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.
Mr. Mohan Girdhar Singh Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Sr. Inspe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3855
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. The accused/appellant has preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentence for offence punishable under Section 450, 392, 394 and 397 of IPC passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 811 of 2004. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for offence punishable under Section 450 of IPC, to R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC, to R.I. for five years and a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC and he was also separately convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC.2. Prosecution case in brief is that P.W. 1 Mustafa Razak Khan owned two shops in Hilton Towers previously known as Oberoi Hotel at Nariman Point, Mumbai. On the mezzanine floor he used to run the business in the name of Shalimar Handicrafts. Similarly on the 2nd floor he used to o...
Balabhai Associates Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR205; 2007(4)BomCR546
Dalvi Roshan, J.1. The appellants, who sued for protection of their structures in the Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court, have filed this Appeal against the judgment and order dated 28/11/2006, dismissing their Suit with costs.2. The DMC has considered each of the documents relied upon by the appellants in reply to the notice received by them. He has not considered the application for repair permission since that was not relied upon by the appellants. The learned Judge has also considered in detail the worth of each of the appellants' documents. In these circumstances, it would have to be seen whether the learned Judge has correctly considered the appellants' case on merits.3. The appellants were issued a notice of the respondents dated 18.4.2002 for construction of a structure with B.M. Walls. A.C. Sheet roof, providing 9 rolling shutters in the front and providing ladi coba ladi slab below A.C. sheet roof as shown in the sketch. The measurements of the structure are shown in the sk...
Alpa Bhaskar Jagdhane and ors. Vs. Saras Plastic Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR696; 2008(2)BomCR382; 2007(6)MhLj249
ORDERS.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. At the risk and request of learned Counsel Mr. Barde, for the petitioners, respondent Nos. 6 to 12 are permitted to be deleted. Deletion to be carried out forthwith.3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, by consent of parties, and heard finally.4. This petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) No. 273 of 1998 on 31st March, 2006.5. Facts, necessary for consideration of this writ petition, may be enlisted, as follows:(a) Petitioners had filed Complaint (ULP) No. 273 of 1998 in the Court of learned Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar. Copy of the said complaint is annexed with this petition as Annexure-A. The complaint was pending before the learned Member and was on the cause list of Industrial Court on 9th August, 2004. The learned Member passed an order below Exhibit U-J holding that, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Co...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-2007
Reported in: (2007)110TTJ(Mum.)942
1. This appeal, filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A), Central-1, Mumbai dt. 31st Oct., 2003 for asst. yr. 2002-03.2. We have heard both the parties and have also perused the material on record.3. In ground No. 1, the Revenue is aggrieved by the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 1,18,630 incurred by the assessee on foreign travel expenses of Rs. 1,18,630.4. The facts, in brief, are that the AO disallowed these expenses mainly for the reason that assessee firm was not engaged in export of jewellery and it was a business leader, hence, there was no requirement for such foreign travel. On appeal, the learned CIT(A), following the appellate order for asst. yr. 2001-02, deleted the disallowance.Aggrieved by this, the Revenue is in appeal before us.5. The learned Departmental Representative placed strong reliance on the order of AO whereas the learned Counsel for the assessee placed strong reliance on the order of learned CIT(A).6. We have considered the submissions mad...
Shri Nivruti G. Ahire Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Principal S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR347; (2007)109BOMLR1302; 2007(4)MhLj284
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard at length the Advocates for the parties. This is an application for condonation of delay of 108 days in filing the application for review of the order dated 23-8-2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 644 of 2000. 2. The applicant herein was employed in the Sales Tax Department of the Government of Maharashtra as a Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax for the period from 31-3-1989 to 26-11-1993. During the said period, he was required to pass orders relating to refund of the excess payment of sales tax on consideration of the reports submitted in that regard by the Sales Tax Officer or the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. The refund orders were issued by the applicant for a total amount of Rs. 95,57,681/-in six cases under his signature. The refund orders in three cases thereof were issued on the same day on which the proposals were received by him from the Sales Tax Officer. In one case, it was issued on the day following the day on which the proposal was pla...
Mrs. Asha Anilkumar Kataria Sole Proprietor of Kat Stocks Through Its ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR355; III(2008)BC149; 2007(5)BomCR125; (2007)109BOMLR1273; 2007(4)MhLj149; [2008]81SCL477(Bom)
N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Appellant-original Plaintiff, by present appeal, challenges the judgment and order dated 23.12.2005 delivered by 4th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Jalgaon, in Special Civil Suit No. 212 of 1999. By the impugned judgment and order, learned Additional District Judge was pleased to reject the plaint and dispose of suit, by arriving at a conclusion that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Although suit is disposed of by rejection of plaint, since the decree as defined by Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, includes 'rejection of plaint', appeal under Section 96 is preferred, challenging the said judgment and order.2. Special Civil Suit No. 212 of 1999 was filed in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, by present appellant for the purpose of recovery of amount of Rs. 1,80,19,089.55 along with future interest at the rate of 22% per annum on the basis of averment to following effect; Plaintiff is the sole proprietor of th...
Pratik S/O Prakashchand Karnavat, Under Guardianship of His Mother Lil ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR572; 2007(5)MhLj720
Naresh H. Patil, J.1. Rule. Rule made absolute forthwith. By the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing. Respondents waive service of rule.2. Petitioner no. 1 claims to be the son of the daughter of the original owner petitioner no. 2 of the subject land. Shri Challani, learned Counsel for the petitioners states that during the pendency of this petition, petitioner no. 2 expired. The petitioner has placed on record the affidavit filed by Kusumbai wife of deceased Madanlal petitioner no. 2 stating therein that Madanlal during his life time executed a registered gift deed on 28-1-1999 in favour of petitioner no. 2 Pratik in respect of the agricultural land bearing survey no. 54/B of village Puini, Tq. Gangakhed to the extent of 1 H 21 R. The gift deed was registered at sr. no. 308 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Gangakhed. Petitioner no. 2 expired on 17-6-2006. The names of the legal heirs of deceased Madanlal are also mentioned in said affidavit. Deponent furthe...
Nathu Keru Bhatre, Indian Citizen Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ3849
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard the learned advocate for the accused and the learned A.P.P. for State.2. Appeal No.456 of 1986 is filed by the original accused No.12 to allow the appeal against the conviction for offence under Section 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The other Appeal No.740 of 1986 is filed by the State against the acquittal of accused Nos.1 & 14 by the trial Court. It is to be noted that in all 15 accused faced trial before the Sessions Judge, Raigad in Sessions Case No.59 of 1985 for committing triple murder of Geologist and one of their attendant. The Trial Court found that only accused No.12 was liable for conviction and thus other accused were acquitted and accused No.12 came to be convicted. By an appeal the accused No.12 challenged his conviction and the State found that the acquittal of accused Nos.1 & 14 are wrong and, therefore, the appeal against the respondents-accused.3. The prosecution case was that two junior geologist M.Vidyasagar Reddy and Omkar ...
The International Association of Lions Clubs Vs. the Association of Li ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)BomCR391; (2007)109BOMLR1109; LC2007(2)358
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This order will dispose of prayer for ad-interim relief sought by the plaintiffs during the pendency of the Notice of Motion.2. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the relevant pleadings and documents.3. This Motion is opposed only by defendant Nos. 1,2,4 and 5. The other defendants have not bothered to appear inspite of service nor have filed any reply to controvert the claim of the plaintiffs. As against them, therefore, ad-interim relief is granted in terms of prayer Clause (a) to (h). In so far as defendant Nos. 1,2,4 and 5 are concerned, as they have contested the matter we shall now examine the rival claim.4. The plaintiffs have filed suit to claim relief's against the defendants in relation to their acts of infringement of registered trade marks of the plaintiffs with the Registrar of Trade Marks in Mumbai; and acts of passing off, acts likely to pass off and/or acts enabling passing off by using word 'LION' as part of the name of the concerned defendant...
Health Secure (India) Private Limited and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporati ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR543
V.M. Kanade, J.1. All these petitions can be disposed of by passing a common order since the petitioners and the respondents are common and the subject matter in respect of these petitions is identical. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding these petitions are as under:2. Petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and has its registered office situated at C-10, M.I.D.C. Taloja, District Raigad, Maharashtra. The petitioner is a manufacturer and dealer of medicines and pharmaceutical preparations. On 25th October, 2001, a licence bearing No. KD 463 was issued to the petitioners by the Joint Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Kokan Division, under Form 25. Thereafter, on 11.1.2005, further list of medicines which were manufactured by the petitioners including item 'SENHEAL-BD' and the other products mentioned in the petition were added and permission was accordingly granted by the Food and Drug Departm...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »