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.
Eknath S/O Vitthal Wakle Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR1947; 2008CriLJ662
K.J. Rohee, J.1. The appellant has challenged his conviction for the offence punishable Under Section 302 of IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life imposed by the Sessions Judge, Akola in Sessions Trial No.84/1992 decided on 25.6.1993. 2. Devkabai wd/o Shriram Ingle, r/o. Sukli- Nandapur, P.S. Borgaon-Manju, District. Akola was having a son, a daughter and a step daughter. About two years before 1990 her husband died. Both her daughters were married and her son Anil Ingle was to be married. 3. On 10.9.1990 around 1.00 p.m. Anil took his bullocks for grazing to his field. Around 2.00 p.m. Devkabai went to take a round in the field. She found that on learning from Milind s/o Bhimrao Ingle (PW 2), his father Bhimrao s/o Atmaram Ingle (PW 3) and uncle Dinkar s/o Atmaram Ingle (PW 1) were searching for Anil Ingle with 1012 people in the field. Devkabai learnt that somebody killed Anil and his dead body was lying in the field. Devkabai identified the dead body of Anil. There were several ...
Basavanappa Bhimsha Koli @ Jamdar Vs. Sunil Basavanappa Jidge
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR682; 2007(6)MhLj740
Abhay S. Oka, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. On July 4th, 2007 rule was issued in the Writ Petition and rule on interim relief was made returnable. The order dated July 4, 2007 notes that an endeavour will be made to decide the Petition finally on the date on which the Petition is fixed for consideration of interim relief. Accordingly, I have heard counsel appearing for the parties on the merits of the Writ Petition.2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff who filed a suit for injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the property described in the paragraph No. IB of the plaint till the petitioner is dispossessed in execution of decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 39 of 1991. A prayer for mandatory injunction is also incorporated seeking a direction against the respondent to restore the amenities. An Application was made by the petitioner at Exhibit 26 for amendment of plaint. By the order impugne...
Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. Vs. Suhas Madhukar Mulay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR527; [2007(115)FLR918]
Mhatre Nishita, J.1. The petitions challenge the award of the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No. 259 of 1994. By this award, the Labour Court has directed the Company which is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 555 of 1997 and respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 2405 of 1997, to reinstate with continuity of service the workman, who has filed Writ Petition No. 2404 of 1998. However, the Labour Court has declined to award any back wages to the workman.2. The facts in brief are as follows:The workman was charge-sheeted on 27.3.1988 for habitual absenteeism of 71 days for a period from February, 1987 to November, 1987. A domestic enquiry was held against him. The workman admitted before the Enquiry Officer that he had committed the act of misconduct alleged against him. The Enquiry Officer, therefore, held that the charges levelled against the workman had been proved. The Enquiry Officer submitted his findings on 14.6.1988. This report of the Enquiry Officer was considered by the Compa...
Kamyani Vidya Mandir Vs. Sangeeta Eknath Sanghpal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR500; [2007(115)FLR1021]; (2008)ILLJ712Bom; 2008(1)MhLj63
Mhatre Nishita, J.1. The petitioner challenges the award of the Labour Court dated 12.12.2000 by which the Labour Court has observed that the petitioner is an industry as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court has also held that the respondent No. 1 is a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. As these two issues were decided as preliminary issues, there is no finding recorded by the Labour Court on merits.2. The petitioner claims to be an educational institute for mentally challenged children. It is funded by various business houses. According to the petitioner, its main object is to impart education to the mentally challenged and to rehabilitate them in order to enable them to lead independent lives as an integral part of society. The petitioner employed the respondent No. 1 as a Teacher' from 4.8.1992 on a temporary basis. After the temporary period was over on 3.2.1993, the petitioner appointed the 1st respond...
Varhadi That Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR177; 2008(6)BomCR511; [2008(116)FLR610]; (2008)IILLJ34Bom; 2008(1)MhLj265
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Heard Mr. Ghate, learned Counsel for the petitioner and and Mr. Sundaram, learned Counsel for respondent. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29-5-2007 made by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur, on the application filed by the petitioner dated 28-5-2007 for permission to cross-examine the Enforcement Officer.Facts:2. The petitioner runs an establishment by name 'Varhadi That'. There is one more establishment, namely Varhadi That Garden Restaurant situated in different premises altogether and in a name of different proprietor with independent business and licence. On 3-2-2006 an order was made based upon the inspection that the two units are owned by one and the same person and it is on that basis the liability was fixed. In W.P. No. 1732/06 this Court by the order dated 8-11-2006 directed a fresh enquiry. In the meanwhile, Mr. D.K. Mahajan and A.B...
Chandan Mulji Nishar (Smt.) and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR25; 2008(1)MhLj703
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Legal representatives of original plaintiff have preferred this appeal against dismissal of the Suit No. 214 of 1978 by the learned Single Judge. Defendant Nos. 1 to 12 are the respondent Nos. 1 to 12 respectively in this appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as plaintiffs or defendants.2. To state in brief, the defendant No. 2 is a Private Ltd. company and because of non-payment of income-tax to the tune of Rs. 12,54,144/- from the year 1963-64 onwards, for the recovery of the tax, the tax recovery officer issued a proclamation on 1st June, 1974, which was published in Government Gazette on 20th June, 1974 for sale of the property of the defendant No. 2. The property included the business along with the tenancy rights of the defendants over the disputed premises situated at 2nd floor of the United India Building, Sir Phirozshah Mehta Road, Fort, Bombay. The original plaintiff had participated in the auction and his bid for Rs. 1,05,000...
Mahadu Narayan Pawar Deceased Through His Lrs. Balwant Mahadu Pawar an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR726; 2007(6)BomCR48; 2008(1)MhLj929
R.M. Savant, J.1. Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.2. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik dated 31-5-2007 in Appeals filed by the various respondents herein relating to the execution of the decree which decree is in favour of the petitioners above named. The said Appeals were filed against the order of the Collector, Ahmednagar dated 25-8-2006 by which order the Collector had decided the manner in which the decree was to be executed.3. The petitioners are the heirs of one Mahadu Narayan Pawar. The said Mahadu had purchased some lands from one Chotibee who was the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 1956 which she had filed for partition and possession of agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 46/2, 47/6, 48/6, 53/1B, 133/3, 52/1, 52/2, 131 and 50/4 situated at Chahurana Bk., taluka and district Ahmednagar and ...
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Pandurang Balwant Kad ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR1050]
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the order of the Labour Court dated 28.7.1997 in Complaint (ULP) No. 105 of 1996. The petitioners have also challenged the order passed by the Industrial Court in Revision Application (ULP) No. 288 of 1997 preferred by the petitioners. The Labour Court has directed the petitioners to reinstate the workman as a Driver with continuity of service but without back wages.Admittedly, the respondent workman was employed as a Driver with the petitioners from 22.12.1992. On 16.12.1993, within less than a year of his joining service, the respondent workman committed an accident in which the pillion rider of a moped died and the rider sustained severe injuries. A charge-sheet was issued to the respondent workman on 15.4.1994 for this incident. An enquiry was instituted against him by the petitioners. The enquiry officer found the respondent workman to be guilty of the misconduct alleged against him and accordingly submitted his report. On the b...
Vilas Shankar Donode, Member, Zilla Parishad Vs. State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Bom10; 2007(6)ALLMR681; 2008(2)BomCR303; (2007)109BOMLR2020; 2007(6)MhLj407
R.C. Chavan, J.1. A complaint by petitioner, a Member of Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur, about illegal felling of trees by respondent No. 5, the then Member of Legislative Assembly, was treated as Public Interest Litigation. 2. The petitioner himself stopped taking interest. On 9-3-2005, Advocate Shri P.C. Madkholkar was appointed as Amicus Curiae. From time to time, interim orders were passed and information was collected from all relevant sources in form of affidavits/submissions. On 27-4-2005, as the pleadings were complete, this Court directed by consent of parties that the petition may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. This is how the petition is being disposed of. Therefore, Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard. 3. The pleadings disclose that there is no dispute about respondent No. 5's ownership of land survey No. 49 in Khairi Chak situated in a reserved forest. It was alleged that by exerting his influence as Member of Legislative Assembl...
Manohar T. Bhambani and Mrs. Rina Manohar Bhambani Vs. S.K. Laul, Chie ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2007
Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Bom)375; [2008]302ITR208(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. On 7th July, 1993, this Court issued rule and continued the interim relief, granted on 11/3/1993, restraining the respondents from taking possession of the property in question.2. The petitioner herein had entered into an agreement on 26/11/1987 with respondent No.3 for purchase of flat No.201, on second floor of Samudra Gaurav Apartments, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 025 for a consideration of Rs. 14,50,000/- of an area of 1131 sq. ft. which worked out to Rs. 1,283/- per sq ft. On 15/2/1998 the respondent No.1 passed an order under section 269UD(1) of the I.T. Act exercising the right to purchase the subject property. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No.583 of 1988 before this Court. In the meantime, the Supreme Court in C.B. Gautam v. Union of India and Ors. reported in : [1993]199ITR530(SC) laid down various steps which had to be satisfied before an order was made under Section 269UD of the Income Tax Act. This included giving the intending p...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »