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.
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Pec Vee Textile Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2008
Reported in: (2009)26VST281(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai, has filed this application under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 against the decision of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai ('the Tribunal', for short) dated April 13, 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 January 25, 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 entitl...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Renu Nareshchandra Katoch and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR881; 2009(3)BomCR839
Rohee K.J., J.1. The Insurer/original respondent No. 3 has preferred this appeal against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 399 of 1993 on 28.4.2003 in favour of the claimants (respondents No. 1 to 3 herein) and against the appellant as well as the owner (respondent No. 4) and the driver (respondent No. 5).2. It is not disputed that the claimants are the legal heirs of deceased Nareshchandra Katoch who died in an accident on 1.11.1993. It is also not disputed that Nareshchandra Katoch was serving as Major in Indian Army and at the relevant time he was posted at Guards Regimental Centre, Kamptee Cantonment, Kamptee. According to the claimants the truck owned by respondent No. 4 and driven by respondent No. 5 dashed against the scooter of Major Nareshchandra with the result Major Nareshchandra died on the spot. At the time of his death the salary of Major Nareshchandra was Rs. 7395/-per month and he was 36 years old. He was hail and heart...
Sunil Bhagwan Bhende (Now in Jail) Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR3484
A.P. Bhangale, J.1. By these appeals, judgment and order passed by 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatrmal on 23.4.2003 convicting the appellants (original accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5) for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, is under challenge. Since all the three appeals are arising out of one and the same sessions trial, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Briefly stated prosecution case is as under:On 21.9.2000 first informant Ganesh Deshmukh (PW 4) had reported to Police Station, Yavatmal about the incident dated 19.9.2000 of quarrel between Manda (sister of first informant) with A-1 Sunil on account of dispute between children. According to Manda, she went to City Police Station, Yavatmal to report against sunil, but police had not taken cogniza...
Ku. Chanchal D/O Daulal Bhandari (Being Minor) Through Her Father Daul ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR735
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard Mr. Saboo, learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. Rule.3. Mrs. Dangre, learned A. G. P. waives service for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. Quazi, learned Counsel waives service for respondent No. 4.4. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and so also additional affidavit. Hence, by consent of all the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing and heard finally.5. The petitioner substantially raises grievance regarding denial of admission to the first year of M.B.B.S. Course against Hilly Area quota seat available in 70% Regional Quota while contending that the admissions in H.A. Quota of 70% Regional Merit List are illegal. The petitioner passed her H.S.C. Examination (12th standard) held in March-2008 from the Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board, Amravati Division, Amravati and she had appeared for MHT-CET- 2008 Examination. She has secured 142 out of 200 marks in the PCB Group and in the State Mer...
National Products, a Registered Partnership Firm Through Its Partner S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR772
C.L. Pangarkar, J. 1. Rule, heard forthwith with consent of parties. 2. Both these appeals can be decided by common judgment since identical questions arise in them. They arise out of orders passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation. 3. Facts in Appeal No.465 of 2008 are as under One Ramlal Kumbhalkar was working in the Cement Pipe Factory owned and run by appellant/non-applicant. Respondents are the widow and children of said Ramlal. On 5/7/1991, Ramlal Kumbhalkar went to the Cement Pipe Factory where he was engaged as a labourer. He was paid Rs. 18/-per day. It is alleged that while he was removing the moulding of the Pipe, he all of a sudden fell down and the doctor was called. The doctor noticed that Ramlal had died on the spot of heart attack. The appellant/non-applicant's representative informed the police of death of Ramlal in the factory on account of heart attack. The non-applicant/appellant did not pay the compensation to the applicants/respondents, hence they file...
Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR225; (2008)110BOMLR3517
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The question involved in the present petition is whether the Central Government is the appropriate government for the Petitioner or whether it falls within the jurisdiction of the State Government.2. A few facts which are relevant for the determination of this issue are as follows: The Petitioner is a Public Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The Petitioner (for short, hereinafter referred to as the `Company') contends that it is a Government of India enterprise, established by the Central Government. According to the Company, all its Directors are appointed by the President of India under Article 76 (1) of its Articles of Association. The Company contends that it is functioning under the authority of the Central Government and, therefore, it is the Central Government which is appropriate government in relation to its establishment.3. The Respondent Union (for short, hereinafter referred to as the `Union') raised an industrial dispute in resp...
Lokmat Proprietors, Lokmat Newspapers Limited Vs. Prabhakar Rambhauji ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR262; 2009(2)MhLj369
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. By these writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner-employer has challenged the common order dated 12.02.2002 delivered by the Industrial Court in seven complaints filed under Section 28 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as MRTU & PULP Act). Those seven complainants are respondents in these seven writ petitions before this Court. They claimed permanency and consequential benefits as per provisions of Model Standing Orders after completion of 240 days and pointed out that by not extending them the said benefits, the petitioner-employer has indulged in unfair labour practice falling under Item 9 of Schedule IV of Act No. I of 1972. Said Item makes failure to implement award, settlement, agreement etc. an unfair labour practice. By the impugned order, the learned Member of Industrial Court has declared that the petitioner has engaged ...
Girish Manubhai Parekh Vs. Continental Steel Corporation and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR486
Mohta Anoop V., J.1. By consent, heard finally.2. This is the First Appeal filed by the original plaintiff against the Order dated 22.03.2007 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 4142/2006 by the learned Judge of Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay, whereby in Notice of Motion, by consent of the parties, a preliminary issue of maintainability of the suit was raised and decided against him by holding that suit is not maintainable in view of the scheme and object of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'The Arbitration Act, 1996').3. On 26.02.2007 the Court has framed the following issues:Whether defendants prove that in view of Arbitration Act this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit4. The relevant events and facts are as under:In November, 2001, respondents 1 to 5 requested the appellant to import waste paper on their behalf and made on account payment of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Appellant imported goods worth about Rs. 21,66,230/- on behalf of r...
Avinash Bhosale Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Directorate of Revenue Intell ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR3405; 2009(234)ELT224(Bom)
A.P. Deshpande, J.1. The Petitioner's passport has been retained, initially by the respondent No. 1 and thereafter by the respondent No. 2 for the last 14 months and hence the Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to command the respondent No. 2 to return the passport by filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Few facts that are relevant for adjudicating the issues involved are narrated hereinbelow. 2. The Petitioner along with his wife and friends had gone abroad on holidays and when the Petitioner returned back to India on 27th May, 2007 the Petitioner was charged for carrying dutiable goods on which duty was not paid as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The Petitioner was arrested by respondent No. 1 Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The Petitioner approached the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay and applied for bail. The Petitioner was released on bail by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on the same day....
Sandeep Rammilan Shukla Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the Secre ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)MhLj97
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.Introduction1. Marcus Tullius Cicero, a great orator and Roman Attorney said, 'The solidity of a State is very largely bound up with its judicial decisions'. The stability of State governance is relatable to the status of public law and order in the State. Protection to person and property of State subjects is the primary obligation of the State and this is the great significance of administration of criminal justice delivery system. Criminal jurisprudence governing the law of crime primarily has two concepts like any other legal jurisprudence:(i) Substantive criminal law; and(ii) Procedural criminal law.Provisions of substantive criminal law which are primarily penal in nature are subjected to rule of strict interpretation, while those relating to procedural law are guided by rules of plain and liberal interpretation. The Court, in the present cases, is concerned with the application of rules of interpretation to the procedural law particularly relating to the fie...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »