Mumbai Court October 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.
Pharma Base India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-2008
Reported in: (2009)IILLJ458Bom
R.V. More, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.2. The Appeal takes exception to the order dated November 2, 2007 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1946/2007 dismissing the petitioner's Petition thereby confirming the order dated August 9, 2007 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in Appeal PGA No. CA/YDN/03/2007.3. By the order dated October 5, 2006 the controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 passed an order thereby directing the petitioner Company to pay respondent No. 2 an amount of Rs. 13,75,000/-by way and as a gratuity. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the Appellate Authority by filing an Appeal on December 13, 2006. However, the petitioner deposited the amount of gratuity with the Appellate Authority on March 12, 2007. Respondent No. 2 raised preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the Appeal on the ground of limitation. The petitioner fi...
Foreshore Co-operative Housing Society Limited, a Co-operative Society ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR600; 2009(1)BomCR757; (2008)110BOMLR3696; 2009(2)MhLj28
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.1.2006, passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court. The Learned Single Judge has held that the question of limitation could be tried as a preliminary issue under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The learned Single Judge did not allow the Appellants to claim the benefit of Section 14, Limitation Act, 1963 on the ground that the appellant had not proved the 'institution' of Suit No. 6734/1994 at the Bombay City Civil Court to be 'in good faith'. The sequence of facts in the case are as follows:i) On 17.03.1958, the Golwalas, who were the original lessees of the suit property, entered into an agreement with Respondent No. 1 ,under which he was granted right of development of a portion of the suit property. These development rights were transferred in favour of his company, ie, Respondent No. 2. Pursuant to the power of attorney executed in favour of Respondent No. 1 by the Golwalas, Resp...
Gaurishankar Kreeda Mandal and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Great ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR458
Kumbhakoni A.A., J.1. Rule. By consent heard forthwith.2. This petition has been filed seeking Writ of Quo Warranto calling upon respondents 3 to 5 to justify their nomination made by following the process of election, as nominated members of 'L' Ward Committee of the first respondent Corporation, as contemplated by provisions of Section 50-TT (2)(c) of the Mumbai Corporation Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for the sake of brevity). Consequential reliefs of injunction are also sought prohibiting respondents 3 to 5 from functioning or acting as such nominated members etc. A further relief in continuation of the aforesaid Writ of Quo Warranto is also sought for directing these respondents to vacate their office as nominated members.The aforesaid reliefs are sought basically on the ground that the respondents 3 to 5 (hereinafter referred to as 'the contesting respondents') are not eligible for being nominated to the post to which they have been nominated in terms of R...
Aatam Gems, Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR632; 2009(1)BomCR787; 2009(1)MhLj892
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. In Original Application No. 252 of 2004, the Debt Recovery Tribunal II, Mumbai, passed an order on 28th June 2005 granting a decree in favour of Oriental Bank of Commerce declaring mortgage over Flat No. 41, 4th Floor, Vijaydeep, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Walkeshwar, Mumbai 400 006, in furtherance to which, a recovery certificate was issued by the Presiding Officer for a sum of Rs. 6,39,33,830.56 with interest and costs in favour of the said Bank. It further directed that the amount be recovered in mode and manner prescribed under Sections 25 and 28 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') form the Certificate Debtors. The said mortgaged property came to be attached and affidavit of attachment was filed vide Exhibit 6 on 15th March 2007. The reserve price of the property was fixed at Rs. 7 crores and EMD was ordered to be kept at Rs. 70 lakhs in furtherance to the valuation report submitted...
Godavari Marathwada Patbandhare Vikas Mahamandal Through Its Executive ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR625; 2009(2)BomCR268; 2009(1)MhLj883
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation, a statutory body established under the provisions of Maharashtra Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation Act No. 23 of 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') has filed the present Appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the Order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29th November 2005 dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the Corporation praying for setting aside of the Award made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nashik (hereinafter referred to as the 'SLAO') in case of Proposal No. 30 of 1982 dated 20th September 2003 passed under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the Writ Petition, the Corporation had also prayed in the alternative that if the application of the Claimant, Respondent No.2, is found to be within limitation, then the matter be remanded back to the Collector for disposal on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the ...
Avdel Tools and Services, a Partnership Firm Registered Under the Indi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR611; 2009(1)BomCR746; (2008)110BOMLR3496
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Memorandum of Understanding dated 24th September, 2007 was executed between M/s. Trufit Fasteners Private Limited, a Company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 as Vendor and M/s. Avdel Tools & Services, a Partnership Firm, registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 as Purchaser, in relation to the Plot No. A-285, Thane Industrial Area, admeasuring 1265 sq. metres at Village Panchpakhadi, within the limits of Thane Municipal Council (hereinafter referred to as 'the property in question'). The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation ( hereinafter referred to as 'the MIDC' ) has executed a Lease Deed in relation to the property in question on 27th February, 1979. Vide the Memorandum of Understanding ( hereinafter referred to as 'the MOU'), the Vendor had agreed to sell, transfer, alienate and assign the rights, titles and interests, etc. in relation to the property in question in favour of the Purchaser for a total consideration of Rs...
Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia Vs. Subodh Mody
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR352; 2008(6)MhLj886
Vijay C. Daga, J.1. The question presented in these cases require us to resolve two conflicting lines of precedents on the one hand, as the Court stress that 'it is necessary for Court to decide about admissibility of documents before they are exhibited in evidence'. On the other, some of the learned Judges of this Court have no less categorically said that admissibility of evidence and proof of document should be reserved until judgment in the case is given.Contextual Facts:2. It is not necessary to sketch the detailed contextual facts of all cases placed before us. Suffice it to refer two sets of precedents reflecting conflicting opinions giving rise to the present reference.In Writ Petition No. 1902/05, the petitioners, who are original defendants, have objected to the order dated 12th January, 2005 by which the learned trial Judge has marked 126 documents as exhibits with the following directions:All the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs in the list of documents from Sr. No. ...
Arvind Ramdas Valke Vs. Ispat Industries Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2008
Reported in: (2009)IILLJ586Bom
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Writ petition No. 1114/2007 is by an employee, challenging order dated January 31, 2007 passed by Industrial Court in ULP Complaint No. 1012/1999 holding that the employee is neither a workman as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act nor an employee as defined in Section 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. It has, therefore, dismissed the complaint as untenable. The employer has filed Writ Petition No. 2853/2007 challenging the very order contending that the learned Member, Industrial Court has made certain observations on the merits of the controversy in that order. Basically, it is sought to be urged that the learned Member, Industrial Court has made certain observations about bar of the limitation and as the Industrial Court has ultimately found that the employee was not workman/employee and it had no jurisdiction, those observations were not necessary.2. In this background, I have heard the employee ShriArvind Valke in person and ...
Shivchandra Vishwanathappa Karaknale and anr. Vs. Balaji Madhavrao Kar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR862
Kingaonkar V.R., J.1. This appeal is directed against Judgment and order rendered by learned Ex Officio Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur, in a claim petition (M.A.C.P. No. 30/1991) whereby original claimants have been awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- alongwith interest at rate of 12 % per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation of the entire amount.2. The appellants are original opponents No. 1 and 2 being owner and driver of tractor vehicle bearing registration No. MAB-3082. They are aggrieved by the impugned Judgment in as much as entire liability to pay the compensation is fastened on them.3. Respondent No. 1 - Balaji filed claim petition, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He was aged about 25 years at the relevant time when he was involved in an accident which occurred due to use of the tractor vehicle, bearing registration No. MAB-3082. Admittedly, on day of incident, he was...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Deepti Anil Devasthali and Leena Anil Dev ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR3643; 2008(4)MhL.R.476
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. Both the accused-appellants are convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120B along with certain other offences. Under Section 302 read with Section 120B, they have been sentenced to death, subject to confirmation of this Court. Therefore, this Court is hearing the confirmation case as well as the appeal filed by the appellants against the conviction and sentence.2. The first accused Deepti is the daughter of the second accused Leena ( mother). The allegations on the basis of which the accused-appellants went to trial were that they were related to one Dr. Deepak Shridhar Mahajan, an Orthopedic Surgeon, who was staying with his family at Pune. The accused-appellants made him believe that they needed his services for one Omkar Charitable Trust, Mumbai, and for this purpose, a letter offering him an honorary assignment of Orthopedic Surgeon in Pradeep Hospital at Nigdi was given to him.3. Thereafter, Dr. Deepak was invited for discussi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »