Mumbai Court June 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.
Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. Vs. Namdeo Mukund Deoghare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ947; 2008(1)ALLMR706; [2007(114)FLR967]; 2007(4)MhLj820
Roshan Dalvi, J.1. This Appeal challenges the judgment and order of the Ex-Officio Commissioner, Workman's Compensation, Raigad-Alibag on 4-10-1995, granting compensation of Rs. 1,04,960/- to the respondent (original applicant) with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum until realization as well as the incidental orders passed thereupon. The Appeal is under the Workmen's Compensation Act. A substantial question of law involved in the Appeal is first required to be shown. The Appeal is filed by the employer of the applicant who claimed to be a workman. It was denied that he was the workman. It was contended that he was a learner and hence, not a workman.2. The issues framed by the learned Commissioner were whether the respondent was the workman, whether he sustained injuries during the course of his employment, whether he was permanently disabled on account of injuries, whether he earned Rs. 1,000/- per month as claimed by him and whether he was 29 years old at the time of the in...
Rolex Marbles Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR868; 2007(6)BomCR323; 2007(4)MhLj826
Roshan Dalvi, J.1. This Appeal challenges the judgment of the learned Judge of the Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court dated 8th December, 2006. The respondents have appeared and argued in support of the Judgment. The appellant has produced the compilation of the documents along with the copies of entire evidence of the pleadings on record.2. The ambit of this Appeal is extremely narrow. The legal right of the appellant is essentially to be determined upon documentary evidence since it is with regard to title to an immovable property.3. The appellant claims to have taken on tenancy two distinct lands at two separate times.4. The respondent No. 2 contends that there is no second tenancy and that the appellant has trespassed upon the land outside the land tenanted to him on which he has put up a structure.5. The appellant's suit is for a declaration that the sanction of plan by respondent No. 1, the MMC, which is the Planning Authority, permitting the construction of the compound wall t...
Porwal Auto Services and ors. Vs. Punjab and Sindh Bank
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR161; 2007(6)BomCR321; 2007(4)MhLj806
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Heard.2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the Order passed by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, on 8th August, 2005 in Misc. Appeal No. 46 of 2003, refusing to set aside ex parte Judgment delivered by Debts Recovery Tribunal on 6th June, 2002.3. Considering the nature of controversy and various orders passed earlier, we have heard the matter finally. Hence, Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.4. During hearing, it has transpired that the Certificate, for which recovery has been initiated against present petitioners, is for Rs. 13,40,922-00 with costs and interest. Learned Advocate Mr. Chandurkar states that while moving application before Debts Recovery Tribunal for setting it aside, 25 per cent of the amount, i.e., Rs. 3,44,000-00, has been deposited. He further states that though the Debts Recovery Tribunal's order shows that summons was 'not claimed' or 'refused' by present petitioners, that is not the correct position, and the same was...
Hanil Era Textiles Limited Vs. Namdeo Mukund Deoghare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR600
Dalvi Roshan, J.1. This Appeal challenges the judgment and order of the Ex-Officio Commissioner, Workman's Compensation, Raigad-Alibag on 4.10.1995, granting compensation of Rs. 1,04,960/- to the respondent (original applicant) with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum until realization as well as the incidental orders passed thereupon. The Appeal is under the Workmen's Compensation Act. A substantial question of law involved in the Appeal is first required to be shown. The Appeal is filed by the employer of the Applicant who claimed to be a workman. It was denied that he was the workman. It was contended that he was a learner and hence, not a workman.2. The issues framed by the learned Commissioner were whether the respondent was the workman, whether he sustained injuries during the course of his employment, whether he was permanently disabled on account of injuries, whether he earned Rs. 1,000/- per month as claimed by him and whether he was 29 years old at the time of the in...
Jaya Sanjiv Mehta Vs. Sanjiv Baldev Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-2007
Reported in: II(2007)DMC487
ORDERS.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This petition was directed to be listed along with Writ Petition No. 8585 of 2006.2. Writ Petition No. 6837 of 2006 is by the petitioner who is a wife of the respondent therein. The respondent in Writ Petition No. 6837 of 2006 (husband) has filed Writ Petition No. 8585 of 2006.3. Both are aggrieved by an order dated 5th August, 2006 which has been passed in Interim Maintenance Application No. 74 of 2004 in Petition No. A-1638 of 2003. The learned Judge of the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai has awarded an interim maintenance in favour of the wife of Rs. 3,000 per month but the said amount is not directed to be paid from the date of the application filed for interim maintenance but from the date of the order.4. Mr. S.C. Thatte appearing for the petitioner-wife submits that the respondent-husband had earlier preferred a petition for a divorce which was withdrawn by him and now he has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal right under Section 9 of the Hind...
Namdeo Tukaram Kuttarwade (Dahiphale) Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR884
Patil Naresh H., J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The matter is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties.2. Petitioner's land bearing Survey No. 5 to the extent of 2 H 40 Ares situated at village Mahinda, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Aurangabad was acquired by the State of Maharashtra for the purpose of construction of village tank. Petitioner received compensation in respect of the acquired land. The petition was owning the said property as joint family property. Petitioner contends that the petitioner's elder brother Sakharam Uttarwade received a notice from the Special Land Acquisition Officer.3. Petitioner's son is in service of Zilla Parishad. His grand son Sanjay completed D. Ed and is in need of service. Therefore, the petitioner had applied for issuance of certificate as Project Affected Person to the office of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 passed an order rejecting said application on the ground that certificate cannot be issued as the land was acquired fo...
The Income Tax Officer Ward Vs. Ahuja Graphic Machinery (P) Ltd.,
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-2007
Reported in: (2007)109ITD71(Mum.)
1. There being a difference of opinion between the Members constituting the Division Bench, the Hon'ble President has referred, under Section 255(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following point of difference to me as a Third Member to resolve the controversy: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 7,25,000/- received by the assessee in the year 1989, during the normal course of carrying on its business, but shown as outstanding liability in the books of account till date, can be brought to the charge of tax Under Section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as profit, gain or benefit of business in the assessment year under appeal? 2. The assessee is a limited company. During the assessment year in question, it was acting as an Indenting Agent for M/s. Hawson Algraphy Ltd. (HAL), London. In the Financial Year 1985-86, HAL sent one machinery to the assessee company to be exhibited in PAMEX Trade Fair 1987. It was mutually agreed that if the machinery could ...
Mr. Prakash Vernekar S/o Shri Balkrishna Verenkar Vs. State of Goa, th ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4649
N.A. Britto, J.1. The challenge in this revision petition is to the Order dated 27.10.2006, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji, has ordered the gold pieces, of different weights, (MO.7 to 14) which were seized from the possession of the petitioner, a goldsmith, to be returned to respondent no.2, the first informant in criminal case no.205/1996/C.2. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose of this revision petition. 3. A theft took place in the house of the respondent no.2 on 13.7.1995, and the accused Felix Fernandes was prosecuted under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C.,1860, and was convicted and sentenced by judgment dated 8.1.2001 of the Learned J.M.F.C., Mapusa and the gold articles including Mo. 7 to 14 were ordered to be released to said first informant i.e. to respondent no.2. The judgment of conviction and sentence has attained finality but the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Court of Sessions against that part of the order by which the gold articles...
Shri Prakash Vishnupant Tile and Shri Vishwamber Vishnupant Tile (Sinc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR802; 2007(5)BomCR118; (2007)109BOMLR1233; 2007(4)MhLj811
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution impugns the judgment and order rendered by the lower Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.1258 of 1986. The said appeal was allowed and the decree of eviction passed by the learned Principal Judge, Small Causes Court at Pune in Civil Suit No.91 of 1979 filed under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short 'the Bombay Rent Act') on 30/8/1986.2. The appellants-plaintiffs are the landlords and the eviction decree was sought on three grounds viz. (a) default in payment of rent with permitted increases, (b) bona fide requirements and (c) change of user and breach of the terms of tenancy agreement. The landlords had contended that the monthly rent was Rs.65/-, in addition the permitted increases like education cess, employment guarantee cess and taxes etc. were also required to be borne by the defendant-tenant and he was in arrears of the same from 4/2/1977 onwards. It was al...
Soloman Raj Sigo Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)BomCR350; (2007)109BOMLR1419; 2007(4)MhLj125
Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The Appellant has challenged the judgment dated 31st July, 2003 of the Bombay City Civil Court in Suit No.6076 of 1999 dismissing the Appellant's Suit in this Appeal. 2. The Appellant is in possession of a structure in Bangur Nagar, Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400 090. The Appellant carries on business in the said structure. 3. The Respondents' Ward Officer issued notice dated 3rd August, 1998 to the Appellant for removal of the structure which was stated to be unauthorised, in which the Appellant was carrying on business without license from the BMC. The Appellant filed a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court being Suit No.3647 of 1998 and obtained ad-interim injunction order on the next day i.e. On 4th August, 1998 restraining the Defendants from demolishing the said structure. The Appellant gave notice of the order to the Ward Officer of the Respondents on 4th August, 1998. 4. On 22 nd February, 1999 an order came to be passed in the Appellant's suit restraining the Res...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »