Mumbai Court April 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.
Vivek Shetty Vs. Draupadi Dudhani and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR860; 2008(3)BomCR863
Marlapalle B.H., J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for both the parties. The respondents landlords had instituted the eviction proceedings by filing an application under Section 42 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, ('the Act' for short) and the said application came to be registered as Case 51 of 2006.2. The present petitioner, who is the tenant and against whom the decree of eviction has been passed in the said proceedings, filed an application under Section 43(4)(b) of the said Act praying for leave to defend the said application. The respondents owners opposed the said application and it came to be rejected by the Competent Authority (Rent Act), Konkan Division, Mumbai by his order dated 10th January, 2007 and on the same day the Competent Authority was pleased to allow the Eviction Application No. 51 of 2006 by a reasoned order. Aggrieved by both these orders, the petitioner filed a revision application under Section 44 of the Act before the Divisional Commissioner, Kon...
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Vs. Ccex
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: (2007)11STJ67CESTAT(Mum.)bai
1. We have heard both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 35,32,115/- and penalty of amount equal to the tax demand in terms of Section 78 and penalty of Rs. 100/- per day in terms of Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The issue relates to liability of service tax for target incentives etc., gifts in cash and kind, trips to abroad given to the Insurance Agent by the applicants herein. The period of dispute is 16.8.2002 to 31.12.2004.2. We find prima facie force in the submission of the applicants that such gifts and target incentives are not includalble in the value of the Insurance Auxiliary Services received by them, in the light of the Tribunal's decision in the case of EURO RSCG Advertising Ltd. and Marketing Consultants and Agencies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore reported in 2007-TIOL-CESTAT-BANG holding inter alia that target incentives are not connected to service rendered to the clients nor is billed to the clients and, th...
Shri Hirabai Dattatray Baabar and ors. Vs. Sangli Miraj, Kupwad Munici ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR396; 2007(4)BomCR151; 2007(4)MhLj90
F.I. Rebello, J. 1. The petitioners are the owners of land bearing Survey No. 469/2B situated at Sangli, admeasuring 1088.12 sq. meters within the limits of the Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 came into existence since 9th February, 1998. Before that the land was within the limits of the erstwhile Sangli Municipal Council. Respondent No. 1 and its predecessors are the Planning Authority for the lands situated within their planning area. In the notified development plan the petitioners land has been shown as reserved for the purpose of 'Cold Storage'. The development plan of Sangli city was notified on 28th March, 1977 and has come into force with effect from 1st June, 1977. As the respondent No. 1 and/or its predecessor in title did not take any steps to acquire the reserved land, the petitioners caused a notice to be served on 4th December, 1987 pursuant to the provisions of Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) through the...
Balu Dada Gabhale Vs. Zilla Parishad, Through the Chief Executive Offi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR673
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Indian Parliament took a lead in the field of Social Welfare Legislation when it introduced Article 21A by the Constitution (Eighty sixth Amendment) Act, 2002. The object was so laudable and depicted the State'sintention to provide free education to children between the age of six to fourteen years, thus guaranteeing the primary education, particularly to the poor section of the society, whose children were not able to receive education for lack of means and limitations of their family. In order to further clarify, the Government of Maharashtra issued a Resolution vide G.R. No. Uniform 2003/C.N. 18/PR7 (26) dated 15th March, 2003 not only to provide education, free of cost, to children but also to supply uniforms, etc., to the deserving poor students. The Government passed its Resolution with an intention that presence of students of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, Nomadic Tribes and Denotified Tribes in classes of standards 1 to 4 in primary schools under Zilla Pa...
Machindra Hariba Mohite Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR513; 2007CriLJ3860; 2007(4)MhLj461; 2007(6)AIRKarR88(FB)(Bom)
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No. 41 of 1987 has been impugned in this appeal. The learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code and sentenced the appellant to suffer imprisonment for life and has also directed the payment of a fine of Rs.1000/-. The accused has also been convicted for offences under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-. Both the sentences are to run concurrently.2. When the appeal was called out for hearing, the advocate for the appellant was not present. We, therefore, had no option but to decide the appeal with the assistance of the learned A.P.P. in this case relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in : 1996CriLJ3491 between Bani Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. 3. The case of the prosecution is that, the accused was married to the v...
Chandulal Chunilal and Co., a Partnership Firm Registered Under the Pa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR688
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. Respondent waives service. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Both these petitions can be disposed of by a common order. The petitioners in both these petitions are challenging same order in their respective petitions. 3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 194/2007 is a partnership firm which is registered under the Partnership Act and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are partners of the said firm. For the sake of convenience, the said petitioner shall be referred to as 'the firm'. The respondent in this petition was working with the firm as a clerk. The respondent for the sake of convenience shall be referred to as 'the employee'. Brief facts are as under:4. The firm was carrying on business in the Bombay Stock Exchange and was a broker dealing with shares and certificates, It is the case of the firm that the said firm ran into losses and therefore, it had decided to close down its business with effect...
Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. (Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ARBLR533(Bom); 2007(4)BomCR684
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. In this arbitration application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to the as 'the Act', the applicant prays for appointment of a sole arbitrator or in the alternative two arbitrators and presiding arbitrator and then requiring them to enter into the reference to arbitrate the dispute between the applicant and respondent as stated in terms of the Policy No. 250501/1 1/03/3100145 dated 4th August 2004.2. The factual metrics of the case fall in a narrow compass. The applicant is a private limited company duly registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, with their registered office at Surat, Gujarat, which is engaged in import of chemicals like Acetone and Phenol as well as yarn. The respondent-National Insurance Company carries on business of insurance cover. Both the parties entered into an agreement (contract) dated 4th August 1983 and an insurance policy was issued in favour of the applicant...
Kandivli Education Society College Alumni Registered Under the Society ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR671
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Petitioner No. 1, a registered society, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents that the opinion expressed by the Committee about the eligibility of respondent No. 1 to be a Lecturer (Accountancy) dated 19.9.2006 be quashed and to further quash the order dated 6.6.2003 passed in Appeal No. 101/2002 and also for issuance of an order of restraint prohibiting the said respondent from teaching in the University. The Society, which is a body of ex-students of the respondent college and claims to be interested in maintenance of academic standards and dispensation of education to the students by competent and qualified lecturers, states that the respondent No. 1 is not qualified to be a lecturer in the University of Mumbai, which is a statutory body and provides education to the students. There has been controversy with regard to appointment of respondent...
National Organic Chemical Industries Limited, a Company Incorporated U ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR653
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Government of Maharashtra in exercise of its powers vested by virtue of Section 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') notified that powers exercisable by it under Sub-section (1) of Section 10 and Sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act shall, in relation to the Industrial Disputes Act, relating to disputes specified in the schedule, be exercised also by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Mumbai District Office, Mumbai. In exercise of his powers the said officer, vide his order of reference dated 20th July 2006 referred the alleged dispute between the petitioner and its workmen for determination to the Labour Court, Mumbai. The relevant part of the order of reference reads as under:Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clauses (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 and with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as delegated in the manner aforesaid, the Deputy Commissioner of...
Naresh Lalchand Bhagchandani Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Under Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR367; (2007)109BOMLR1073; 2007(4)MhLj56
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The petitioner, an Indian citizen, residing at Lokhandwala Complex, Swami Samarth Nagar, Andheri (West) Mumbai 400058, has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that the action of the respondents in withholding his passport No. E5934818 issued on 24.6.2003 and valid upto 26.6.2013, is arbitrary, contrary to law and is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner claims that he is involved in export of garments and is a frequent flier to Dubai Europe and other parts of the world and carries on business in the name and style of Sushilas at Linking Road, Bandra, Mumbai. The petitioner lost his earlier passport being No. 484378 dated 22.3.1993 valid upto 21.3.2003. Upon acquiring knowledge of lost of his passport, the petitioner registered a complaint at Khar police station in this regard. The first information report bearing No. 632102 dated 11.3.2002 was registered with the said police station. Thereafter...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »