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.
Rajkamal Kala Mandir Pvt. Ltd., a Company Registered Under the Compani ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR595; 2008(1)BomCR58; 2008(2)MhLj847
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. This appeal, filed by defendants, is directed against Judgment and decree, rendered by Ad-hoc District Judge-3, Dhule in an appeal (R.C.A. No. 37 of 2006), confirming ejectment decree of trial Court. 2. Subject matter of the dispute is a cinema theatre called 'Rajkamal Talkies' situated at Dhule. Originally, deceased Bansilal Gindodia, a businessman, constructed the cinema theatre and equipped it fully to run business of cinema exhibition. Late V. Shantaram alias Shantaram Vankudre was a noted cine Producer of his times. He was Managing Director of Rajkamal Kalamandir Private Ltd., (defendant No. 1), a company duly registered under the Companies Act, dealing with business of cine production and exhibition. The cinema theatre, with all equipments, furniture and fixtures etc., was let out by Bansilal Gindodia to said V. Shantaram, w.e.f. 1.10.1953 for 15 years. Said V. Shantaram, as a Managing Director of defendant No. 1 (appellant No. 1), executed a lease deed date...
Tulsiwadi Navnirman Coop. Housing Society Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR318; 2008(1)BomCR1; (2007)109BOMLR2493; 2007(6)MhLj851
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. These petitions are placed before the Full Bench after a detailed order was passed in W.P. No. 1326 of 2007 on 27th July, 2007.2. The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as 'Slum Act' for short) came to be extensively amended in 1996-97 and 2001, introducing Chapter I-A therein. That Chapter is entitled 'Slum Rehabilitation Scheme'. Under that Chapter falls Section 3A. This provision is inserted with a view to establish a Slum Rehabilitation Authority (S.R.A. for short) for implementing Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. After this Chapter was introduced in the Slum Act and such Authority became functional for Brihan Mumbai and its suburbs, that the S.R.A. decided to undertake and implement several rehabilitation schemes. The State took notice of proliferation of Slums on public lands and properties. Therefore, it decided to confer wide powers on the S.R.A. so that the public lands are cleared by S.R.A...
Prafulla Maheshwari and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: IV(2008)BC43; 2008(1)MhLj844
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. prays for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 403/SS of 2005 filed by the present respondent No. 2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petition was admitted and by way of interim relief the proceedings in the said complaint pending before learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 21st Court at Bandra were stayed by an ex-parte order dated 3/10/2006. The respondent No. 2, therefore, filed Criminal Application No. 287 of 2007 praying for vacating the ex-parte order of interim relief. By consent of the parties the petition has been taken up for final hearing today.2. The complainant is a Government of India Enterprise and established under the Companies Act, 1956. Accused No. 1 -M/s. Enbee Infrastructure Ltd. is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and accused Nos. 2 to 9 were its Directors / Additional Directors at the relevant time. ...
The State of Maharashtra Through Manikpur Police Station Vs. Dilip Pre ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR2453
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The above confirmation case has been filed by the State of Maharashtra seeking confirmation of death penalty imposed upon the original Accused Nos.1 to 3 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar, by his judgment and order dated 8th September, 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Over and above, the accused have also been convicted for 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In addition the accused have been convicted for 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 452 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Original Accused Nos.1 & 3 have challenged the above judgment and sentence by their Appeal Nos.1086/2006, and the original Accused No.2 has separately filed an Appeal No.156/2007 challenging the same. 3. The brief facts are that one Prabhu and Sushma fe...
Suresh Dadarao Suryawanshi Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Home D ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR830; 2008(1)BomCR100; 2008(3)MhLj389
Naresh H. Patil, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dt. 24-12-2004 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 749/2002. 3. The petitioner was employed as a constable since the year 1962-1963. While the petitioner was working as a police head constable at Latur, in the year 1992 an offence was registered against the petitioner as CR No. 74/92 under the provisions of Section 7, 12, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act of 1988). The petitioner was charge sheeted for the said offence in Special Case No. 4/92. The Special Judge convicted and sentenced the petitioner by judgment and order dt. 9-6-2000. The petitioner was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/-for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act of 1988 and sentence for 1 year with fine of ...
The Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR879; 2007(6)BomCR827; 2008(2)MhLj914
R.M. Savant, J. 1. This Suo Motu Contempt Petition has arisen on amount of the non-compliance by the Respondent no.2 of the directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition nos. 5146 of 2006 and 5376 of 2006 which have been disposed of by judgment and order dated 9/10th August, 2006. The directions issued were in the context of the interpretation of rules that the Division Bench had arrived at in respect of the holding of the meeting to elect the Mayor and Deputy Mayor. In the context of the said interpretation, the Division Bench had issued the following directions:We direct that Secretary-Respondent no.4, in consultation with Respondent no.5, shall convene a meeting for elections of Mayor and Deputy Mayor, in accordance with Rules, 2005. The date of meeting shall be not before 23.8.2005 and in any case, meeting should be conducted before 31.8.2006 and not later than 31.8.2006. It is needless to say that polling should follow after fifteen minutes time gap for with...
Jeroo Dastur and 12 ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Acting Through Asstt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR36; (2007)109BOMLR2285; (2008)IILLJ358Bom; 2008(1)MhLj654
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. 13 petitioners in this petition claim that they joined Standard Chartered Bank, respondent No. 2, at various points of time and served for number of years. They were appointed in the capacity of Clerks and Typists. They are workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The Petitioners had various claims against the management of respondent No. 2 and their claims were turned down. The allegation of the petitioners is that respondent No. 2 had been intimidating its employees to resign failing which it was threatened that they would not be paid their lawful dues. Under this threat held out by respondent No. 2, they were made to sign letters that bartered away the rights vested in them under the law. In order to fight for the legal rights, the petitioners submitted an application before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), under the provisions of the Act for conciliation. Pursuant theret...
Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Hutchinson Max Telecom Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: 2008[9]STR13
ORDER1. A penalty was imposed on the respondent. The respondent aggrieved preferred an appeal. The appeal preferred was dismissed. Aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal before the CESTAT. By an order dated 6-7-2001 (sic) (28-6-2005) 2006 (1) S.T.R. 80, that order was set aside. The Revenue did not prefer an appeal against the said order.2. In the meantime, it appears that exercising his powers the penalty imposed was enhanced. The respondents being aggrieved preferred an appeal and the Tribunal by its order dated 7-12-2005 2006 (1) S.T.R. 271 considering that the earlier order dated 6-7-2001 (sic) (28-6-2005) where the penalty has been set aside, allowed the appeal, considering that the revenue had not preferred an appeal against the order dated 6-7-2001 (sic) (28-6-2005).We find no fault with the order. The question of law as framed would not would (sic) arise. Hence appeal is dismissed....
Jairam S/O Sidheshwar Kancharlawar Vs. Municipal Council and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR113; 2008(3)BomCR905; 2008(2)MhLj300
R.M. Borde, J.1. Heard Mr. S.G. Mundhe, learned Counsel holding for Mr. N. R. Katneshwarkar, advocate for the petitioner, Mr. B. A. Darak, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. S.P. Daund, learned A.G.P. for respondents No. 2 to 6.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties.2. The petitioner, in this petition, claims that the reservation, allotment or designation made by the planning authority in respect of land S. No. 253 situate at Kinwat, belonging to the petitioner, is deemed to have been lapsed by operation of provisions of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, referred to as 'MRTP Act'). The petitioner also contends that in spite of issuing notice under Section 49(7) of the MRTP Act, land of the petitioner has not yet been acquired and as such the said land becomes available to the petitioner for the purpose of development in accordance with the rules and regulations as in the case of adjacent l...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›