Mumbai Court November 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.
Gotiram Papa Jawale Vs. Chief Officer, Yeola Nagar Palika
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-2008
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR873; 2009(2)MhLj229
Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. The petitioner filed a complaint of unfair labour practices under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV to the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The case of the petitioner is that he was employed as a Safai Kamgar at the Veola Municipal Council on 20th February, 2004, in place of an employee who submitted his resignation and nominated the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he filed an affidavit that he would look after the aforesaid employee - Ravindra Aswale - and that he came to be appointed purportedly in pursuance of the recommendations of the Lad Committee. The petitioner filed a complaint of unfair labour practices apprehending termination of his services. The respondent claims that the appointment of the petitioner was a back door appointment and should not be continued. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint. The order of the Industrial Court has been impugned in these proceedings.2. The Industr...
Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudha Utpadak Sangh Vs. Shivaji Shankar Pharak ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2008
Reported in: 2008(111)BomLR175; 2009(1)MhLj982
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, by consent of the learned counsel made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the Respondents waives service. By consent of the learned counsel, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The two workmen who are Respondents to these proceedings were employed by the Petitioner as temporaries. The Petitioner is a Federation of Milk Supply Societies in the District of Kolhapur and is registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Petitioner is engaged in the collection of milk from village societies and in the processing and distribution thereof. The Petitioner employs about 1891 employees and has a processing plant at Borawade (Bidri). A charge- sheet was issued to the two workmen on 8th August, 1989 in respect of an incident which took place on 1st April, 1989. It was alleged in the charge-sheet that the First Respondent had taken leave of absence on 1st April, 1989 due to personal reasons on the ground of a marriag...
Devidas Tarachand Bhatham Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Secretary of Defenc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2008
Reported in: 2008(111)BomLR142; 2009(1)MhLj625
Bilal Nazki, J.1. The petitioner was appointed on 30th January, 2000 as Helper on a regular basis with effect from 1st February, 2000 on a pay-scale. He was also allowed Dearness Allowance and House Rent Allowance. One of the conditions in the appointment letter was, 'Your service may be terminated without assigning any reason by giving one month's notice in writing...' Another condition was that 'The Manging Committee of HQ Southern Command reserves the right to terminate your services without notice for misconduct and/or on other disciplinary grounds.' He was to remain on probation for a period of 6 months. Without any notice, on 19th March, 2002, he was served with an Order of Discharge on inefficiency grounds. This order reads as under:1. It is noticed that despite warning letters having been issued to you, you are in the habit of absenting yourself from duty without prior permission / leave. You have been found to be frequently reporting on duty under the influence of liquor. You ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Bom)425; [2009]310ITR320(Bom); [2009]177TAXMAN81(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. This reference has been made by the Tribunal to this Court in respect of, the asst. yr. 1979-80. The respondent had entered into agreements with Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL), Bharat Electronics Ltd. (BEL) and Siemens India Ltd. (Siemens).2. The first agreement between the assessee respondent and BHEL was entered into on 21st July, 1974, the second was dt. 28th July, 1975, and the third agreement was entered into earlier on 28th Oct., 1975.Similarly assessee entered into agreements with BEL on 15th March, 1967, 23rd Feb., 1973 and dt. 17th July, 1975.The assessee had also entered into agreements with Siemens dt. 22nd Feb., 1973 and 17th July, 1975.3. The issue which arises for consideration in the present reference is whether the amounts received under those agreements by the respondent from the three companies were chargeable to tax in India either having regard to the provisions of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) or having regard to the...
Pratap Bhausaheb Jagadale and anr. Vs. State Bank of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR128; [2009]93SCL55(Bom)
Mohta Anoop V., J.1. The petitioners defendants 2 and 3/directors/guarantors of defendant No. 1-company (now L.Rs.) have challenged the interlocutory order (Exh. 16) passed in Special Civil Suit No. 1271/1990, thereby rejected an application under Section 446(1) and (3) of the Companies Act 1956 as admittedly, defendant No. 1-company has gone in liquidation and a liquidator has been appointed and thereby pray that Suit cannot be proceeded and be transferred accordingly.2.Some necessary facts are:On 11th October, 1990, Special Civil Suit No. 1271 of 1990 is filed by the State Bank of India and as stated above the said suit is filed, for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 1,35,400.4 lps.3. On 27th November, 1992, written statement has been filed, by defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 3. In the written statement, inter alia, it is pointed out that since official liquidator has been appointed, in respect of the said company, therefore, the suit is not maintainable.4. On 28th July, 1997, the ...
Tatya Vithoba DeThe (Since Deceased Through His Heirs) Dnyanoba Tatya ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR114; 2008(111)BomLR123
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Tenancy Awal Karkun, Pandharpur on 30.9.1982 in Tenancy Case No. 84/B/Takali, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (in short, S.D.O.), Pandharpur Division, dated 15.9.1990 in Tenancy Appeal No. 1 of 1983 and the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (in short, M.R.T.) on 21.6.1991.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:Tatya Vithoba Dethe was the tenant of lands bearing survey Nos. 194, 196 and 207 situated in Village Takli, Tal. Pandharpur in District Solapur. Tatya's son Dnyanoba and his brother Santaram purchased the suit land by a registered sale deed dated 18.4.1956 for a consideration of Rs. 7000/- from the owners of the land i.e. Madhavdas Krishnaji Maysurkar, the predecessor in title of the present respondent. In 1985, the Tenancy Mahalkari commenced proceedings under Section 84B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred t...
Rajhans Narendra Raut and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR596; 2009(2)MhLj241
Bobde S.A., J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioners have challenged the Order dated 27.12.2007 passed by the Chief Minister of Maharashtra cancelling the Development Right Certificate granted by the Pune Municipal Corporation in favour of the petitioners and further directing the Pune Municipal Corporation to grant TDR in the petitioners favour at the rate of 4% instead of 100% granted earlier. The subject matter of the dispute is land bearing Final Plot No. 517(Part) and Final Plot No. 523(Part) situate in a Town Planning Scheme and reserved for the purposes of a park. The land is shown in the Hill Top Hill Slope Zone as per the last Development Plan sanctioned for the city of Pune in the year 1987. The area is 66,732 sq. meters.3. The petitioners, being owners of the said land which was acquired by the Municipal Corporation of Pune, applied to the Corporation for grant of TDR under the Development Control Rules. The respondent No. 3 Corporation issued Developmen...
Gal Offshore Services Ltd. (Now the Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-2008
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Bom)448; [2009]309ITR125(Bom)
S.J. Kathawalla, J.1. This appeal is filed by the assessee, Gal Offshore Services Ltd. (now the Great Eastern Shipping Company Limited) impugning the order dated 7th June, 2004 passed by the ITAT, Mumbai in Assessee's appeal being No. 423/MUM of 1998. The said appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 1994-95.2. The present appeal was admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law.1. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in upholding the action of the lower authorities that the Appellant is not entitled to deduction under Section 33AC of the Act?2. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in not considering the material on record and the application for additional evidence to show that the assessee was engaged in the business of operation of ships during the year under consideration?3. The relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal are briefly set out hereunder.a) The main objects for which the assessee company was incorporated are reproduced hereunder:1...
Salma Asgarali Makati and ors. Vs. Shabbir Shaikh ShamsuddIn Pachorawa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR121
Roshan Dalvi, J.1. This suit is essentially between 3 sisters and 1 physically challenged brother on the one hand and the 2 brothers on the other in respect of the administration of the estate of their deceased father. The relationship between the parties is admitted. The estate left by the father is also admitted. Defendant No. 3 is a partnership firm initially constituted by the father of the parties in which Defendant No. 1 and the members of his family alone are at present carrying on business.2. In the properties forming the part of the estate of the deceased Respondent No. 1 to the Chamber Summons has been put in possession under certain agreement s to Leave and Licence. These agreement s have been entered into in 1994 and then in 1995. The licence fees payable under the agreement is determined as on the date of the agreement. Respondent No. 1 has continued in possession of the licenced premises all through. The licence fees have been increased from time to time. Receipts in resp...
Nishmukh Investments and Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-2008
Reported in: (2009)224CTR(Bom)259; [2009]312ITR1(Bom)
S.J. Kathawalla, J.1. This appeal is filed by M/s. Nishmukh Investments and Trading Pvt. Ltd. (assessee) impugning the order dated June 14, 2001, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench 'B', Mumbai in Revenue's appeal being I. T. A. No. 5983/M/97 and the cross-objections filed by the assessee being C. O. No. 162/Mum/2009. The said appeal pertains to the assessment year 1989-90.2. The above appeal was admitted by this Court on August 27, 2004, on the following substantial question of law:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was validly issued and further that the assessment made in pursuance thereto was valid in law3. The relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal are briefly set out hereunder.(i) The appellant (assessee) is an investment company carrying on business of dealing in investments. The appellant had originally filed a return of income f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »