Mumbai Court December 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.
Shri Naresh Krishna Gaunekar S/O Krishna Gaunekar, Shri Durgadas Shamb ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR788; 2008(3)MhLj667
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. Rule in Writ Petition Nos. 538 of 2007 and 554 of 2007. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel waive notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent, both these petitions along with Writ Petition No. 426 of 2006 with Misc. Civil Application No. 858 of 2007 therein are taken up for final hearing forthwith and heard finally.2. All the three writ petitions and Misc. Civil Application 858 of 2007 in Writ Petition No. 426 of 2006 raise common questions and hence they are being disposed of by common judgment.3. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 538 of 2007 have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the respondents to reserve seats for the Other Back Ward Communities (for short, 'OBCs') in all the Municipal Councils in the State of Goa including the Municipalities of Ponda and Sanquelim before conducting municipal elections for them. The...
Vitthal Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Through Its Chief Accountant Arun Din ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR158; 2008(2)BomCR71; (2008)110BOMLR120; [2008(117)FLR907]; (2008)IILLJ836Bom; 2008(3)MhLj114; 2009(3)SLJ442(Bombay)
P.V. Kakade, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners seek quashing of impugned order of attachment dated 13.6.2007 as well as attachment warrant and consequent panchanama dated 14.6.2007 issued by respondent No. 1 on the ground that it is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 along with other consequential reliefs. In view of the facts and circumstances, Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent. Heard learned Counsel for respective parties.2. The petitioner No. 1 is a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and is a Co-operative Sugar Factory, namely Vitthal Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana. Petitioner No. 2 is one of the members of the petitioner no.1 sugar factory. Respondent No. 1 is the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, in charge Special Recovery Officer, Aurangabad who is having overall control over the sugar fa...
Smt. Shabana Mohammed Hanif Sorathia Vs. Shri Siddhique Mohammed Khan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR893; 2008(2)BomCR55; 2008(3)MhLj794
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. The deceased respondent No. 1 was the original applicant and was landlord of the suit premises. The present respondents are the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 had filed case No. 35 of 1991 before the Competent Authority (Rent Act) against the present respondent No. 2 Mohammed Hanif is under Section 13A(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act (Hereinafter referred to as 'Bombay Rent Act'). It was his contention that the respondent No. 2 was inducted in the suit premises as licensee for the period beginning from 1-4-1990 and ending with 28-2-1991. He was to pay an amount of Rs. 100/- as a compensation for occupation of the premises. Notice was issued to him on 23rd February, 1991 to vacate the premises on the end of license period. However, respondent No. 2 sought some more time and time was extended till the end of April, 1991. However, he did not vacate the premises and, therefore, on the basis ...
Dnyanopasak Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha Through Its President and Princi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR241; 2008(2)MhLj565
R.C. Chavan, J.1. These four appeals by Management and teachers are directed against a judgment by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.107 of 1994 and 563 of 1994 filed by two teachers of Dnyanopasak Shikshan Prasarak, Manora. 2. Dnyanopasak Shikshan Prasarak, Manora, established an Arts and Commerce College in pursuance of permission granted by the State and Amravati University on 28-2-1986 and 7-10-1986 respectively. In the year 1987-88, the classes of BA Part-I and Part-II were started and in 1988-89, the classes of BA Part-III were added as natural growth. The College was permitted to admit students offering English and Marathi as compulsory subjects, and History, Economics and Political Science as optional subjects. The Management issued an advertisement for appointments of lecturers in subjects for which full-time posts of Lecturers were admissible. These Lecturers were appointed on an year-to-year basis. It is not in dispute that the College has continued the aforesaid c...
Sandeep S/O Hiralal Netke Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)MhLj494
R.M. Savant, J.1. Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.2. This Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order dated 17-11-2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nashik, by which order the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing of Appeal against the order of termination, came to be rejected.3. The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste. The petitioner was appointed on 28-7-1997 as an Instructor in the Board of Vocational Training by the respondent No. 7 Junior College. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Deputy Director of Education and Vocational Training on 17-12-1998. After the petitioner's services were approved, the respondent Management by letter dated 30-3-1998, terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that his work was not found to be satisfactory. The respondent No. 6 and 7 accordingly had issued n...
Kesar Enterprises Ltd. Vs. K.C. Sarangi, Commissioner of Income Tax an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2007
Reported in: (2008)216CTR(Bom)227
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner received a letter dt. 8th Nov., 2006 from the respondent No. 1 that his assessment has to be centralised with the respondent No. 3. The petitioner was informed that under the provisions of Section 127(1) of the IT Act an opportunity was being given to give their say as to whether they have any objection to the proposed transfer. The petitioner replied to the same. Accordingly an order was made for transfer of the case. An application was made styling it as a review of the order dt. 14th March, 2007. A petition came to be filed before this Court being Writ Petn. Lodging No. 1008 of 2007. By order dt. 30th April, 2007 the order of 14th March, 2007 was set aside. However, liberty was given to the respondents to issue proper show-cause notice giving reasons as to why assessee's case should be transferred from Mumbai to New Delhi by following due process, etc., set out thereunder.2. On 31st July, 2007 notice came to be issued to the petitioner that the CIT-...
Vickers Systems International Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: (2008)10STR378
1. This appeal has been filed by M/s. Vickers Systems International Ltd. against Order-in-Original No. 3/Central Excise/2007, dated 12-2-2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I. The Commissioner, vide impugned order, has confirmed demand of Rs. 6,72,27,080/- under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 6,72,27,080/- under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He also ordered for the recovery of interest on the duty of Rs. 6,72,27,080/- under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The interest of Rs. 23,448/-already paid by the appellants was ordered to be adjusted against the total interest demanded.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Hydraulic Cylinders, Hydraulic Pumps and parts thereof under Chapter Heading 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 198...
Rishi Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: (2008)10STR264
1. The application for condonation of delay of 60 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is allowed, as we find that the justification given for filing the appeal belatedly seems to be reasonable, hence we condone the delay in filing the appeal belatedly and take up the stay application for disposal.2. The stay application is directed against confirmation of demand of service tax.3. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. It is seen from the records that the confirmation of demand has arisen on the ground that the applicant has entered into a franchisee agreement with M/s. Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading and is liable under service tax.4. On consideration of the entire franchisee agreement, we find that the agreement nowhere indicates that the applicant has been using the goodwill of the said franchiser, i.e. Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading.It is seen from the records that the applicant was the owner of a shop on the ground floor of the building w...
Neoluxe India Private Limited, a Company Registered Under the Companie ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR137; (2008)13VST157(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. This petition is filed basically to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 25 of the Maharashtra Tax Laws (Levy, Amendment and Repeal) Act, 1989 ('amending Act' for short) in so far as it pertains to amending Entry 9 and Entry 61 in Part II of Schedule C to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ('BST Act' for short) with retrospective effect from 1st July, 1981. The petitioners have also challenged various assessment orders passed for the period from 12th October, 1979 to 29th June, 1987 as well as the order in Revision dated 7th October, 2005 passed during the pendency of the present Writ Petition. However, during the course of argument, learned Counsel for the petitioners did not press those reliefs and the only issue pressed in this writ petition is regarding the constitutional validity of Section 25 of the amending Act.2. Facts relevant for the present petition are that, since 1979 the petitioners have been manufacturing 'paper based decorative laminates' ('t...
Murlidhar S/O Atmaram Wani Vs. Dharangaon Nagar Palika
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)BomCR750; [2008(117)FLR384]; 2008(2)MhLj127
ORDERR.M. Savant, J.1. Rule. Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.2. By these petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7972 of 2006 impugns the order dated 31-8-2006 passed by the Industrial Court rejecting the Misc. Application (ULP) No. 3 of 2003 filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the complaint for seeking pensionary benefits. Insofar as Writ Petition No. 7973 of 2006 is concerned, it impugns an order of the same date rejecting the Application (ULP) No. 6 of 2003 praying for condonation of delay caused in filing Misc. application for recovery of difference of salary in terms of the order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Nasik, in complaint ULP No. 604 of 1989.3. The petitioner was working with the respondent Municipal Council as a Driver on daily wages. The petitioner had filed complaint ULP No. 604 of 1989 under the provisions of the M.R.T.U....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »