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.
The Principal Collector of Customs and the Union of India (Uoi) Throug ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR477; 2008(1)BomCR494; 2007(6)MhLj225
ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. By consent, taken up for final disposal.2. Since common question of law and facts arise in the above appeals and the notice of motion, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.3. All these matters originate from the order dated 21st March, 1997 passed in Suit No.3037 of 1991 by the Learned Single Judge purportedly exercising the powers under Order 8 Rule 5 and/or 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while disposing the suit.4. In the year 1988, the respondent No.1 sought to import from U.S. and Japan Photographic Machineries under Tariff Item No.98.01 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and to have the items assessed under the 'Project Import Scheme' and claimed concessional rate of duty on the said goods. In 1990, the Principal Collector of Customs denied clearance of the goods under the said Tariff Item on the ground that the same did not fall under the said item. The respondent No.1 therefore filed a Writ Petition No.13...
Sylvester and Co. Vs. their workman thro' Transport and Dock Workers' ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)BomCR395; (2008)ILLJ546Bom
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. On a reference to adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 made by the Central Government on October 15, 1987, the Industrial Tribunal held: (i) By an award, Part-I, dated September 1,1989, that the Central Government was the appropriate Government within the meaning of Section 2(a) and the Tribunal had jurisdiction; (ii) By an award, Part-11, dated February 1, 1991, that the termination of the services of the workman without holding a disciplinary enquiry was invalid and the workman was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service from July 1, 1986. The management challenged the awards in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Learned single Judge of this Court, by an order dated March 3, 1997, affirmed the award. The judgment of the Learned single Judge has been impugned in the present proceedings in appeal.2. The Appellant carries on business of a Clearing and Forwarding agent. The workman w...
Global Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Malaysian Airline System and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)BomCR121
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard forthwith by consent.2. The petitioners have filed the present arbitration petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (for short,'The Arbitration Act'). The basic prayers are:(a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Arbitration proceedings, and till such as the Award which may be passed therein becomes executable, Respondent No.(2) be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from taking any steps pursuant to the aforesaid letters dated 3rd May 2007 (Exhibit-G hereto) and 5th May, 2007 and the said bank guarantees dated 6th November, 2004 and 2nd July, 2001, invoking the aforesaid Bank Guarantee or receiving any moneys in respect thereof from Respondent No.1;(b) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Arbitration proceedings and till such as the Award which may be passed therein becomes executable, Respondent No.2 be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Bank Guarantee No. 6...
Radhu Gokul Gawali, (Died, Through L.Rs. Krishnabai W/O Radhu Gawali a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR339; 2007(5)BomCR93; (2007)109BOMLR1314; 2007(6)MhLj117
S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad ('MRT'), in Appeal NO.121/A/96/Nanded dated 26.11.1987. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 had filed an application bearing No. 85/TNC/98/CR-15 before learned Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Nanded under Section 98 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 ('Act of 1950') for eviction of the present petitioners. It came to be rejected on 13.4.1986.Respondents 1 and 2 had challenged the said order by filing an appeal No. 121/A/1986 before the MRT. This appeal was allowed on 26.11.1987, by which the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) was directed to hand over possession of land S. No. 18 to the extent of 18 acres and 16 gunthas ('suit land'), situated at village Hasrapur, Taluka and District Nanded by evicting the original respondents as per the provisions of law. This order, as said abov...
In Re: Reliance Industries Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-2007
Reported in: [2007]79SCL6(Bom)
ORDERD.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The sanction of the Court is sought under the provisions of Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 to a scheme of amalgamation. Under the proposed scheme, Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited (the transferor) is to stand amalgamated with Reliance Industries Limited, the petitioner before this Court. The Court has been informed that a petition has been filed by the transferor before the Gujarat High Court since the transferor has its registered office in the State of Gujarat. That petition is stated to be pending. The scheme was approved by the Board of Directors on 10-3-2007. The rationale for the scheme has been duly explained in paragraph B of the prefatory part of the scheme. The appointed date is 1-4-2006. The scheme envisages the issuance of new equity shares by the transferee to the shareholders of the transferor in the ratio of one equity share each of the face value of Rs. 10 of the transferee for every five equity shares of the value of...
Hindoostan Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Crown Mills Siddhivi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR376; 2007(4)BomCR568; (2008)ILLJ243Bom; 2007(5)MhLj801
Vijay C. Daga, J.1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 21st February, 2004 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.1097/2004; 1160/2004 and 1702/2004, out of which two are filed by M/s.Hindustan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. (Company / appellant-Mill for short) and another one by Hindustan Crown Mills Siddhi Vinayak Kamgar Karmachari Sangharsha Sanghatana and others (Union for short). In all these petitions Rastriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh (RMMS for short) was joined as party respondent. By the impugned order, the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 21st February, 2004 granting and/or confirming the grant of permission to close down two undertakings of the appellant-Mill came to be set aside with direction to grant compensation, in lieu of reinstatement, to the workmen, who did not opt for voluntary retirement until 1st March, 2004 with other reliefs referred to in the operative part of the judgment and order together with gratuity in a...
Sunita Laxmanrao Shinde and ors. Vs. Ashwini Co-operative Housing Soci ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR347; 2007(6)BomCR341; 2007(4)MhLj866
A.A. Sayed, J.1. The above Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the heirs of one Mr. Laxmanrao Shankarrao Shinde (hereinafter called 'the said deceased-plaintiff) against the impugned order dated 21st November, 2006 passed by the Single Judge of this Court, whereby the Appeal from Order No. 218 of 2006 was dismissed. The said Appeal from Order was filed against the order dated 3rd January, 2006 passed by the 9th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune, dismissing the Misc. Application No. 655 of 2002 of the deceased plaintiff i.e. the original applicant, for restoration of the suit by setting aside the order of dismissal of the suit.2. The facts giving rise to the above Appeal are that the deceased had filed the Spl. Civil Suit No. 514 of 1996 in Civil Court, Pune against the respondents, praying inter alia, for declaration, injunction, and other reliefs. On 16-8-2002, when the suit was kept for hearing, the said deceased i.e. the plaintiff in the suit, could not remain present before th...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Suretech Hospital and Research Centre L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2007
Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Bom)360; [2007]293ITR53(Bom)
1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, stating that the following questions of law arise out of the order of the Tribunal dt. 28th Feb., 2003 in ITA No. 25/Nag/2001.(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law in deciding that the learned CIT(A) ought to have exercised its powers to receive new/additional evidence for deciding the issue in terms of Rule 46A(4) of the IT Rules, 1962?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law in admitting the additional/new evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963?(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law in setting aside the matter to the file of the AO relating to the additions of Rs. 6,06,725?(iv) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of ...
Rockwell (India) Vs. Transport Manager and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)BomCR91; 2007(2)CTLJ420(Bom)
Kumar Swatanter, C.J.1. Transport Manager, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation Transport issued a public advertisement in the local newspaper 'Lokmat' on 22nd July, 2006. In the advertisement it was stated that the tender forms for construction of 183 bus shelters would be available during the period 24th July, 2006 to 14th August, 2006. The tenders were required to be submitted by 15.00 Hrs. on 16th August, 2006, and they were to be opened in the presence of the parties on the same day at 16.00 Hrs. The petitioner, who claims to be one of the bidders, has averred in the petition that on 16th August, 2006, no officer of respondent No. 1 was available at the Office of first respondent for opening the tenders and no further notice was put on the notice board with regard to deferment of date for opening of the tenders. The petitioner, through his Advocate, issued a notice to the first respondent on 2nd February, 2007, seeking information about the date on which the tenders would be opened. ...
Vice Chairman of Area Canteen Vs. their Workmen Rep. by General Labour ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR173; (2007)IIILLJ922Bom
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Rule.2. Rule is made Returnable forthwith with. Respondents waive service.:3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.4. The grievance of the petitioner is that 1 the Central Government Industrial Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to decide the claims of the respondents-employees in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. M. Aslam and Ors. : [2001]1SCR62 . The Tribunal was pleased to pass Part-I Award and came to the conclusion that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the reference which was made by the Central Government. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed a review application in the said reference and submitted that in view of the said judgment of the Supreme Court, the reference should be sent back to the Central Government since the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain the reference. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Court,...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »