Mumbai Court January 2008 Judgments
Nandini J. Shah and Jayant P. Shah Shipping Tax Counsels a Partnership ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR686; 2008(5)BomCR234; 2008(4)MhLj106
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Common question of law arises for consideration in the present writ petition and other two connected writ petitions. Thus, all the three writ petitions can be disposed of by this judgment. 2. In all these cases, Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the `Corporation') claims to be the owner of the different premises wherein the petitioners in these petitions have their offices. For example, in Writ Petition No. 1278 of 2007, the petitioner has office on the third floor of East West Building, 49/55, Bombay Samachar Marg, Fort, Mumbai of which the Corporation is the owner. In this writ petition, petitioner No. 2 is a partnership firm of which petitioner No. 1 is the partner. In another writ petition being writ petition No. 1797 of 2007, National Insurance Company is the petitioner. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 in writ petition No. 1278 of 2007 are stated to be in possession of different parts of the premises and, according to the Corporation...
Tag this Judgment!Meenabai W/O Mohanrao Patil Vs. Sudhakar S/O Ramrao Birajdar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR233; 2008(4)MhLj53
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard by consent.2. Petitioner is challenging:(a) The order passed below Exh. 40, whereby the Court has declined to accept the petitioner's objection as to the maintainability of the 2nd application for execution of decree when 1st application was dismissed for want of prosecution.(b) The order passed below Exh.37 by which police aid has been granted.AS TO FILING OF 2ND APPLICATION FOR EXECUTION OF DECREE:3. The Executing Court held that fresh execution is not barred, as Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as it no application to execution proceedings particularly when there was no fresh adjudicable issue between the parties covered by any adjudication done earlier.4. Petitioner is relying upon the Judgment in the case of Om Prakash Navani and Anr. v. Herebert Joseph Pereira and Ors. reported in : 2003(3)MhLj989 , to urge that fresh application for execution is not maintainable once notice under Rule 22 of Order ...
Tag this Judgment!President, Late Shri Ramchandra Patil Sikhshan Sanstha and ors. Vs. Ha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MhLj159
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard Mr. Deshmukh the learned Counsel for the petitioners.2. Rule. Mr. Helekar waives service for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Chinchalikar, the learned AGP, waives service for the respondent No. 2.3. Rule is made returnable forthwith.4. The Education Officer (respondent No. 2) is present in the Court and Mr. Chinchalikar the learned AGP, on instructions, states that as of now there are five trained graduate teachers in the petitioner No. 3 - High School i.e. Shri Hudebaba High School, Kunikonur, whose appointments have been approved by the said respondent and in addition Shri P.N. Rajage is holding the post of Headmaster. The School has Classes from 5th to 10th standards and the total strength of the school is between 240 to 250. The respondent No. 2 in his affidavit in reply has pointed out that as of now there are three posts vacant and two of them are for D.Ed. teachers and one post is for a trained graduate teacher. The affidavit further points out and which...
Tag this Judgment!Babasaheb S/O Limbaji Mete and anr. Vs. Sumanbai W/O Bajarang Saraf an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR294; 2008(4)BomCR895; 2008(4)MhLj502
A.H. Joshi, J.1. By the impugned order, the trial Court has allowed the application for issue of summons to the Court Commissioner whose report was on record at Exhibit 158.2. The application calling the Court Commissioner as witness was opposed in the trial Court as well present petition is pressed relying on judgment of this Court in case of Doma s/o Lalaj Chachera v. Executive Engineer, Gosekhurd Rehabilitation Division and Ors. reported in : 2007(3)BomCR761 . This judgment was also cited before the trial Court.3. The petitioner relies on the legal position namely, deletion of Rule 17A of Order XVIII in 2002, urging that this deletion will have to be given effect to, and therefore now the witness cannot be called. Based on this submission it is urged that present Writ Petition be dismissed.4. On facts, it is seen that the trial Court applied mind on facts and has recorded a finding in categorical terms that the defendant had for the first time in the trial denied the map drawn and f...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary Pradnya Niketan Shikshan Sanstha and anr. Vs. Sudhakar Nivru ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)BomCR480
Savant R.M., J.1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 30.11.2005 passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. By the said order the termination of the respondent No. 1 herein was set aside and the petitioner management was directed to reinstate the respondent No. 1 in his previous post of Arts teacher.2. The respondent No. 1 was appointed as Arts teacher by appointment letter dated 11.10.1993. Pertinently the said letter does not indicate that the respondent No. 1 was appointed against a reserved post. The proposal for approval of the appointment of respondent No. 1 was thereafter submitted by the petitioner management, to the District Social Welfare Officer. However, there is no communication of approval for the said year. Thereafter approval has been granted to the appointment of the respondent No. 1 for the years 1995-96, 1997-98, 1998-99, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Gangadhar Sopal Vs. Rajendra Vithal Raut
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR119
Khanwilkar A.M., J.1. By this Application, the respondent prays that election petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed under Section 86(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 for non-compliance of provisions of Section 81(3) of the Act.2. The sole ground on which this relief is pressed is that the petitioner has made reference to one pamphlet allegedly distributed by the respondent and his supporters, however, has failed to annex the said pamphlet to the petition, though it formed integral part of the election petition. Although other issues have been raised in the application, the Counsel for the respondent has not pressed the same at the time of argument.3. To appreciate the above submission, it is apposite to advert to averments in para-graph-6-(E) to 6-(H) of the election petition. In paragraph-6-(E), the petitioner has stated about the press conference convened by the respondent, wherein according to the petitioner the respondent made a statement of fact that the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Llalubhai Amichand Ltd. Vs. Akruti Nirman Ltd. and ors. and Pandya and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR793
Vazifdar S.J., J.1. It would be convenient to set out the prayers in the Notice of Motion as they are involved and the scope thereof were the subject matter of controversy. The prayers read as under:(a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the decree dated 7th July, 2005 and 11th July, 2005 passed in Suit No. 567 of 2005 has been adjusted and/or varied and/or modified to the extent that: (i) the plaintiff is required to surrender and/or handover the Amenity land and Additional Recreation Ground area to defendant No. 6 or defendant No. 8; (ii) that such surrender or handing over of possession has to be done on or before 25th February, 2006 or such other date as this Hon'ble Court may decide and (iii) the respondent has to pay the amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/ to the plaintiff upon proof of possession of the Amenity space and Additional Recreation Ground;(b) that the adjustment and/or modification and/or variation of the decree dated 7th July, 2005 and 11th July, 2005 as per prayer...
Tag this Judgment!indoswe Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: (2008)(127)ECC237
1. This appeal is filed against order-in appeal No. P-I/18/2007 dated 15.2.2007. Heard both sides and perused records.2. The issue involved in this case is rejection of refund claim of an amount of Rs. 2,66,579/- under provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant herein had dispute going on with the revenue as regards the benefit of the Notification. The said dispute was resolved in favour of the appellant. During the pendency of the dispute the appellant had paid this amount on the direction of the revenue vide TR6 challan but under protest. Having succeeded in their appeal before the Tribunal the appellant filed a refund claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) while upholding the adjudicating authority's order, which sanctioned the refund claim, but transferred the amount to consumer welfare fund held as under: 6. In the present appeal I find that the Adjudicating Authority has probe into the matter of unjust enrichment. The appellants have not put forth any ev...
Tag this Judgment!Lloyds Metals and Engineering Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: (2008)(128)ECC52
1. The issue in dispute in these appeals is the eligibility of welding electrodes used by the appellants herein, for repairs and maintenance of plant and machinery in their steel factory to Cenvat Credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.2. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and find that although in the case of Jaypee Rewa Plant v. CCE 2003 (57) RLT 739, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has held that the credit was not admissible on such items used for maintenance and repairs of the machinery, the Tribunal in the case of India Sugars and Refineries Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore 2006 (74) RLT 61 (CESTAT-Ban.) has considered the decision in the case of Jaypee Rewa Plant but has not followed the same and followed the Larger Bench decisions in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta-I 1996 (15) RLT 144 (CEGAT-LB) and CCE, Meerut v. Modi Rubbers Ltd. 2000 (38) RLT 718 (CEGAT-LB) to conclude that the credit is admissible on welding electrodes used for repairs an...
Tag this Judgment!Ulhas S/O Yadavrao Somwanshi, Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Its ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR536; 2008(3)BomCR99
N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Both these writ petitions although by different writ petitioners, raise the same challenge to the proposed promotions from Class-II to Class-I in Maharashtra Development Services. For the purpose, they challenge Government Circular dated 14-03-2007, issued by the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra in the Department of Rural Development and Water Conservation as ultra vires the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also being contrary to the Maharashtra Development Services Class-I and Class-II (Departmental Examinations) Rules, 1991. Both the writ petitions also pray for quashment of the action of the Government deleting/excluding the names of petitioners from the select list prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the posts in Maharashtra Development Services Class-I (which was the result of action based on impugned Circular). Both the writ petitions also pray for directions to the respondents No. 1 and 2 to consider...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »