Mumbai Court January 2008 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.
Mr. Gulam Mohd. Kabir Mohd. Mir @ Gulmir and Mohd. Nazir Mohd. Mehbood ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2426
V.C. Daga, J. 1. The short issue involved in this Criminal Application for bail is as under:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants/ accused are entitled for bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.' or 'Code'), for want of order by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence before expiry of the period stipulated in the said Section (180 days in this case) although the charge sheet was filed before expiry of such period?FACTUAL MATRIX:2. Admitted facts are in narrow compass. The applicants/ accused were arrested on 6th November, 2006 for the alleged violation of Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act ( for short 'NDPS Act') since they were found in possession of commercial quantity weighing 11 kg. Subsequent to the arrest applicants were produced before the Magistrate on 7th November, 2006. Their custody was sought under Section 167 of Cr.P.C, which was granted. The charge-sheet was filed on 5th...
Rashtriya Chemical and Fertilizers Ltd., a Government Company Register ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)BomCR582; [2008(117)FLR1107]; (2008)IILLJ658Bom; 2008(2)MhLj677
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner/employer being aggrieved and affected by the Judgment and Order dated 30th March, 2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, 2nd Labour Court, Mumbai, thereby the respondent workman's reference has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to reinstate the respondent workman to his original post with full back wages and continuity in service. Therefore, the present petition.2. The petitioner is a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Companies Act'). The petitioner has a sports complex at its Township and to promote and encourage sports activities use to appoint Sportsman/ Trainee on consolidated remuneration. 3. On 01/04/1994, the petitioner appointed the respondent as a 'Sportsman Trainee' (Football) on a consolidated remuneration of Rs.1,500/- per month with effect from 01/04/1994 initially for two years on probation. In the year 1994 itself, the respondent lost his right side eye visio...
Dhirajlal Talakchand Sankalchand Shah College of Commerce Vs. Ganpat S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR625; 2008(3)BomCR332; [2008(118)FLR103]; 2008(3)MhLj455
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition impuges the Judgment and Order dated 21st February, 1991 rendered by the School Tribunal, Bombay thereby allowing Appeal No.GEN/155/BOM-58 OF 1990. The School Tribunal was pleased to set aside the alleged oral termination of the appellant-respondent and he was directed to re-instated the plaintiff in his original post and pay him the arrears of emoluments, including pay and allowances from 20th June, 1990 till he is re- instated to his original post. While, admitting this petition, the impugned Judgment and Order was stayed and consequently, the respondent could not be re-instated. The respondent-teacher has filed his affidavit-in-reply and opposed this petition. However, he failed to remain present, when the petition was called out for final hearing. A notice was issued to him which was returned unserved with remark Left. Consequently, liberty was granted to the petitioner-management to publish a notice in the local news paper and accordingly, such ...
Rajesh Varma Vs. Aminex Holdings and Investments, a Partnership Firm,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR460; 2008(2)BomCR588; 2008(3)MhLj460
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Suit is filed against the Defendants for recovery of sum of Rs. 8,59,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Fifty-nine Thousand) with further interest on the principal amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) at the rate of 24% per annum or at such other rate as the Court may deem fit and proper from the date of filing of the Suit till payment and/or realisation and cost of the Suit. 2. The Plaintiff claims to have extended loan to Defendant No.1 in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ (Rupees Five Lakhs) against Bill of Exchange for the like amount upon the Defendant Nos.3 and 4 ordering them to pay to the Plaintiff or order payable on demand said sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) for value received by the Defendant No. 1 by way of two cheques in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand) bearing Nos.386445 drawn in favour of Defendant No. 1 on City Bank, Sir P.M. Road, Mumbai and another cheque bearing No. 190601 dated 8th May 1996 drawn in favour of Defe...
Smt. Chinnubai Wd/O Durgaji Kamble and ors. Vs. Western Coalfields Lim ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR440; 2008(3)BomCR134; 2008(2)MhLj706
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. All these appeals under Section 20 of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act (20 of 1957), herein after referred to as Coal Bearing Act, challenge the award passed by Special Tribunal, Nagpur, constituted under Section 14(2) thereof. The appeals are by land owners and they have restricted their claim in appeal only to entitlement to receive additional interest/component of 12%, solatium at 30% and interest at 9% or 15% as the case may be at par with amended provisions of Land Acquisition Act, more particularly Section 23(1A), 23(2) and Section 20 thereof read with Government Circular dated 12.5.1989 issued by Union of India, Ministry of Energy, Department of Coal, New Delhi. In view of clear provisions of said Circular, entitlement of appellants to receive solatium at 30% as per its Clause (a) or interest at 9% or 15% in terms of Clause (b) is also not in dispute. However, Shri Mehadia, learned Counsel appearing for the acquiring body (Respondent ...
Devidas Ragho @ Ganpat Peche Vs. Raghoba S/O Maroti Peche
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR295; 2008(2)MhLj296
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against whom decree was passed by the Appellate Court by reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff and defendant.2. A few facts necessary for the decision may be stated thus-One Ganpat Peche owned the suit property. He died on 16-2-1987 leaving behind him the plaintiff as the only legal heir of Class-II, since the plaintiff is the son of Ganpat's real brother. The plaintiff contended that he is in possession of the suit property after the death of Ganpat. When Ganpat died he was more than 88 years of age. He was ailing for quite some time. He had lost his power of understanding since six months before his death. Once the plaintiff had sent deceased Ganpat with the defendant for medical treatment. Taking disadvantage of the same, it is alleged that Ganpat got executed a gift-deed as well as Will on 21-1-1987 in his favour. The defendant claims himself to be the a...
Saheb Sopan Kale Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2115
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. By the present application, the applicant is seeking to recall the sentence imposed on him in Criminal Appeal No. 888 of 2004 by the order dated 11th October, 2004, on the ground that he was juvenile in conflict with law, on the date of the offence, and therefore, considering the provisions of law, comprised under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, read with Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, he could not have been sentenced for life imprisonment or for death but should have been ordered to be produced before the Board, in terms of provisions of law for necessary order in terms of Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter called as the 'Juvenile Act').2. Since the application was received through Jail and the applicant was not rep resented by the advocate, Miss Rebecca Gonsalves advocate was appointed as amicus curie in the matter. We have heard the learned advocate as well as the ...
Yogesh Mangalsen Bahal Vs. Rajesh Chimanrao Wable and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR243
Dharmadhikari S.C., J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. Heard Counsel for respective parties.2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner original opponent No. 1 is challenging the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune on 1st October, 2007 allowing Miscellaneous Application No. 277 of 2007. By the order under challenge the Misc. Application seeking condonation of delay has been allowed and delay in filing of the election petition has been condoned.3. Respondent No. 1 filed Election Petition against the petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune invoking his jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (for short 'B.P.M.C. Act'). The first respondent challenged the election of the petitioner as a Councillor from Ward No. 32 to the Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. The Election Petition was filed on 13th Ma...
S.A. Dalal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2008
Reported in: (2008)(129)ECC40
1. This appeal is dismissed as not maintainable as it has been filed by the applicants against letter dated 7.3.2002 intimating the appellants herein, that it would be appropriate to file an appeal before the Tribunal against suspension order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (G) under Regulation 21(2) of the CHALR, 1984. In other words, this is not the order by which CHA licence had been suspended. The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable....
Commissioner of Customs, Acc Vs. Mebajeona Stud Farm
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2008
Reported in: (2008)(128)ECC202
The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Customs accepting the transaction value for import of one broodmare "Final Bluff, and dropping the proceedings initiated against the importers for underinvoicing.We find that the charge of undervaluation and suppression of the genuine transaction value is an unsigned invoice No. CBA/94-07 dated 31.10/1994 wherein the total CIF value was shown as UK 14,856.73 and the buyer was one Shri Geoffrey Nagpal. The value shown in that invoice preserved by the importer, viz. CBA/94-08 dated 31.1.1994 is UK 4243.The payment for the mare was made on 10.6.1994 against exchange permit issued by the Reserve Bank of India in May 1994. There is no evidence of remittance of any amount over and above that covered by the foreign demand draft for UK 4243 issued by Syndicate Bank, Fort branch, Mumbai, in favour of Centaur Bloodstock Agency, U.K., the supplier of the mare. The partner of the supplier has also confirmed that the price of UK 4243 sho...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »