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.
P. Krishna Murthy Vs. Monika Sidhu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR13
Deshpande A.P., J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent of parties, petition taken up for final hearing forthwith.2. The petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife respectively, their marriage having been legally solemnized. The petitioner filed the petition for divorce in the Family Court at Hyderabad. The petition came to be filed on the ground of cruelty. However, the title of the petition was shown thus:Petition filed under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act.3. It is undisputed that the averments made in the petition clearly make out a case only under Section 13(1)(ia). The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent after going through the Marriage petition concedes that the averments made in the petition are touching the ground of cruelty only, set out in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. With a view to correct the said typographical error, an application was moved seeking amendment of the petition and the rejection on the said application has given rise t...
intuitive Software Design Private Limited and anr. Vs. State of Mahara ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR140
ORDER1. By these writ petitions, the licensees have challenged the suspension of their licences issued under the Maharashtra Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1962, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', by the licensing authority and its confirmation by the appellate authority.2. In Writ Petition Nos. 2195 of 2008, 2196 of 2008 and 2198 of 2008, admittedly, no show cause notices were issued to the licensees. The submission on behalf of the authorities is that show cause notice was issued to Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd., which is a sister concern of these three licensees and, therefore, it was not necessary to issue separate show cause notices to these licensees. Further, according to the respondents, since these licensees were operating from the same premises, show cause notices were not necessary. We are unable to accept this contention. The licensees are independent companies and Subhiksha Trading Services Limited and Anr., to whom a specific show cause was issued is also a...
Arjun Krishna Agawane Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR3468
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Appellant was charged of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code for intentionally or knowingly causing the death of his wife Gayabai on 14th June 2002 by assaulting her on the head with Karanja wood. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, by a judgment dated 14th January 2004 convicted the Appellant of the offence with which he was charged and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life; to pay a fine of Rs.500/-and in default, to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. The Appellant was married to Gayabai and the couple had three children. For some time, the family resided at Mumbai. The case of the prosecution is that the Appellant used to suspect the fidelity of his wife. The room in Mumbai, which was occupied by the Appellant and his family, was sold and all of them moved to village Mayani. Gayabai used to work as a labourer while the Appellant appears to have worked as a driver. According to the prosecution, the Appellan...
Sks Logistics (i) Limited a Company Incorporated Under the Provisions ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR14; (2008)110BOMLR3445
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Rule. Learned Counsel appearing for respective respondents waive service of Rule. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 2. By filing this petition, the petitioners have challenged the decision of respondent No. 1 by which respondent No. 2 has been granted license to handle container traffic at the Ballard Pier Station Container Terminal (BPS) at the Port of Mumbai to the exclusion of others for a period of five years from the date of the license agreement or two years from the date of commissioning of Offshore Container Terminal (OCT) whichever is earlier. According to the petitioners, the said action of respondent No. 1 amounts to conferring a monopoly upon respondent No. 2. It is also prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondents to forthwith cease and desist from in any manner preventing the petitioners from carrying on their business of using the Berth...
Chembur Service Station Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR811; (2008)110BOMLR3441; 2009(1)MhLj641
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard finally by consent. The Petitioner has challenged the impugned order whereby, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Appellate Small Causes Court partly modified the order passed by the court below pending the framing of preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction of the Court to try the Suit. The Operative part of order dated 26/08/2008 is as under:ORDERAppeal No. 401 of 2008 is hereby partly allowed and interim order in notice of motion at Exhibit 8 in R.A.D. Suit No. 913 of 2008, hereby set aside to the extent that Defendant shall continue to supply petrol and petroleum products in the suit premises to the Plaintiff until framing of preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction and giving judgment thereon.Appeal No. 401 of 2008 on rest of the counts partly stands dismissed.2. The basic order passed by the Trial Court dated 13/05/2008 is as under:ORDER 1. The defendant is directed to maintain status quo as of today i. the plaintiff shall remain...
Rubicon Formulations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-2008
Reported in: 2008[12]STR549; [2009]19STT55
ORDER1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. We find that even the Tribunal while rejecting the claim of dispensing with the entire amount of pre-deposit, has found that for the purpose of levying service tax, cost of raw materials, packing materials, overheads and profit of the company, should not have been taken into consideration. Prima facie it appears that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of 'Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India 2006 (2) S.T.R. 161 (S.C.)', the petitioner may not be liable to pay service tax.3. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner has agreed to give bank guarantee of the amount of Rs. 25 lakhs.4. After having heard the learned Counsel appearing for respondents, in our opinion, the following order would meet the ends of justice:(i) The order dated 23-7-2008 which is impugned in the petition is modified to the following extent:(ii) On the petitioner submitting bank guarantee in the amount of Rs. 25 ...
Midas Care Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-2008
Reported in: 2008[12]STR548; [2009]19STT40
ORDER1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. We find that even the Tribunal while rejecting the claim of dispensing with the entire amount of pre-deposit, has found that for the purpose of levying service tax, cost of raw materials, packing materials, overheads and profit of the company, should not have been taken into consideration. Prima facie it appears that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of 'Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India 2006 (2) S.T.R. 161 (S.C.)', the petitioner may not be liable to pay service tax.3. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner has agreed to give bank guarantee of the amount of Rs. 50 lakhs.4. After having heard the learned Counsel appearing for respondents, in our opinion, the following order would meet the ends of justice:(i) The order dated 23-7-2008 which is impugned in the petition is modified to the following extent:(ii) On the petitioner submitting bank guarantee in the amount of Rs. 50 ...
Kay Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-2008
Reported in: 2009[13]STR87
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the order of CESTAT dated 7-2-2008 in Appeal No. E/2709/01. The decision of the tribunal is based on the statement of the factory manager, who has admitted that factory was engaged in removing the goods clandestinely by adopting the modus operandi like issuance of invoices of lesser quantity and removal of scrap without payment of duty by not issuing any Central Excise document/invoices and further admitted that the weight shown in the weighment register of M/s. Krishna Weighbridge was correct.2. The grievance of the appellant is that the affidavit of Mr. Malegavi has not been considered by the tribunal. As per Rule 23 of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, it was obligatory on the part of the appellant to file an application to adduce additional evidence before the tribunal. The appellant has not made any application in writing before the tribunal.3. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by t...
Ninan Thomas Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR137
Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. The civil application has been taken out by the workman for payment of wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the present case there is an award of the Industrial Tribunal granting reinstatement with 50% backwages to the workman. The award is the subject-matter of a challenge before this Court in the main writ proceedings. The petition has been admitted and an interim stay was granted on 21st March, 2007 subject to the condition that the employer deposits 50% of the backwages in Court.2. In paragraph 6 of the application for Section 17-B wages, the workman has pleaded that he had sought employment; that after his services were terminated on 3rd October, 2006 with retrospective effect from 15th August, 1993, he had been attempting to obtain employment either with the Government or with a public sector undertaking; but he was unable to do so since an application for employment would have to be required to be sent through the proper channe...
Bank of India Workers Organization Vs. Bank of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR650; [2009(121)FLR778]
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. The employee working as Driver on a car belonging to respondent No. 1 has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Award dated 5.2.2002 delivered by Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur, in Reference No. C.G.I.T. No. 24 of 1999. According to him, he was appointed as Driver-cum-Sepoy in the proposed regional office of Bank of India at Kamptee on 22.9.1990 and when that office came to be abolished on 31.5.1993, he was not accommodated/absorbed elsewhere like other bank employees. He, therefore, complained of termination in violation of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. After conciliation and failure report, the reference was made by Union of India as contemplated by Sections 10(1) and 10-2(A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on 25.8.1994, which read as under:Whether the action of the management of Bank of India, Nagpur, in terminating the services of Shri K.D. Kanholkar, Driver-cum-S...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »