Mumbai Court December 2007 Judgments

Asha D/O Bhalchandra Joshi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009ACJ223; 2008(1)ALLMR745; 2008(2)BomCR76; 2008(1)MhLj724

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment whereby the learned single Judge, deciding First Appeal No. 624 of 2002, remanded the matter to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, for reconsidering the liability of insurance company to pay compensation for motor accident.2. The facts in the context of which the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal remanded the matter back are as under:On 11-4-1991 the appellant met with an accident by Truck No. NLM-8876, which was allegedly insured with the respondent. She suffered severe injuries to her thigh, legs etc. One of her thighs was crushed. She had to undergo several operations and even after treatment was left disabled. She, therefore, filed petition claiming compensation before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, against the owner of the truck and the present respondent insurer. She had stated in Clause 13 of paragraph 4 of her petition that the respondent had provided insurance cover to the truck under...

Diamond Services International (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)216CTR(Bom)120; [2008]304ITR201(Bom)

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner is a company incorporated in Singapore and is also a tax resident of Singapore. The tax residency certificate of the petitioner has been issued by the Singapore tax authorities. The petitioner is a part of an international network of companies of Rapaport Group ('the Group') which provides value added services that support the development of free, fair and competitive global diamond markets. According to the petitioners it is a foreign company and a non-resident for the purpose of the Act.2. Gemological Institute of America (GIA) established in 1931 is the world's largest and the most respected institute of gemological research and learning. In August, 2006 GIA announced an expanded consolidation service known as GIA 'Lab-Direct' wherein it proposed to build an international network of drop-off and shipment points to assist the maximum number of clients in moving their goods to the GIA laboratory in a safe, expedient and cost-effective way. GIA grades ...

Quadricon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bajarang Alloys Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2008Bom88

ORDERS.J. Vazifdar, J.1. This is the plaintiffs application for leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.2. The questions that arise in this case fall into two categories. The first is whether leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent can be granted after the plaint is not only presented under Rule 1 of Order IV but is also admitted and entered in the register under Rule 2 of that Order of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The second is whether the plaintiff is entitled to leave under Clause 12 even assuming the first question is answered in the affirmative. I have answered the first question in the negative and the second in the affirmative.FACTS3(A) It is admitted that the plaint was presented on 29-9-2004 that it was admitted on 10-12-2004 without leave having been sought or obtained.(B)(i) The defendant took out Notice of Motion No. 745 of 2005 raising a preliminary issue of jurisdiction under Section 9(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and for a declaration that this C...

Karan Fibers and Fabrics Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These are applications for modification of stay order No.S/429-458/2007/C-I/EB dated 6.7.2007 filed by M/s. Podar Texchem Limited, M/s. Podar Kintex Limited, M/s. Sarala Polyesters Ltd., M/s.Yangir Synthetics Ltd., Shree Sanand Textile Industries Ltd., Indian Polyfins Ltd., Karan Fibres & Fabrics Ltd. and Virlon Textiles Ltd. The grounds of modification and our findings there on are individually discussed in the paras below.1. The grounds of modification of stay order of the above two applicants are identical and, therefore, they are being discussed together, Ld. Advocate for the applicants Shri Harlwasia submitted that the Tribunal vide its stay order has directed M/s Podar Texchem Limited and M/s Podar Kintex Limited to deposit Rs. 29 lakhs and Rs. 55 lakhs respectively as compliance to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Ld. advocate strongly argued that the facts and circumstances of the case are such that it requires a remand to the lower adjudicating authority as...

income Tax Officer Vs. Godrej Soaps Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)114TTJ(Mum.)950

2. First ground of objection taken by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A) in allowing exemption under Section 10(33) of the IT Act, 1961, even though after reducing the interest and expenses attributable to the dividend income, the net dividend was a negative figure. Assessee filed the return on 26th Nov., 1998 declaring loss of Rs. 33,06,04,294 and income under Section 115JA at Rs. 2,30,74,240. The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) on 13th Sept., 1999 without making any adjustments. Subsequently assessee filed the revised return on 30th March, 2000 declaring same income under Section 115JA and loss at Rs. 34,04,65,648, which was processed on 12th March, 2001 without any adjustments. Notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) were issued. Assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and/or trading in consumer products such as soaps, detergents, cosmetics, industrial chemicals, oils, oilseeds, oil palm nursery and plantation, financial operations an...

Rajesh Deorao Meshram, Proprietor of Rajesh Vihar Developers Vs. Murli ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR60; 2008(2)BomCR141; (2008)110BOMLR93; 2008(1)MhLj798

R.C. Chavan, J.1. By an order dated 30th June, 2006 this first appeal was directed to be decided at the stage of admission itself and was consequently taken up for final hearing after calling record and proceedings from the trial Court.2. The appellant herein filed Special Civil Suit No. 850 of 2003 for specific performance of agreement of sale of 6 hectare and 26 Are of land bearing Survey No. 114 and 0.95 H bearing Survey No. 115 at village Wagdhara, Tahsil : Hingna, District : Nagpur. The property was agreed to be sold by the respondent/ owner to the appellant for a consideration of Rs. 19,60,000/-. An agreement of sale was executed on 29th April, 2000 at which time a sum of Rs. 3,15,000/- was paid by cheques and the balance consideration was agreed to be paid in 36 equal monthly installment of Rs. 63,000/- each. Sale deed was agreed to be executed on or before 29th April, 2003. According to the appellant/ plaintiff time was not of essence. The plaintiff gave a schedule of payments ...

Shri Dnyaneshwar Sitaram Wagh Vs. the Managing Director, Shree Someshw ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)BomCR148; [2008(116)FLR933]; 2008(1)MhLj879

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The dispute in this petition filed by the employee relates to the correction of his date of birth which as per the employer -Karkhana was 1/6/1935 and was sought to be corrected by the petitioner as 1/6/1937.2. The petitioner came to be employed with the respondent -Karkhana as a Clerk in the Time Office since 1962 and he remained in the said department till his superannuation. He was issued a notice dated 31/5/1995 informing him that he would attain the age of sixty years on 30/6/1995 and, therefore, he would stand retired on that day. After he retired he approached the Labour Court on or about 10/4/1996 by filing Complaint (ULP) No. 152 of 1995 under Section 28 read with Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'). He claimed that he was illegally terminated from service which amounted to retrenchment without following the mandatory requirements of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. Though the complaint was opposed, the learned Judge of th...

Vfs Global Services Private Limited Vs. Mr. Suprit Roy

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)BomCR446; 2007(2)CTLJ423(Bom); [2008(118)FLR419]; 2008(3)MhLj266

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Notice of Motion has been taken out by the Plaintiff in the present case for enforcing a negative covenant contained in a contract of employment. The Defendant was employed by the Plaintiff on 12th July 1999 in the grade of Senior General Manager. On 2nd July 2001, he was transferred to the Visa Facilitation Services (VFS) Division and designated as General Manager. The terms and conditions of employment as originally envisaged continued to remain the same save and except as modified. Under the original contract of employment, the services of the Defendant could be brought to an end by either side with one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof. On 11th July 2003, additional terms and conditions were imposed by the employer. Among them was a condition that the Defendant shall not participate with any other company carrying on similar business and shall not commence similar business during the period of employment or for a period of two years thereafter.2. A...

Dada Bhagwan Shinde and Aba Bhagwan Shinde Vs. Tulsabai W/O Narayan Sh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR776; 2008(2)BomCR159; (2008)110BOMLR156; 2008(3)MhLj475

S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal challenges the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 138 of 1981 dated 20th December, 1986. The present Appellants are the plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 85 of 1976 and the Respondents are defendants in that suit. Parties hereinafter are referred to their status as plaintiffs and defendants, for convenience.2. At the out set, it is to be noticed that the appeal stands abated against Respondent No. 1 [Tulsabai Wd/o Narayan Shinde] by the order passed on 21st June, 2006. The Respondent No. 3 Ganpat is served -absent. Advocate Mr. S.Y. Mahajan is representing the Respondent No. 2/ defendant No. 2. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3/ defendants No. 2 and 3 are purchasers of the suit property from original defendant No. 1 Tulsabai Wd/o Narayan Shinde.3. Regular Civil Suit No. 85 of 1976, filed by the plaintiffs, was for cancellation of sale-deed and possession of the suit property, which, after recording evidence,...

Prakash Ashroba Ghule Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR105

P.R. Borkar, J.1. By these two appeals original accused No. 2 Prakash and original accused No. 4 Dnyandeo challenge the order of their conviction and sentence in Sessions Case No. 165 of 2001 passed by the Ist Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani on 30.01.2006. By the said order accused No. 2 Prakash is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Accused No. 4-Dnyandeo is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The two accused have filed separate appeals. Since both the appeals are directed against the same order of conviction and sentence, these appeals are being heard and disposed of together by this common judgment.2. Initially ...