Mumbai Court September 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.
Sanjay Agarwal S/O. Late Shri K.L. Agarwal Vs. Beekalane Fabrics (P) L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR695; 2008(2)MhLj269
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The suit is filed for specific performance of a MOU/Agreement dated 14.2.2005 entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. The Notice of motion is for the usual reliefs for the appointment of a Court Receiver and injunction in a suit for specific performance.2. Defendant No. 2 is the Managing Director of Defendant No. 1. By the said MOU, the first Defendants agreed to transfer/sell to the Plaintiff the leasehold plot admeasuring 6150 sq. meters at the Taloja Industrial Area, MIDC, Tal : Panvel, for a total consideration of Rs. 87,00,000/-. Pursuant to Clause 2 of the Agreement, part payment of Rs. 21,75,000/- was made on the signing of the said Agreement. Under Clause 9 of the Agreement, the balance amount was payable on or before registration of the documents and possession being handed over by the Defendants to the Plaintiff.3. The execution of the Agreement is admitted. The receipt of the part payment of Rs. 21,75,000/- is admitted. The Plaintiff by his...
Akkabai Bapurao Power Since Deceased Through Lrs. Mayuresh Anant Power ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR684; 2008(1)BomCR191; 2007(6)MhLj827
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents.2. Both the petitions can be disposed of by passing a common order since the parties in both the petitions are same and the petitioners in both these petitions are challenging the order passed by the MRT in Revision Application Nos. MRT-KP-14/1986 and MRT-KP-15/1986 whereby by the said judgment and order, the Tribunal was pleased to set aside the order passed by the lower authorities and directed the trial Court to fix the purchase price.3. It is necessary to give a brief background of this case since the chequered history in respect of this litigation is that one Muktabai w/o Bhaurao Jadhav was the owner/landlady of agricultural lands situated at Village Khadule bearing Survey No. 23 admeasuring 2 acres 4 gunthas and Survey No. 24 admeasuring 4 acres situated at village Mukteshwar, both in Taluka Gaganbawda. The petitioner No. 1 is a daughter of landlady.4. It is the case of the...
Haribhau N. Nikam Vs. Chairman, Padm. Vasantdada Patil High School and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR768; 2008(3)BomCR255; 2008(1)MhLj199
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order of the School Tribunal which has dismissed his appeal on 14-10-1997.The petitioner was issued an appointment letter by respondent No. 1 on 30-5-1994. This appointment was pursuant to an application submitted by the petitioner on 20-5-1994. The appointment letter stated that the petitioner was being appointed w.e.f. 13-6-1994 on probation. The words 'temporary' and 'permanent' have been cancelled in the appointment letter. Clause 5 is handwritten to the effect 'your appointment is not in reservation (open) post'. Admittedly, the petitioner worked with the College for two years upto 18-6-1996. The petitioner thereafter was prevented from attending work by respondent No. 1. The petitioner, therefore, filed an appeal on 16-7-1996 being Appeal No. 58 of 1996. The School Tribunal by its order dated 14-10-1997 dismissed the appeal by concluding that the appointment of the petitioner was against a reserved category post as there was a ba...
Cesar Rego Fernandes and ors. Vs. Angela Ninette Oliveira Fernandes an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR270; 2008(2)MhLj159
Mohite R.S., J.1. Heard both sides. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.2. This petition impugns an order dated 23.8.2007 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Panaji by which she has directed deletion of paragraphs 12, 13 and 27 to 33 of the affidavit-in-evidence filed by the plaintiffs. The said deletion has been directed on the footing that the evidence as contained in the examination-in-chief does not find place in the pleadings. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Anila Rege v. Guruprasad M. Rage and Ors. reported in 2004 B.C.I. (P.B.) 589 : 2004(3) All.M.R. 271 wherein this Court has held that in the absence of pleadings, evidence produced by the plaintiff cannot be considered. Reliance has further been placed upon a Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prataprai N. Kothari v. John Braganza reported in : AIR1999SC1666 , in which the Apex Court while dealing with a question of admissibility, observed that it was a settle...
Kamlakar S/O Mahadeo Garad Vs. Joint Director (Sugar), Nagpur Region a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR138; [2008(117)FLR390]; 2008(2)MhLj198
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Heard Mr. Meghe, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jaiswal, learned A.G.P., for respondents. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. By the present petition, the petition has challenged the order made by the Labour Court on 20-5-2005 dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner/complainant under M.R.T.U. and PULP Act as well as the revisional order and judgment made by the Industrial Court on 16-2-2007 in Revision (ULP)No. 137/05.3. It was the case of the petitioner/complainant that he was engaged on daily wages basis as a driver with the respondents with effect from 24-12-1991 on daily wages of Rs. 59=75 intermittently. It was his case that lastly he came to be terminated/discontinued with effect from 31-3-1993. He thus completed 240 days of continuous service and, as such, was entitled to the protection of Section 25-B read with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to him, and admittedly the mandatory...
Aefloat Textiles (India) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-2007
Reported in: IV(2008)BC62; 2007(6)BomCR425; [2009]149CompCas237(Bom); 2008CriLJ1494
ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard Mr. Soni the learned Counsel for the petitioners who are impleaded as accused in C.C. No. 462/SS/ 2006, presently pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 26th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short N.I. Act). Order of process was issued by the learned Magistrate on 4-5-2006 against the present petitioners and the said order was carried in Criminal Revision Application No. 959 of 2006 before the Sessions Court. The said revision application has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for Gr. Mumbai and hence this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of Cr. P. C.2. The main argument advanced before this Court, like before the Sessions Court, is that the accused No. 1-company M/s. Aefloat Textiles (India) Ltd. is declared a sick company by the BIFR as per its order dated 4-9-2003 and in view of the scheme of Sections 22 and 22A of the Sick Ind...
South Indian Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-2007
Reported in: III(2008)BC458
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant-Bank which is seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 30th Court, Kurla, Mumbai in C.C. No. 222/SS/04 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. As per the Bank, the accused-present respondent No. 2 had issued cheque bearing No. 132136, dated 6.1.2004 drawn on the Bank, of Madura Ltd., Chembur Branch in the sum of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- in its favour and the cheque was issued by the accused on behalf of M/s. N.N. Weaving Mill but in his capacity as Proprietor. When the cheque was submitted for encashment, it was returned as dishonoured on 20.1.2004. A legal notice dated 13.2.2004 issued to and received by the accused did not result in payment of the amount to the complainant and, therefore, the complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act came to be filed. The complainant stepped in the witness box himself and so d...
Esteam Services Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-2007
Reported in: 2009[13]STR106
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.This petition is filed to challenge the order of CESTAT dated 22-9-2006 whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Central Excise (A) dated 22-2-2005.2. In this case, the petitioner had filed a refund claim on 30-3-2004 claiming refund of Rs. 5,45,942/-. By a show cause notice dated 16-6-2004 the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ichalkaranji called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the refund claim of Rs. 5,27,396/- out of Rs. 5,45,942/- should not be rejected as time-barred. By a corrigendum dated 3rd September, 2004 an additional ground was added to the show cause notice dated 16-6-2004 and the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the refund claim should not be rejected under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Rules, 2000 in view of the fact that the petitioner had availed drawback under ...
Bank of Baroda Vs. Deepak Raghuvir Wagle and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR439; 2007(6)BomCR38; (2007)109BOMLR2245; 2008(2)MhLj381
D.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. This Review Petition has been placed before us pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. 2. The circumstances giving rise to the filing of this Review Petition are, Suit No.2108 of 1999 was filed Bank of Baroda. It appears from the record that the suit was fixed on the board of the Prothonotary & Sr.Master on 12-10-2006 for directions, because it was not clear whether the Plaintiff had effected service of writ of summons on the Defendants. On 12-10-2006, none appeared before the Prothonotary & Sr. Master, therefore, the matter was adjourned to 4-12-2006. The order reads as under:Plaintiffs and their advocate absent. Adjourned to 4-12-2006.-On 4-12-2006, again the Plaintiffs and their advocate were absent and therefore, the matter was adjourned for dismisal. The order reads as under:Plaintiffs and their advocate are absent. Adjourned for one week for dismissal.On 11-12-2006, the matter again appeared on the board of Prothonotary & Sr.Master for ...
Narayan Sahadu Patil and ors. Vs. Sau Kalashri Vijay Dhamke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ471; 2008(2)BomCR298; [2008(116)FLR1050]; 2008(1)MhLj88
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. The First Appeal and Cross Objection arise out of judgment rendered by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Labour Court), Jalgaon, in proceeding under Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.2. The appellants are original claimants, who had filed an application for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lac) along with interest and penalty on account of accidental death of Kailas Patil. They asserted that they are dependants of deceased Kailas. Appellant Nos. 1 & 2 are his parents. Appellant Nos. 3 & 4 are his brother and sister, whereas appellant Nos. 5 & 6 are his wife and minor daughter. Respondent - Smt. Kalashri is owner of Ambassador Car bearing Registration No. MH-C-7901.3. The appellants' case, briefly stated, is that deceased Kailas was employed as driver on the Ambassador car vehicle of the respondent. His salary was of Rs. 700/- besides bhatta of Rs. 300/-per month. In the night between 12th and 13th April, 1998, he was driving th...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »