Mumbai Court February 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's Report Canara Bank Vs. Bombay Alloys and Castings and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR58
Roshan Dalvi, J.1. This Chamber Summons has been taken out by the Applicant who has sought to purchase the suit property initially mortgaged by the Defendant in the suit in favour of the Plaintiff Bank and later purchased by one K.D. Shah at an auction held by the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC). The Applicant has applied for condonation of delay in depositing Rs. 2.75 Crores in the Office of the Commissioner for taking accounts and for the Court to confirm the sale in favour of the Applicant or its nominee.2. The property has had a chequered history. The Defendants mortgaged their property (suit property) which is open land at Bhandup in favour of the Plaintiff -Bank. The Plaintiff sued on the mortgage in 1974. The Defendants and the Plaintiffs entered into a consent decree. The Plaintiffs sought to sell the mortgaged property in the execution of the said decree. There is also another mortgage of the said property in favour of the Plaintiff which is the subject matter of any suit i...
Cartini India Ltd. (Formerly, Godrej Appliances Ltd.) Vs. Asst. Commis ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR435; (2007)210CTR(Bom)397; [2007]291ITR355(Bom); 2007(3)MhLj419
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, petition is taken up for hearing. The Petitioner has filed the present petition to challenge the issue of the notice dated 13th March, 2006 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act')? for the assessment year 1999-2000 by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, for reopening of assessment. 2. The facts in support of the petition are as follows:The Petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of refrigerators, air-conditioners and washing machines. Respondent No. 1 is the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax assessing the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 is the Commissioner of Income Tax having jurisdiction over the Petitioner under the Act. For the assessment year 1999-2000, the Petitioner had filed its return of Income on 31st December, 1999. In the returns filed the Petitioner had disclosed in its note No. 5(b) that th...
Shri Hiraman S/O Nathuji Vaidya Vs. Dewakripa Sahakari Griha Nirman Sa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR64; 2007(5)BomCR463; (2007)109BOMLR665
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The original defendant has filed this writ petition challenging order dated 9.6.2005 passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, below Exh. 12 and Exh. 14 in Special Civil Suit No. 223 of 2003. Said suit has been instituted by present respondent, an unregistered body i.e. proposed Cooperative Housing Society through its Chief Promoter for specific performance of contract against present petitioner. The present petitioner filed application in that suit for its dismissal on the ground that respondent / plaintiff is not legal entity at all. Thereafter, the respondent filed application under Order 1, Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking permission to sue on behalf of unincorporated body and its members. The said application was opposed by the petitioner. By common order mentioned above, the Court below has allowed application under Order 1, Rule 8 of C.P.C. and has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to dismiss the suit. 2. Considering the n...
Smt. Rajeshree W/O Ramesh Bhoosreddy Vs. Smt. Gyandevi Wd/O Gangaprasa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR51; 2007(5)BomCR813
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Original plaintiff/decree holder has filed this petition aggrieved by the order dated 30/7/2002 passed by fifth Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur in R.D. No. 587/1991. This Court issued notice to respondents on 4/8/2006 and as they did not appear, fresh notice indicating that matter will be disposed of finally at the admission stage itself was directed to be served by order dated 18/9/2006. Said notice is also served before 6/10/2006 but there is no appearance. The matter has been listed on 5 occasions thereafter and ultimately, Advocate P.V. Vaidya who represents petitioner has been heard finally by making the Rule returnable forthwith. 2. Petitioner and respondents are neighbours. In fact, petitioner has purchased his house from respondents on 6/10/1978 for valuable consideration by registered sale deed. On the eastern side of this house, the respondents have retained a small house and open court yard. Respondents obstructed petitioner from raising t...
In Re: Fancy Corporation Limited, a Public Limited Company Janakalyan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2007
Reported in: [2007]139CompCas483(Bom); [2007]76SCL37(Bom)
ORDERV.C. Daga, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner bank under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 ('Act' for short) seeking winding up of the respondent- company.The Facts:The case as stated in the petition is as follows:2. The petitioner is a co-operative scheduled bank having its head office at Chembur, Mumbai. The respondent is a public limited company having its registered office at 16, Mumbai Samachar Marg, Fort, Mumbai and engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of embroidered garments and other material. 3. The petitioner, in the course of their banking business, had extended financial assistance from time to time in the form of bill discounting facilities to their constituents Rasiklal Ratilal Trading Private Limited and M/s. Rasiklal Ratilal (jointly referred to as 'RR Group') on the terms and conditions mutually agreed upon. 4. Rasiklal Ratilal Trading Pvt. Ltd. had sold, supplied and delivered to the Company items of various fabrics and had raise...
Maharaja Developers and anr. Vs. Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ2207
K.J. Rohee, J.1. The issue which has been referred to this Bench is, 'Is it mandatory for the Magistrate to examine the complainant who has filed complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act with affirmation as regards truthfulness of the facts mentioned in the complaint before issue of process under Section 200 of Cr. P.C.?'2. It so happened that H.H. Maharaja Udaysingh Bhonsle s/o late H.H. Maharaja Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle resident of Junior Bhonsle Palace, Mahal, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') filed a complaint in writing on 21-4-2006 against Maharaja Developers and Vijay Tulsiramji Dangre (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act') on account of dishonour of cheques issued by the accused in favour of the complainant and his sister. The said complaint contained a solemn affirmation by the complainant at the foot of it. The complainant also filed certain d...
Tukaram Rama Patil Vs. Pandurang Narayan Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MhLj193
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record and proceeding.2. This revision application is filed against the Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No. 421/1992 for the offence punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 302 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that in the Election of Municipal Corporation Thane, from ward No. 80 five persons from Congress Party were interested in being candidate. They included the present applicant, Balaram Patil, Tukaram Patil and respondent No. 5 Gopinath. All the 5 aspirants had contributed Rs. 5000/- for the expenses of the election. The amount was deposited with P.W. 2 Sakharam Patil, who was the President of Congress Party for that area. The amount was given to the candidate, who would be nominated by the congress party and who would contest the election. Respondent No. 5 Gopinath was declared Congress Party candidat...
Marico Limited Vs. Raj Oil Mills Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR594; 2007(5)BomCR217; (2007)109BOMLR635; 2007(4)MhLj354; LC2007(2)80; 2007(35)PTC330(Bom)
S.A. Bobde, J.1. By this Notice of Motion, the plaintiff seeks an injunction restraining the defendant from infringing or pirating the registered design of the plaintiff and from manufacturing or selling any article embodying the plaintiff's registered design or applying the plaintiff's registered design or any imitation thereof to/on/upon the bottle caps of the defendant's products or any other article. The plaintiff claims a registered design in respect of a stylized bottle cap used on their bottle while selling their coconut oil under the brand name 'Parachute'. Their registration certificate is at exh.'B' along with photographs of their registration. The cap in respect of which the design is registered is a plastic cap with a plastic lid on the cap which moves on a plastic hinge which has the contours of a butterfly.2. The defendant use a similar cap with a similar movable lid and a hinge in plastic also with a contour of a butterfly. There is, however, a slight difference in the s...
Kisan S/O Shripat Patil and anr. Vs. Ragho S/O Vedu Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR383; 2007(4)BomCR400; 2007(4)MhLj311
B.R. Gavai, J.1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 6th November, 2004 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Dhule below Exhibit 1 in Regular Darkhast No. 275/2001, thereby allowing the application of the present respondent for execution of the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 13/1992.2. The parties hereinafter would be referred as plaintiff/respondent and defendant/petitioner.It appears that the plaintiff/respondent had entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant on 16th December, 1985 for purchase of suit land admeasuring 1 Hectare 31 Ars, situated at village Arvi in block No. 4. The defendant/petitioner failed to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff, therefore, issued notice to the defendants. However, on failure to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff/respondent filed Special Civil Suit No. 13/1992 for specific performance of contract. The said suit came to be decreed on 10th December, 1996. Vide the decree in the sa...
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-2007
Reported in: (2007)9STJ217CESTAT(Mum.)bai
1. We have heard both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 5,35,94,363/- and penalty of Rs. 100/- per day imposed under Section 76 of Chapter V of the Finance Act.The demand has been confirmed against the applicants herein, who are inter alia engaged in providing general insurance service, in respect of the policies issued prior to 10/09/2004, on which date the rate of service tax which was 8% has since been enhanced to 10%, we find that prima facie case for waiver has been made out, as in the case of the same assessee, for a prior period when the service tax was enhanced from 5% to 8% the Commissioner (Appeals) had taken a view that the amendment would not affect the policies taken prior to that date. Thus it shows that the department had taken a stand which it subsequently changed. In such a view of the matter prima facie case for waiver has been made out and we accordingly waive pre-deposit of the service tax and penalty and stay recovery thereof...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »