Mumbai Court August 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.
Syyad Sabdarali Sy. Nyajali Vs. Shahistabegum W/O Sayyad Sabdarali,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR351; 2007(5)BomCR36; (2007)109BOMLR1633; 2007(6)MhLj532
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. This appeal arises out of Judgment rendered by IVth Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Jalgaon in an application (Misc.C.A.No.108 of 2005) for appointment of guardian and custody of minors. Appellant - Sayyad Sabdarali was original opponent No. 1 before the trial Court. Respondent No. 1 - Shahistabegum is the original applicant. For sake of convenience, I shall refer to the parties by their first names.2. Somewhere in 1995, marriage between Shahistabegum and Sayyad Sabdarali was performed in accordance with tenets of Mohammedan law. The couple was residing together uptill May, 2005. During their consortium of ten years, Shahistabegum delivered in all seven children, out of which three are surviving. They are : Sayyad Danish, Sayyad Talib and Sayyad Tabij. At the time of filing the application, these minors were aged 7 years, 4 years and 2 years respectively. 3. The spouses are incompatible. The wife is residing with her parents at Faizpur (Taluka Yawal). She assert...
Sau. Sonali W/O Manishkumar Chandak and Manishkumar S/O Jugalkishorji ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR227; 2007(5)BomCR47; (2007)109BOMLR1698; 2007(5)MhLj615
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Rule. This petition is taken up for final disposal as per the request made by the counsel for the petitioners. 2. By the present petition, order dated 25.6.2007 in Hindu Marriage Petition No. F-87/2007 below Ex.7 passed by Family Court No. 2, Nagpur, is impugned. 3. Facts:Petitioners No. 1 and 2 were married on 31.5.2001. The marriage between them broke down irretrievably and since January 2006 they are living separately. All efforts for reconciliation have failed. Both the petitioners have filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court at Nagpur, on 3.5.2007. On certain consent terms, after filing of the petition, the Conciliator, Family Court, Nagpur, interviewed both the petitioners in the conciliation proceedings, but to no use. The Conciliator, therefore, submitted failure report to the Judge, Family Court No. 2, Nagpur. Thereafter the Family Court posted the proceedings on a date beyond six...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sound Castings Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2007
Reported in: (2008)(125)ECC107
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. PII/BKS/196/06 dt.28.6.2006.The respondents are absent despite notice. Since the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of the Tribunal, the appeal is taken up for disposal in the absence of the Respondent. Heard the Ld. SDR and perused the records. It is seen from the records that the respondents were availing Cenvat credit on the outward transportation charges paid by them to goods transport operators. Such credit was sought to be denied by the Revenue and the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, imposed penalties and also sought to recover interest from the respondent. On an appeal Ld.Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the Respondent on the following finding: I have carefully gone through the case records and the various submissions made by the appellants. The Adjudicating Authority has disallowed the Cenvat Credit and confirmed the demand of service tax along...
The Assistant Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR673; 2007(5)BomCR493; (2007)109BOMLR1651; [2007(115)FLR563]; (2008)ILLJ735Bom; 2007(6)MhLj333
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. None appears on behalf of the respondent company though it was served. Mr. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that though the respondent has been served, the respondent has never appeared on earlier occasions when the matter was heard. This First Appeal is of 1988 and though the respondent has been served, respondent has not chosen to appear in this Court. Hence, there is no option for this Court but to decide the First Appeal after hearing the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 2. The short question which arises in this First Appeal is regarding the applicability of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the petrol pumps owned by the respondent company. 3. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under:4. Respondent was running two petrol pumps; o...
Shripad Yeshwant Kulkarni Vs. Shri Mahadeo Shankar Jadhav (Since Decea ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR259; 2007(5)BomCR528
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. 2. The petitioner is challenging order passed by the authorities below whereby the petitioner's application for possession of the land which he has filed under Section 29 read with Section 14 and Section 25 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'B.T. and A.L. Act') was rejected. 3. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this Petition are as under:4. The Petitioner is a landlord of the suit land and respondents are tenants. The disputed property pertains to land bearing Survey No. 12 admeasuring 34 Acres 25 Gunthas and it was renumbered after consolidation as Gat No. 28/1. The original landlord Shri Yeshwant Kulkarni died in 1940, leaving behind his wife Annapurnabai Y. Kulkarni who became the absolute owner of the said property. The landlord did not have any issue from the said wife...
Hotel Shree Vaibhav Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR676; 2008(2)BomCR849; [2008(116)FLR321]; (2008)IILLJ72Bom; 2007(6)MhLj363
Vasanti A. Naik, J.1. Since the parties to these two first appeals are common and since these first appeals arise out of the order passed by the E.S.I. Court, Nagpur, on 30th October, 2006, they are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.2. A few facts giving rise to these first appeals and to the controversy involved therein are stated thus; Instead of referring to the parties as appellant and respondent, it would be convenient in this case to mention them as the employer Hotel and the Corporation. The Inspector of the Corporation visited the unit of the employer Hotel on 21-7-1997 and observed that the employer Hotel was engaged in the business of lodging and providing tea, snacks and cold-drinks to the customers. It was further observed by the Inspector, as is stated in the order under Section 45-A of the E.S.I. Act, 1948, that the employer Hotel was using one oven, L.P.G. Cylinder, a fridge, water-cooler and air conditioners to provide services to the customers. ...
Devendra Prasad Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)BomCR512; [2007(115)FLR755]; 2007(6)MhLj655
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. Shri J.J. Pandian waives service on behalf of the respondents. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.2. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 21-8-2001, Exhibit-D to the petition. By the impugned order, the services of the petitioner have been terminated by the railway authorities.3. The challenge to the impugned order is on various grounds. However, it is not necessary to address to all those grounds sought to be canvassed against the impugned order and suffice to refer to only one ground that in spite of the petitioner being selected by due process of law regarding selection of candidates for appointment in a permanent post and having so selected and appointed on probation, during the period of probation his services have been terminated on the ground that he had shown gross neglect and discreditable conduct without even holding an inquiry in that regard and by passing a stigmatic order.4. Apart from issuing...
Shripat Shankar Panchal Vs. Municipal Corporation for Gr. Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)MhLj478
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lacs) along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit against the defendants/Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay (for short, 'M. C, Bombay)' for damages/compensation towards their negligence as his son lost his life as he fell into the open manhole of the gutter at service road, Andheri on 16-4-1987.2. The deceased was the son of the plaintiff aged 11 years by name Sunil. He was studying in school. On 16-4-1987 at about 5.30 p.m. to 6 p.m. the deceased while playing with other boys fell into the uncovered hole of the gutter at the side of the road at Andheri. As noted, that people were gathered near the ditch/hole and some one removing the body of the deceased and taken to Holy Spirit Hospital where he was declared dead before admission by the Doctor on duty.3. A complaint was lodged at Andheri Police Station which was registered as ADR-28/87. The s...
Punya Coal Roadlines Vs. Western Coalfields Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CTLJ117(Bom); 2007(5)MhLj688
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 12-4-2006, Annexure E to the petitions, by which the tender process commenced through notice dated 3-1-2006 has been cancelled and the earnest money deposit furnished by the petitioners while submitting the tender has been forfeited.3. The dates on which various transactions took place, which are admitted, are as follows:(a) Date of Tender Notice - 3-1-2006.(b) Date of opening of technical bid. - 6-2-2006.(c) Date of common withdrawal letter given bypetitioners, - 13-2-2006(d) Date of scrutiny of technical bid. - 20-2-2006.(e) Fresh Tender Notice - 4-3-2006,- 10-4-2006.(f) Cancellation - 12-4-2006.4. According to the respondents, since the withdrawal letter was given by the petitioners on 13-2-2006, it was given before the date of expiry of validity of the tender, the forfeiture of earnest money deposit was imperative.5. The learned Advocate for the petitio...
Shaik Kaisar and ors. Vs. Forbes Gokak Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR996]; (2008)ILLJ30Bom
1. Heard learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respective parties.The appellants have approached us by intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by learned single Judge of this High Court in Writ Petition No. 7149/2006 on October 18, 2006.2. Appellants are ex-employees of respondent No. 1. They have accepted voluntary retirement under available scheme and there is no dispute that they are entitled to gratuity. It is also an admitted position that employer - respondent No. 1 has paid the amount of gratuity to the employees as payable according to the notion of the employer. The employees took the dispute to the Controlling Authority under Section 7 Sub-section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 because it was their grievance that certain amounts which attracted the definition of 'wages' as contained in Section 2(s) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 were excluded by the employer by giving different nomenclature to those amoun...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »