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.
Sant Kanwarram Education and Social Welfare Society and ors. Vs. Munic ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR384; 2009(1)BomCR778
Pangarkar C.L., J.1. This second appeal is being heard finally with the consent of the parties.2. Original plaintiff has preferred this second appeal since the first Appellate Court had set aside the judgment and decree passed in favour of the present appellants/plaintiffs.3. Facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:Plaintiff is a Public Charitable Trust. The main object of the said Trust is to impart education and to protect the interest of the minority community. Plaintiff submits that the activities of the plaintiff No. 1 are educational and charitable, on no profit no loss basis. Plaintiffs Nos. 3 to 14 are the trustees. The plaintiff No. 1 owns the suit premises. The plaintiff No. 1 runs a school known as Sant Kanwarram Vidyalaya in the said premises. The plaintiff No. 1 submits that being a charitable trust it has obtained a certificate for exemption from payment of the income tax. Plaintiffs further contend that since the plaintiffs is a charitable trust and the premises a...
Jugalkishore Bhagwatiprasad Shukla Vs. Nirala Education Society and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR641; 2009(2)BomCR241
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. The petitioner/Employee in person challenges the judgment and order dated 31/10/2007 of the School Tribunal, Nagpur, dismissing his appeal STN Appeal No. 345/1994. This is third round of controversy to this Court and on 7/12/2007 while issuing 'Rule' in the matter, hearing was expedited. On 4/2/2008 matter was directed to be listed in the week commencing from 21/4/2008 for final hearing and on that day respondent No. 4 obtained adjournment for engaging Advocate. This Court granted that adjournment after imposing costs of Rs. 1,000/ - and thereafter matter was adjourned from time to time.2. In appeal under Section 9 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as MEPS Act), filed by present petitioner challenge was to his oral termination by order dated 22/7/1992 as well as order of termination dated 1/4/ 1992. Petitioner was initially appointed on 1/7/1987 and he was having at that time qualif...
Forward Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Primus Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR495
Dalvi Roshan, J.1. Unconditional leave was granted to the defendants in the Summons for judgment taken out in this suit on 28th August, 2000. The defendants were directed to file their written statement within 12 weeks of that date. Parties were directed to file their affidavits of documents within 8 weeks thereafter and complete the discovery and inspection within 8 weeks thereafter. Suit was transferred to the list of Commercial Causes. The defendants were to file their written statement by 27th December, 2000. The defendants failed to file their written statement. The further directions were not complied. The suit could not appear on the list of Commercial Causes. The order on the Summons for judgment remained at that. Due to such noncompliance, decree under Order XXXVII, Sub-rule 3(6)(b) was required to be passed. Since the directions given at the hearing of the Summons for judgment were not complied and the plaintiff became entitled to judgment forthwith.2. Some how no judgment ca...
Executive Engineer (M.i.) Zilla Parishad and anr. Vs. Satpal Purandal ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR507
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. The employer-Zilla Parishad, constituted under. The Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 26-7-2000 delivered by the Industrial Court, Nagpur in Complaint U.L.P.N. No. 775/1995. Said complaint was filed by total 25 complainants for declaration that their employer has indulged into unfair labour practice under Items 1 -A and 4 of Schedule II and Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 (referred to as 'M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act'). They sought declaration that as they had completed 240 days of continuous service they were entitled to regularisation. They pointed out that Government issued circulars and instructions from time to time, that mustering assistants fulfilling the terms and conditions thereof were entitled to grant of permanency. Their...
Ramprasad Bhagirath Agrawal Vs. Uttamchand Danmal Pande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR865
Kingaonkar V.R., J.1. By this appeal, appellant impugns judgment rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Aurangabad, in an appeal (RCA No. 279/1989) reversing money decree rendered by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Special Civil Suit No. 4/1978.2. The appellant, who is original plaintiff, and respondent are inhabitants of same town. The appellant's case before the trial Court was that, out of friendship with the respondent, he advanced amounts of Rs. 10,000/- each on 5th July 1975 and 12th July 1975 to him. The respondent executed separate demand promissory notes each at the time of advancement of the amounts, on both the occasions. Though he made repeated demands, yet the respondent did not pay the amounts. He, therefore, issued demand notice dated 9th July 1977, which was duly served upon the respondent on 11th July 1977. The demand notice drew blank. Neither it was replied nor was complied with. Consequently, he filed suit for recovery of the advanced amounts along ...
Maria Monica Susairaj Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Cid, Unit-v ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ2075
A.A. Kumbhakoni, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties heard for final disposal at the admission stage itself in view of the nature of controversy raised in this petition, which raises a very short but interesting issue dealt with hereunder.2. Miss. Maria Susairaj, the petitioner - a lady, is a co-accused in a murder case with accusations attracting basically Sections 302, 201 and 34 of Indian Penal Code vide C.R. No. 347 of 2008. The alleged incident wherein a male person died, took place on 7th May 2008. The petitioner as also the co-accused, another male person, were arrested on 21st August 2008.3. According to the prosecution, the petitioner volunteered to make a confessional statement. The petitioner was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the alleged confessional statement of the petitioner on 27th/28th May 2008 under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for the sake of brevity).4. ...
Deputy Collector (Dev) and Land Acquisition Officer and anr. Vs. Sitad ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR163
Britto N.A., J.1. This appeal with cross objection is directed against judgment/Award dated 17-12-2002 by which the learned Reference Court (Additional District Judge, Panaji) has enhanced the compensation payable to a further sum of Rs. 40/- per sq. meter, as against Rs. 17/- per sq. meter awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and Rs. 350/- per sq. meter as claimed by the applicants (i.e. the respondents in the first appeal).2. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the said reference.3. There is no dispute that vide Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and published on Gazette dated 1-2-1990 the Government acquired about 1,06,864 sq. meters of land for the construction of their office complex at Pernem from Survey Nos. 284/0, 281/1, 281/2 and 282/0 from Pernem Village and by award dated 27-3-1991 the learned Land Acquisition Officer was pleased to award compensation to the applicants at the rate of ...
Sunny Kamalsingh Mathur Vs. Office of Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ1465
Bilal Nazki, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith. Respondents waive service.2. An order passed by the Commissioner of Police in terms of Section 18 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been challenged in this petition. By the order under Section 18(1)(b), the Magistrate directed the petitioner that during the period of one year from the date of the order, he shall obtain his previous approval before leasing/letting out or handing over the possession of the said premises to any other person. This order was passed after a show-cause notice was given to the petitioner, and he was heard.3. The allegations against the petitioner were based on a report received by the Magistrate/Commissioner from the Senior Inspector of Police, Anti-Trafficking Cell. The material placed before the Commissioner/ Magistrate revealed that on 28th August, 2007, the premises. Bungalow No. 27, 1st Floor, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Pali Village, Khar (West), Mumbai, were raided an...
The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Pec Vee Textile Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR3547
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai has filed this application under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax, 1959 against the decision of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai ('Tribunal' for short) dated 13/4/2007 in R.A.No.90 of 2001 whereby the Tribunal has declined to refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court:i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in declaring that the conditions in paragraph (i) and (m) of the Certificate of Entitlement dated 25.1.2000 be deleted ab-initio ? ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in going a step further in declaring that proportionate benefits theory is not applicable to expansion units covered under 1993 Package Scheme of Incentives, when it was not asked for by the applicant (appellant sic) and their prayer was simply to delete the conditions from the certificate of entitlement 2. The application is...
Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited Vs. Sanjeev Sadaram Chavare and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR648; 2009(1)BomCR130
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. By this appeal against order filed under provisions of Order 43, Rule 1(u) of the Civil Procedure Code, the appellant-original defendant No. 3 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 584 of 2007, challenges the judgment dated 9.4.2008 delivered by the District Judge-5, Nagpur, allowing that appeal and remanding the matter to trial Court to decide the issues on merits. Respondent No. 1 before this Court is the original plaintiff who availed vehicle loan from the present respondents No. 2 and 3. These respondents are defendants No. 1 and 2 in that civil suit. The civil suit came to be filed with prayers for grant of declaration and permanent injunction. The declaration sought is that the act of present appellant in seizing the financed motor vehicle viz., Truck having No. MH-31/AP-2240 was illegal and there was no privity of contract between him and present appellant. The further prayer was to direct present appellant to release his truck. In that suit the appellant moved an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »