Mumbai Court December 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.
Om Prakash Nihalani and anr. Vs. S.M.S. Thakur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR869; 2009(2)MhLj905
Desai Ranjana, J.1. This appeal filed by original defendants challenges judgment and decree dated 13/2/07 passed by Learned Single Judge of this Court in Summary Suit No. 2598 of 2006.2. The case of the respondent-plaintiff in short is that he advanced a total sum of Rs. 8 lakhs to the appellants-defendants as and by way of friendly loan. The appellants executed 8 promissory notes in favour of the respondent. The appellants failed and neglected to pay back the said amount. Hence the respondent filed the instant suit on the basis of the promissory notes.3. It is not necessary to give the details of various orders passed by us in this appeal. Suffice it to say that since this is an appeal challenging a money decree, we asked learned Counsel for the appellants whether the appellants are willing to deposit an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs in this Court. On 21/10/08 the appellants were present in the Court. Learned Counsel for the appellants on instructions from the appellants made a statement tha...
Ramdayal Gulabachand Khandelwal and ors. Vs. Mahendra Badrinarayan Kha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR410; 2009(2)MhLj782
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners/landlords have challenged the concurrent judgments delivered by the courts below holding that because of the compromise entered into by their father with the father of respondents and a consequential decree, a tenancy was created. As the said tenancy was governed by the provisions of C.P. and Berar Premises, Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rent Control Order'), the landlords/petitioners could not have executed the said compromise decree.2. The facts in brief are that, the predecessor of present petitioners filed Civil Suit No. 134/1967 against one Badrinarayan Khandelwal, father of the present respondents. The suit was for his ejectment and for possession on the basis of title. It was contended that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiffs from the defendant vide sale deed dated 17.1.1959. Part of the said property was given to the defe...
Principal, Our Lady of Salvation High School Vs. Rashmi Upadhyay and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR401
Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. The first respondent was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak by the petitioner on 14th June, 2004. The School in question - Our Lady of Salvation High School is own and managed by a Church of the same description. On 30th March, 2007, a letter of termination was addressed to the first respondent by which her services were to stand dispensed with from 30th April, 2007. The first respondent filed an appeal before the Grievance Committee. The Grievance Committee passed an order on 5th August, 2008 setting aside the termination and directing the petitioner to convert the services of the first respondent from a Shikshan Sevak to an Assistant Teacher with consequential benefits.2. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been urged that initially by a Government Resolution dated 13th October, 2000, the Shikshan Sevak Scheme was adopted by the State Government. The State Legislature enacted the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation (Amendment)...
Gokul Mukundrao Karpe and anr. Vs. Ratanhari Sambhaji Bhatane and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR842
Kingaonkar V.R., J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to Judgment in an appeal (R.C.A. No. 110/1980) rendered by learned Additional District Judge, whereby and where-under Judgment and decree passed by trial Court in a suit (R.C.S. No. 133/1975) came to be reversed.2. Appellants are real brothers inter se and are original plaintiffs. Deceased respondent No. 1 is the main contesting party and was original defendant No. 6. Respondents No. 2 to 5 are the original defendants No. 2 to 4. Original defendant No. 5 had died during pendency of the suit. The original defendants No. 1 to 5 are the legal representatives of deceased Nivrutti being his sons, daughters and widow. Out of them, original defendant No. 1 - Sopan and defendant No. 2 - Ramchandra were the real brothers inter se. Admittedly, Sopan was elder amongst them.3. The appellants/plaintiffs filed suit (R.C.S. No. 133/1975) for declaration of ownership in respect of land Survey No. 173, admeasuring 8 acres 3 gunthas and for perpetual inj...
Vinayak Chintamani Agashe (Dr.) Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2008
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR886; 2009(2)MhLj200
Mhatre Nishita, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune, in Application No. 5 of 1988 dated 14.5.1992. By this order, the Deputy Registrar held that the petitioner who was a guarantor of a loan availed of by respondent No. 4 herein was liable to repay the amount as respondent No. 4 had defaulted in repaying the loan.2. The respondent No. 4 which is a proprietary concern, availed of the cash credit facility from respondent No. 3 Bank. The petitioner and respondent No. 5 agreed to be the guarantors for the loan obtained by the respondent No. 4 from the Bank. The loan sanctioned by the Bank was to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs and the interest rate payable was 18% per annum. Various documents were executed in order to process the loan. These documents included a demand promissory note, cash credit agreement, letter of continuity, letter of hypothecation and the guarantee bond executed by the peti...
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ninan Thomas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR344; 2009(2)MhLj270
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal vide Award dated 30th April 2006 answered the Reference in favour of the workman and granted him reinstatement with 50% back wages. The correctness of this Award was questioned by the Appellant in Writ Petition No. 5700 of 2006 filed on 21st August 2006. When the matter came up before the learned Single Judge at the admission stage, Rule was issued and interim stay of operation of the Award was granted vide order dated 21st March 2007. During the pendency of that Petition, the Petitioner filed an affidavit in terms of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') claiming last drawn wages during the pendency of the Petition and as a result of the order of the Court dated 21st March 2007. The learned Single Judge of this Court heard the parties and after examining the matter at great length, vide order dated 1st October 2008 passed on Civil Application No. 194 of 2008, allowed ...
The Sales Tax Tribunal Bar Association, a Society Registered Under the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR491; 2009(2)MhLj837
S.A. Bobde, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the appointment of the respondent No. 1 Mr. S.D. Mathane as Member of the Sales Tax Tribunal by an order dated 25.6.2008. They seek the issue of a writ of certiorari calling upon the respondents to place the records pertaining to the impugned appointment and a writ of quo warranto for quashing the said appointment dated 25.6.2008. The Sales Tax Tribunal to which the respondent No. 1 has been appointed has been constituted under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, which has been brought into force from 1.4.2005. Sub-section (3) of Section 11 provides for qualification and the terms of office of the members of the Tribunal which reads as follows:(3) The qualifications and the terms of office of the members of the Tribunal shall be such as may be prescribed, and a member shall hold office for such period as may be prescribed or as the State Government may, by special order in his case, specify.Qualifications have been p...
Bombay Hospital Trust, a Charitable Trust Registered Under the Provisi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2008
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR447; 2009BusLRSN-5(Bom); 2009(2)MhLj940; (2009)19VST301(Bom)
S.A. Bobde, J.1. By this Petition, the petitioner No. 1, which is a public charitable trust, and others have questioned the liability to pay entertainment duty in respect of the cable television net-work in the premises of the Hospital and have prayed for setting aside the orders demanding such duty and confirming the demand.2. According to the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1 is a public charitable trust which runs the Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre without any motive of earning profit. A cable operator in the area is said to have offered its basic service of 32 channels free of charge as a special case for one year, to be renewed subsequently. In pursuance thereof, the petitioners have installed about 150 television sets with cable connection in some rooms and in common waiting areas where relatives/friends of patients wait in the hospital. According to the petitioners, the hospital does not charge any special fee from the patients in respect of the television sets inst...
The State of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary, Water Resour ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(111)BomLR378
Naresh H. Patil, J.1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners challenge the order dated 18-7-2008 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad in Original Application No. 306 of 2008.2. The factual matrix, in brief, is as under:The respondent No. 1 - Omprakash Ghanshyamdas Mudiraj was working as Superintending Engineer Nanded Irrigation Circle Nanded at the relevant time. He assumed charge at Nanded on 23-2-2007 in pursuance to the order dated 17-3-2007. Respondent No. 1 - the applicant in the Original Application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short - 'the Tribunal') is to retire on 31st December 2008 on attaining superannuation. It is the contention of respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal that he intended to settle at Nanded and his pension papers were forwarded by the Chief Engineer of Nanded Circle.3. It is an admitted fact that after issuance of the transfer orders, the respondent No. 2...
Harjit Singh Sohal and Jasvinder Singh Sohal Vs. Indian Bank, a Bankin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR390; 2008(111)BomLR357; 2009(2)MhLj187
V.C. Daga, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith.2. Heard finally by consent of parties. This Petition is directed against the order dated 23rd August, 2008 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ('the DRAT' for short).Facts3. The petitioners were partners of M/s. Sohal Engineering Works ('the said firm' for short), having its office at Sohal Industrial Estate, LBS Marg, Bhandup, Mumbai 400 078. The respondent is one of the nationalised banks of the country, having its branch office at Mumbai ('the bank' for short).4. The bank advanced credit facilities to the extent of Rs. 56 lacs to the said firm from time to time against the mortgage of their immovable property, being plot of land bearing Survey No. 200 (part) CTS No. 286/1 to 2 of Bhandup village, Mumbai Suburban district, together with the factory building and other structures, errections and godowns standing thereon ('the said mortgaged proper' for short).5. The said firm had also execute...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »