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.
Unmesh Kantilal Shah and ors. Vs. Chemosyn Limited and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)BomCR761
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. All these are appeals under Section 10-F of the Companies Act-1956. This common Judgment on following facts and circumstances.2. As per Family Settlement Deed (FSD) dated 12/10/1999, Samir (M.D.) (66% shareholder) to buy the entire shareholding of Unmesh (33% shareholder) of a sum of Rs. 6.5 crores in two phases of the various companies between the parties. Rs. 2.5 crores by 11.10.2000 resulting in the exit of Unmesh as a Joint MD, and Rs. 4 crores by 11.10.01 resulting in his exit as Director.3. Mr. K.H. Shah, the father of Samir and Unmesh, head of the family, founder promoter of the family company (Chemosyn Ltd.), at the relevant time Chairman of the Company and mediator in the disputes between the parties bought the stamp paper for the FSD and also signed the DSD in token of his acceptance of the role of sole arbitrator in the event of 'any dispute in this matter between the parties'.4. On 8.8.2000, Samir removed Unmesh from directorship without notice and in b...
Shamim Bano G. Rathi and anr. Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce Ltd. and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2007
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Bom)110; [2008]306ITR234(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. It is the case of the petitioners that by a registered deed of sale dt. 30th July, 2002 they purchased the premises from respondent No. 5. Admittedly, there were proceedings pending under the IT Act against respondent No. 5 on that date. The order of attachment under Section 226(3) of the IT Act made on 19th June, 2002 was lifted sometime in July, 2002. Admittedly, on the date of the sale of the property there was no order of attachment. The order of attachment was subsequently passed on 22nd Oct., 2003.3. Respondent No. 5 had taken a loan from respondent No. 1 and to secure the loan had created a mortgage in favour of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 5 has also created leave and license in favour of respondent No. 1. The license amounts were to be adjusted against the loan amount advanced by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 5.Though the petitioners had served the notice of attornment on respondent No. 5 and though the petitioners were show...
Anand Yashwant Sarwade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Bom99; 2008(1)ALLMR602; 2008(1)BomCR325
Vazifdar S.J., J.1. This is a petition under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The petitioner seeks to be appointed the guardian of his brother one Dada Yashwant Sarwade inter alia in respect of certain amounts due to him from the gratuity and family pension account of their deceased father. Their mother expired on 14.5.2002 leaving behind the petitioner arid the said Sarwade as the only legal heirs and representatives.2. The petitioner's case is that his brother in respect of whom he seeks to be appointed as a guardian is mentally ill and that after the death of their parents he has been residing continuously with him and that he has. been looking after him in all respects.3. The said Sarwade is however admittedly a major being over the age of eighteen years.4. Though the provisions of the Act are clear, I requested Ms. Alpana Ghone and Mrs. Sowmya Srikrishna to appear as amicus curie as there was no opposition to this petition. I must express my appreciation for the valuable assista...
Umakant S/O Jangluji Nikhade Vs. Narayan S/O Nimbaji Wankhede Dead Thr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR179; 2008(1)MhLj849
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this Second Appeal, the original plaintiff has challenged the reversing judgment and decree delivered by Appellate Court below dismissing his suit against present respondent for delivery of possession and for mesne profits. He filed civil suit vide R.C.S. No. 272/1982 originally on the basis of Will executed on 25-9-1950 in his favour by one Thakabai who expired on 3-8-1951. It came to be decreed on 21-7-1984 by Third Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nagpur. Defence of present respondent was that as he married niece of Thakabai and adjacent plot was lying vacant, Thakabai permitted him to occupy and construct a house upon it. He contended that it was license which became irrevocable in view of Section 60 of Indian Easements Act, 1882. Present respondent thereafter filed R.C.A. No. 470 of 1984 and Joint District Judge, Nagpur vide judgment dated 30-8-1988 allowed that appeal and dismissed the suit. After second appeal was admitted, Plaintiff/appellant mov...
Damayanti Ramji Khandait Now Sau Damayanti Prabhakar Chandewar Vs. Nav ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)MhLj826
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, and is heard finally by consent of parties.2. In 1992, the respondent-Management invited applications for appointment to the post of a Trained Teacher.3. Since qualified candidates were not available, the petitioner, who had not completed the degree of Bachelor of Education, was appointed with a permission to undergo the said education and secure the degree through Vocational Course of two years. The petitioner accordingly joined the duty and served in academic years 1992-93 and 1994-95. When the petitioner's services were continued in next academic year, namely 1993-94, petitioner's candidature was recommenced by the Management for said vocational B.Ed. Course of two years and she had commenced pursuing said course.4. According to the petitioner, she was not allowed to sign the muster roll on 26th June, 1995, and at that time those who were junior to the petitioner as well as those who were similarly placed, namely had not so f...
Uttam Sitaram Nalawade and anr. Vs. Vishwasrao Nageshrao Ghatage and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR778; 2008(3)MhLj400
Abhay S. Oka, J.1. Heard advocate for the appellants. The appellants are the original defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The respondent No. 1-plaintiff filed a suit for redemption of mortgage dated 20th July, 1972. According to the case of the respondent No. 1-plaintiff, the suit property is an ancestral property of the plaintiff and the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. After the demise of the father of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5, the name of the second respondent was entered in the revenue records as manager of the joint family. The allegation in the suit is that without legal necessity, the second respondent without the consent of the first respondent and third to fifth respondents executed a possessory mortgage dated 20th July, 1972 in favour of the father of the appellants. It is alleged that the said Deed of Mortgage is illegal and is liable to be cancelled. In the alternative it was submitted that the respondent No. 1-plaintiff and the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are entitled to obtain redemption of mort...
Kay Tee International Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Ep)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-2007
Reported in: (2008)(125)ECC174
1. The request of the appellants for conversion of DEEC Shipping Bills into Drawback Shipping Bills has been rejected by the Commissioner of Customs against whose order this appeal has been preferred.2. I have heard both sides. Exports of brass of sanitary and bathroom fittings were made by the appellants under the DEEC scheme and subsequently they were granted advance licence dated 20.11.01. By letter dated 17.7.02 they sought conversion of the 7 shipping bills under DEEC Scheme into Drawback shipping bills; the request was rejected by order dated 30.1.06; appeal was filed before the Tribunal which remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication after taking into consideration the Government of India's circular No.74/97 dated 30.12.97 regarding conversion of shipping bills and also on the basis of case law cited by the exporter; the request was once again rejected vide the present impugned order; the Commissioner has examined the request and found that the conditions s...
Lagwad Adhikari and ors. Vs. Shri YasIn Hamid Sayyad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR527; (2008)110BOMLR168; 2008(2)MhLj338
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. All these petitions have been filed by the Plantation Officer, Social Forestry Department at Shirur, District Pune and the Deputy Director of Social Forestry as well as the State Government challenging separate orders passed by the Industrial Court at Pune in the respective complaints filed by the daily rated temporary appointees as watchman/ labour and the common relief of granting permanency with consequential benefits has been granted by these orders. Petitions involved common questions of fact and law and, therefore, they are being decided by a common judgment.2. The complainants who claimed to have been appointed as daily rated watchman /labour at the Plantation Centres in Shirur Taluka of Pune District claimed that they had worked continuously for more than five years (six to ten years) and in every year they had completed 240 or more days of service in the preceding five years and, therefore, they were entitled for the benefit of permanency. The complaints ...
Great Net Industry and anr. Vs. Shri A.M. Prachak and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-2007
Reported in: (2008)IIILLJ171Bom
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution arises from the Judgment and Order dated 31/7/1995 rendered by the Industrial Court at Thane in Complaint (ULP) No. 95 of 1985. The said complaint was filed by the present respondent No. 1 on his behalf and on behalf of other employees challenging the notice of lock-out dated 17/12/1980. The complaint was filed under Section 28(1) read Item Nos. 1 and 6 of Schedule II and Item Nos. 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labor Practices Act, 1971 (for short the Act). The Industrial Court, at the first instance, by the impugned judgment gave a declaration that the lock-out effected on 28/12/1980 by the present petitioners as per the notice dated 17/12/1980 was illegal and consequently it directed the petitioners to lift the lock-out within 48 hours from 31/7/1995. By the subsequent order dated 14/8/1995 the court noted that the order dated 31/7/1995 was s...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Narendra D. Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-2007
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Bom)190
1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal against the order dt. 28th May, 2002. The issue for consideration before the learned Tribunal was whether the receipt received by the assessee from the General Electric Company USA (GE) for agreeing to refrain from carrying on competing business under a restrictive covenant is income exigible to tax? After going through the various facts the Tribunal noted that the amount received is capital receipt and is not liable to tax. Before the Tribunal, the contention of the Revenue was that the amount in question cannot be considered to be capital receipt because existing income earning apparatus was not destroyed or impaired. In para 11 of the judgment, the learned Tribunal has referred to the amendment of Section 28 by Finance Act, 2002. Sub-clause (va) was introduced w.e.f. 1st April, 2003. The relevant portion reads as under:(va) any sum whether received or receivable in cash or kind under an agreement for-(a) not carrying out any activity in relat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »