Base India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR374; [2008(116)FLR815]; (2008)IILLJ401Bom; 2008(2)MhLj462
Bhosale D.B., J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Ms. Purav, learned Counsel waives service for respondent No. 3. By consent taken up for the final hearing.2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to an order dated 9.8.2007 rendered by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act') by which the Appellate Authority has allowed the application filed by respondent No. 2 holding that the appeal is not maintainable as the same was not filed within the time stipulated under Section 7(7) of the Act. The petitioners had challenged the order dated 5.10.2006 passed by the controlling authority on the Application bearing (PGA) No. 3 of 2005 filed by respondent No. 2, by which the petitioners were directed to pay an amount of Rs. 13,75,000/- as gratuity payable to respondent No. 2.3. The questions that arises for my consideration in the present writ petition is whether an appeal under Sub-section (7) of Section 7 of th...
Chandrapur Aushnik Vij Kendra Karmachari Path Sanstha Vs. Divisional J ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR282; 2008(1)MhLj895
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. Heard respective counsel appearing in both the matters. These petitions can conveniently be disposed of by this common judgment.FactsWrit Petition No. 3211 of 2007:1.1 In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the appellate Order dated 25-6-2007 made by the respondent No. 1. The petitioner Society, taking recourse to bye-law No. 40 of the Society, issued notices to respondents No. 3 to 6 asking for their explanation as to why they should not be removed for not attending consecutive six meetings between 24-6-2006 and 14-10-2006. The respondents No. 3 to 6 did not reply to the communication asking them to show cause and instead, they filed dispute on 17-10-2006 in the Co-operative Court praying that the meeting to be held on 18-10-2006 in which there was a proposal to remove them from the Managing Committee was to be discussed be declared illegal but they did not get any order from the Co-operative Court for stay of ...
Nandkishor Laxminarayan Mundhada and ors. Vs. Dwarkadas Murlidhar Mund ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ990
ORDERC.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the criminal complaint as well as F.I.R. registered by the police against the present applicants.2. One Deokaran left behind him his wife Bhagirathibai and sons Laxminarayan and Murlidhar. Deokaran died in the Year 1979 and before he died he had executed a Will whereby he bequeathed his property in favour of his wife Bhagirathibai. It is alleged that Bhagirathibai died in the year 1994 leaving behind her two sons i.e. Laxminarayan and Murlidhar. It is alleged further that before she died she had executed a will on 17-1-1994 whereby she bequeathed the entire property in favour of her grand son Nandkishor son of Laxminarayan. Nandkishor, therefore, instituted a suit against his uncle Murlidhar, Murlidhar's son and the daughters of Bhagirathibai. Even Nandkishor's father Laxminarayan was also party to the suit bearing Civil Suit No. 48 of 1995. In the said civil suit Nandkishor c...
Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State Vs. N.H. Polymers
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: (2008)13VST73(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The respondents are in the business of manufacturing synthetic adhesives and textile binders. They applied to the Commissioner of Sales Tax for determination of rates of sales tax in respect of items as enumerated in the application. The Commissioner of Sales Tax by an order dated January 31, 1998 held that the items are covered by entry C-II 152, the residual entry liable to sales tax at 13 per cent. The respondents preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 36 of 1998 before the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai. By an order dated August 31, 2002, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and held that the items as enumerated in para No. 3 hereinabove are covered under entry C-I and thus liable to sales tax at four per cent.2. The applicant herein, thereafter applied by Reference Application No. 122 2 of 2002 to the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal to frame the questions of law and refer them to this Court. By order dated June 15, 2005, the Tribunal rejected the said Reference ...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mangal Shrikant Chaudhari and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ2174; 2008(2)ALLMR106; 2008(1)BomCR575; 2008(3)MhLj321
Kingaonkar V.R., J.1. This first appeal is finally heard and is being disposed of at the stage of admission.2. The insurer challenges award rendered by learned Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambajogai, whereby respondents, who are legal representatives of deceased owner of motor cycle (user of the offending vehicle), have been awarded compensation.3. The facts are few. There is no dispute about the fact that a motor cycle bearing registration No. MH-23/G 9445 was owned by deceased Shrikant. The motor cycle was insured with the appellant at the time of alleged accident. On 7.1.2002 deceased Shrikant was riding on the motor cycle while going to village Sarni from Ambajogai. The motor cycle reached near a village, on the way, and while negotiating a curve suddenly struck a she-buffalo, which came in front, on the road. The motor cyclist - Shrikant was thrown off. He sustained head injury and other multiple injuries and became unconscious. He was shifted to S.R.T.R. Medical Coll...
Shree Precoated Steels Limited Vs. Macsteel International Far East Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)BomCR681
Vazifdar S.J., J.1. It would be convenient to deal with both the notices of motion by a common order as the facts involved therein are the same.2. Defendant No. 1 is a company based in Hongkong and also has an office in Mumbai, India. Defendant No. 2 is MSTC Limited, a Government of India enterprise.3. The plaintiff has sought a declaration that there is no contract between defendant No. 1 and itself in respect of two sets of documents, I will shortly refer to. The plaintiff has also sought a declaration that defendant No. 1 is not entitled to claim from it any amount by way of damages or otherwise under the said documents. The plaintiff has further sought a perpetual order and injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from claiming any amount under the said documents and from proceeding further with the proceedings filed by defendant No. 1 in the High Court of Judicature, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, Royal Court of Justice in the United Kingdom.4. Notice of Motion No. 3472 o...
Ashok Layland Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: (2008)(124)ECC135
1. The issues in these appeals are inter- connected and the appeals are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of Commercial Motor Vehicles, Chassis & Parts thereof falling under Chapter 87 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are availing the benefit of modvat credit of excise duty paid on tyres, tubes and flaps (inputs) falling under Chapter 40. During the scrutiny of RT.12 returns filed by the assessee for the month of November 1999, it was observed that they had availed irregular credit of Rs. 8,11,950/- vide RG 23A Entry dated 29.11.1999.While returning the inputs, the assessee paid excise duty in excess; M/s. CEAT tyres had raised a debit note dated 28.4.1998 for the excess duty paid; the assessee had suo motu availed credit in Nov. 1998; reversed the same on 28.5.1999; and once again took suo motu credit on 29.11.1999. The department was of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »