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.
Shahaji Ramanna Nair Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4653
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. The present Appellant, who is original accused No. 1, preferred this Appeal for setting aside the order of conviction under Sections 393 and 398 of IPC and the sentence of R. I. for 7 years with fine of Rs. 2000/- for offence under Section 393 IPC and R. I. for 7 years for offence under Section 398 IPC passed by the 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 259 of 2001.2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 7th December 2000, P.W. 5 Rupchand Sharma, who was the driver of the Maruti Zen Car bearing No. MH 02 JA 9654 parked in front of NCPA Theatre, Vinay Shah Marg, near Bus Stop No. 108, was sitting inside the car and was taking his lunch at about 11.15 a.m. At that time, suddenly one person entered into the car and pointing out a knife to Rupchand Sharma directed him to start the car. Being frightened, he shouted and at that time another person gagged his mouth. Rupchand Sharma tried to rescue himself from the clutches of those per...
Zulash Clearing and Shipping Agency Vs. Chairman, Railway Goods Cleari ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR301]; (2007)IIILLJ894Bom
1. Heard Shri Shah the learned senior Counsel with Mr. B.I. Dalvi for the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Naidu the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 petitioner while passing the order, and instead it took into consideration the financial capacity of RCF only. This also failed as the High Court held while considering wage rise to the contract labourers, it was the financial capacity of the principal employer that was taken into consideration, and the burden of wage increase was borne by the principal employer. If the contractor had any grievance in this regard it had to take up the matter with the principal employer.(Para 7)2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the recovery notice issued by the Tahsildar in the office of District Collector, Old Customs House, Fort, Mumbai on January 3, 2007 for the recovery of Rs. 8,26,404/-. This recovery notice has been undoubtedly issued at the instance of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner is a c...
Pushpaben Mulji Kothari and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR73; 2007(5)MhLj712
Roshan Dalvi, J.1. A very narrow point of determination arises in this First Appeal. The appellants (original plaintiffs) sued the respondents (original defendants) in the Bombay City Civil Court, challenging the Notice under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, issued on 8-6-2001 for construction of ground plus first floor structure of the appellants.2. The appellants replied to the said notice stating that the premises consisted of ground floor with a mezzanine floor and a room above it on the first floor admeasuring 300 sq. feet built up area in the chawl known as Gokuldas Raghavji Chawl. The appellants relied upon a city survey plan. The city survey plan showed the entire chawl, including the appellants' structure. All the rooms in the chawl were shown to be ground plus first floors. The appellants' room was shown to be only a ground floor construction. Only the appellants' room did not show any existence of the first floor.3. The DMC considered the appellants' repl...
Cit Vs. Sanjay K. Sarawagi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2007
Reported in: [2008]301ITR232(Bom)
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondent. Perused notice of motion and affidavit filed in support thereof.2. By this notice of motion, the appellant is seeking condonation of 150days in filing appeal. The explanation for delay given by the appellant is thus:The delay has occurred as a result of restructuring of the department. In order to streamline the work, the department has undergone major restructuring. The assessees are being identified as per the municipallimits. The case records are accordingly transferred from one charge to another and reassigned. It is on account of these reasons that limitation issue was lost sight of. Different officers have to acquaint themselves with new cases received by them under their charge and proceed from there. It is on account of these factors that the delay has occurred.3. The above is a routine and stereotype reason furnished by the revenue in almost all the applications for condonation of delay tho...
Shri Ashok Bampto Pagui Vs. Agencia Real Canacona Pvt. Ltd., a Company ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC348; 2007(4)BomCR465; (2007)109BOMLR1193; 2007CriLJ4645; 2007(6)MhLj94
N.A. Britto, J.1. This revision is filed by the accused and is directed against the Judgment dated 13-11-2006 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji, by which the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(Act, for short) has been confirmed. 2. The short point arising for consideration in this revision is whether a complaint filed by one of the Directors of the Complainant-Company was maintainable under Section 142(a) of the Act? 3. A few facts are required to be stated to dispose of this revision. 4. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the complaint. 5. The Complainant is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and the complaint on behalf of the Company was filed by Shri Prashant Shirodkar styling himself to be a Director of the said Complainant. The said complaint was filed with the allegation that the accused was in their employment and was in ...
Samaj Bhushan Sahakari Gruha Nirman Sanstha Ltd. Vs. State of Maharash ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR620; 2007(6)BomCR325; 2007(4)MhLj780
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner -Housing Society has challenged the order dated 7-10-1995, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagpur granting permission to Tahsildar, Nagpur for review as well as order dated 12-10-1995, passed by the Tahsildar cancelling the Mutation Entry Nos. 78, 79 and 80 dated 23-1-1990 in respect of the land purchased by the petitioner - Housing Society. Facts:2. The petitioner - Housing Society purchased land admeasuring 7.96 hectares by three separate registered sale-deeds dated 23-6-1989 from Survey No. 23/1 of village Wadi from its owner M/s Canara Workshop Limited. After purchase thereof the petitioner - Society reported the said transfer to respondent No. 3 - Tahsildar Nagpur (Rural) and requested for taking necessary mutation entries. Accordingly, the Tahsildar made an order on 23-1-1990 and entry into record of rights was made showing the petitioner - Society as owner of the said land. The petitioner - Society, thereaft...
Ghanshyam S/O Chandumal Harwani and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR386; 2007(6)BomCR239; 2007(5)MhLj25
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are challenging communication dated 19-11-2003 issued by respondent No. 2 Amravati Municipal Corporation rejecting their application for grant of sanction to building plan. Respondent No. 2 is a body corporate constituted under the provisions of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, and is local authority as also planning authority for development of Amravati town. State of Maharashtra is arrayed as respondent No. 1 while Collector, Amravati is respondent No. 3. Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Public Works Department, Amravati has been joined as respondent No. 4. Other prayers in writ petition are to restrain respondents from disturbing possession of petitioners on/over Plot No. 11, Nazul Sheet No. 56-B Amravati, except in accordance with law, to declare that demolition of shops standing on said plot on 21-4-2002 is contrary to law and to direct respondent No...
Citizen Forum Maharashtra Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR330; 2007(5)BomCR49; 2007(5)MhLj485
Joshi A.H., J.1. Writ Petition No. 1165 of 2007 is filed by Citizen Forum Maharashtra through Dr. Ashok Lanjewar. Writ Petition No. 2191 of 2007 is filed by Maharashtra Rajya Prathainik Shikshak Samiti, Amravati, and Writ Petition No. 2367 of 2007 is filed by Maharashtra Purogami Primary Shikshak Samiti, Akola.2. In Writ Petition No. 1165 of 2007, this Court had issued notice before admission. Notice was waived by the Government Pleader. Affidavit-in-Reply has been filed and the petition is ready for hearing and disposal. In Writ Petition No. 2367 of 2007, which was listed for the first time, however, the main issue being governed by two other petitions, this Court considers it wholly unnecessary to issue notice to the respondents and this judgment would govern this case as well.In Writ Petition No. 2191 of 2007, learned Assistant Government Pleader had waived service for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and this Court had authorized the petitioners to serve intimation of this petition on r...
Vinayak Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR249; 2007(5)BomCR89; 2008(226)ELT498(Bom); 2007(6)MhLj182
Patil Naresh H., J.1. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) dt. 10-11-1982 which was confirmed by an order passed by the Customs Excise and Gold Control Tribunal (for short CEGAT) dt. 23-9-1993. The petitioner filed appeal against the order passed by the Superintendent, Central Excise on the application of the petitioner. The petitioner claimed exemption from payment of excise duty. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the Appellate Authority is not a Court and the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings of the appeal. This finding was reached because the petitioner sought condonation of delay of four years in filing appeal before the Collector (appeals). It is an admitted position that the petitioner did not prefer a separate application for condonation of delay but in the body of the appeal memo itself the petitioner had prayed for condonation of delay. Shri K.B....
Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal and ors. Vs. Maharashtra University of Hea ... Overruled
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR499; 2007(5)BomCR147
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. Writ Petition No. 1976 of 2006 filed by Management/ Employer is to be considered along with Writ Petition No. 1066/2007 filed also by Management and Writ Petition No. 865/2007 filed by Employees. Criminal Writ Petition No. 163/2006 filed by Employees was also heard along with these matters but in view of earlier orders passed in it, We could constitute committee as per directions of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of (Vishaka Jain v. State of Rajasthan) : AIR1997SC3011 . Said Committee has been asked to complete enquiry into complaints of sexual harassment within stipulated time and other prayers made therein were not pressed. Because of these complaints of sexual harassment by two members of teaching staff and other grievances, Management Council on recommendations of Grievance Committee of Maharashtra University of Health Sciences issued certain directions to Employer/Management which are questioned in W. P. No. 1976/2006. Later on the Director Of Ayurveda, Mahara...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »