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.
Kirloskar Power Equipments Limited (Formerly Known as Voltas Transform ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR841; (2007)210CTR(Bom)317
H.L. Gokhale, Acting C.J.1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge and set aside the order dated 23rd February 1995 passed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, whereby the property which was to be purchased by the petitioner-Company from respondent No. 5 was directed to be compulsorily acquired by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 acting together as the Appropriate Authority under Chapter XX-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the said Act'). Respondent No. 4 to this Petition is Union of India. The impugned order has been stayed during the pendency of this Writ Petition but the formal order of issuance of Rule remained to be passed. Hence, we issue Rule on the Petition. Replies and further Affidavits are already filed by the parties.2. Brief facts leading to this Petition are as follows:Respondent No. 5 was carrying on amongst other activities the business of manufacturing the electric transformers at its factory situated at Nagar Road, Pune. Sometimes in...
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Incorporated Under the Indian Com ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ARBLR457(Bom); 2007(5)BomCR271; 2007(4)MhLj27
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. An Arbitration Petition was instituted by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd (ONGC) under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, in order to challenge an award of a sole Arbitrator. The Arbitration Petition was dismissed by a Learned Single Judge on 1st October 1997. ONGC is in appeal. At the hearing of the appeal, submissions have been confined to four grounds of challenge, these being:(i) The Arbitrator adjudicated upon matters excepted from the arbitration clause and assumed jurisdiction where he had none; (ii) The award is contrary to contractual provisions; (iii) There was an error apparent on the face of the record by the Arbitrator in rejecting the claim for liquidated damages as not proved; and (iv) The award of interest is contrary to the provisions of the contract. Upon hearing Counsel for the parties, our conclusion is that there is no merit in the challenge and the appeal must fail.2. ONGC is a Public Sector Undertaking which engages in oil exp...
Jokim Vincent Gomes, (Since Deceased Through His Heirs and Legal Repre ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR72; 2007(5)BomCR215
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Appellant claims to be a lessee of a plot of land bearing Survey No. 33, Hissa No. 1 of village Kanjur in the Bombay Suburban District. The lands were, according to the Appellant, illegally trespassed upon by one Hansraj Shah who had constructed chawls thereon which were let out to 16 persons. On 30th October 1983, the Appellant instituted a suit in the City Civil Court, (BCCC Suit No. 6350 of 1983) for eviction against Hansraj Shah and the persons who were inducted by him. On 28th September 1990, an ex-parte decree was passed against the Defendants to the suit. Between April and June 1992, the execution of the decree was obstructed by persons who were inducted on the land; these persons, according to the Appellant, were trespassers. On 15th June 1992, the Appellant took out a Chamber Summons (Chamber Summons No. 728 of 1992) before the City Civil Court, for the removal of the obstruction and other reliefs. In the meantime, in September 1992, the heirs of the...
Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited a Company Incorporated ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR872; (2007)2LLJ872Bom
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. On a reference to adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the Labour Court, by its Part I award dated 25th September, 2003 held that the disciplinary enquiry was fair and proper but, that the finding of misconduct was perverse. The management thereupon adduced evidence in support of the charge of misconduct. The Labour Court by its award dated 19th July, 2005 came to the conclusion that the charge of misconduct was established on the basis of the evidence on the record and that the charge was serious in nature. Nonetheless the Labour Court granted reinstatement with continuity of service, though without backwages by its award dated 19th July, 2005. 2. Both the workman and the management are in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the award of the Labour Court.3. The workman was initially employed with the management with effect from 9th January, 1978 as a checker / inspector in the Die-casting Department....
Jokim Vincent Gomes Since Deceased Through His Heirs and Lrs. Veronica ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)MhLj386
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Appellant has impugned an order of the Learned Single Judge, dated 10th October, 2000, by which a declaration of a slum area, issued in exercise of the powers conferred by the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, has been upheld. This appeal has been placed for hearing together with companion Appeal 959 of 1998.2. The submission that has been urged on behalf of the Appellant is that the declaration of a slum was in colourable exercise of power. The Appellant had instituted a suit for eviction and sought possession before the City Civil Court, which was decreed. The submission is that it was, after all the litigation had come to an end, that the official machinery was activated in order to seek the issuance of a declaration of the property as a slum area.3. During the course of the hearing, it has not been disputed before the Court that the requisite procedure that is required to precede...
Revankumar R. Gaikwad Vs. Bachchubhai P. Jethwa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Bom132; 2007(5)ALLMR631
ORDERC.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This is a civil revision against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Akola, whereby he allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The facts giving rise to the revision are as follows.2. The applicant/plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of rent. The plaintiff had purchased the suit house from one Dinkar on 31-5-1993. When the house was purchased, the non applicant/defendant was occupying the premises as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. The plaintiff, before purchase of the suit house land had called for the objections. Since no objections were received, the transaction was concluded. The plaintiff and his predecessor has informed the defendant to pay the rent to the plaintiff. The defendant avoided to pay the rent. The plaintiff claims arrears of rent from 1-6-1993 to 31-10-1995 for the period of 29 months, amounting to Rs. 4,350/-. The defendant inspite of the notice failed to pay the rent. Hence, the suit.3. The defen...
Hariba Babu Babar and anr. Vs. Appasaheb Dadu Nagargoje
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR859; 2007(5)MhLj260
S.R. Sathe, J.1. The appellants-original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 211 of 1978 have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Court of 3rd Additional District Judge, Sangli in First Appeal No. 438 of 1989 whereby the order passed by the trial Court decreeing the plaintiffs suit in his favour and directing the defendants to execute the sale deed of the suit land in favour of plaintiff was confirmed and appeal was dismissed with costs. For the sake of convenience hereafter the parties shall be referred to as 'plaintiff' and 'defendants'.2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:The Suit Land Bearing Block No. 305 situated at village Narwad, Taluka Miraj is owned by defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 2 is the wife of defendant No. 1. On 14-4-1976, the defendant No. 1 agreed to sell the land admeasuring 1 H. 48 R. out of the Suit Block No. 305 to plaintiff for Rs. 5280/- and executed an agreement to sale in favour of plaintiff by accepti...
Snehalata Kailash Ingale and ors. Vs. Kailash Rajaramji Ingale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2007
Reported in: II(2007)DMC704
A.P. Lavande, J.1. By this appeal the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 10.1.1996 passed by Sessions Judge, Akola in Criminal Appeal No. 18/1993 allowing the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 against the judgment and order dated 6.2.1993 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola in Regular Criminal Case No. 548/91.2. The facts leading to filing of present appeal are as under:The appellant who is original complainant and the wife of respondent No. 1 -original accused No. 1. According to the complainant, she got married with accused No. 1 on 6.6.1983. During the pendency of valid marriage accused No. 1 married one Rajkanya and the marriage was solemnised on 19.2.1986. The complainant filed the above criminal case against accused No. 1 and eight others alleging offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. In the course of trial, the complainant examined four witnesses including herself as P.W. 1 Snehalata, P.W. 2 Devidas Belsare, P.W. 3 Kis...
Smt. Sunanda Chandrakant Juvatkar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2007
Reported in: 2007BomCR(Cri)898
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The appellant was charged along with her son Mangesh, of committing murder of Raghunath Paste, resident of Khanvali-Banewadi, Taluka Lanja, Dist. Ratnagiri on 26/1/2002 (in the night) in her house in the same village and her son Mangesh, being juvenile, was tried in Juvenile Criminal Case No. 1 of 2003 by the Presiding Officer of the Board of Juvenile at Ratnagiri. He came to be acquitted as per the judgment and order dated 21st June 2003 whereas the appellant was tried in Sessions Case No. 83 of 2002 and came to be convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 302 as well as Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri vide his judgment and order dated 8/4/2003. This appeal impugns the said order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 83 of 2002 and the appellant is presently undergoing the sentence of RI for life.2. As per the prosecution, deceased Raghunath, husband of Subhadra Paste (PW 8) ...
The Shivaji University through the Registrar, Shivaji University Vs. A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR78; 2007(5)BomCR467; 2007(4)MhLj150
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. The petitioner challenges the orders dated 3-1-1992, 23-9-1992 and 29-7-1993 passed by the College Tribunal, Pune. By order dated 3-1-1992 the College Tribunal had allowed the Appeal filed by the respondent No. 3 herein against the respondent No. 1. By order dated 23-9-1992 the College Tribunal had sought to clarify that the order of 3-1-1992 was binding on the parties to the Appeal and the appellant therein who was joined as the respondent No. 2 to the said Appeal should regularise the appointment of the respondent No. 3 herein. By the order dated 29-7-1993 the College Tribunal had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for review of the order dated 23-9-1992. 2. The respondent No. 3 herein was a lecturer in History in Jaysingpur College of the respondent No. 1, appointed during the academic year 1987-88 on clock hourly basis. The said appointment was approved by the petitioner under the letter dated 31-10-1987. For the academic year 1988-89...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »