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.
Subhash Ratanlal Agrawal and ors. Vs. Naseem Begum Abdul Gaffar Khan a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Bom120; 2009(3)BomCR395
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Shri Vastani, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Mundra, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioners-plaintiffs have filed a suit for recovery of certain amount against the present respondents and in it they have produced a document titled agreement dated 7.9.2004 in support of their contention. The present respondents raised an objection and contended that it is a bond and, therefore, the document should be impounded. The contention of present petitioners in reply was that it is only an acknowledgment and the Court below has by impugned order dated 13.8.2008 held that the document was not an acknowledgment but a bond. It has, therefore, allowed the objection raised by the present respondents and directed the petitioners/plaintiffs to pay requisite stamp duty.3. Shri Vastani, learned Counsel for the petitioners, by relying upon the definition of Bond in Section 2(...
Kuljinder Singh Ahluwalia Vs. Sandeepkaur Ahluwalia and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR418
Dalvi Roshan, J.1. This Suit is filed by the plaintiff claiming to be a partner in defendant No. 3 Company along with defendants 1 and 2 for a declaration that certain shares in defendant No. 4 Company are the property of defendant No. 3 Partnership Firm of which the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are equal partners. Plaintiff and defendant No. 2 are brothers. Defendant No. 1 is the widow of their deceased brother. The parties further claim to be in management of defendant No. 4 Company. The shares of defendant No. 4 Company stood in the name of the deceased husband of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff claims that they are the shares of defendant No. 3 Company itself and that is the intangible property of defendant No. 3 Firm. The plaintiffs have claimed other reliefs ancillary to the relief of the aforesaid declaration.2. The defendant No. 3 Firm was admittedly constituted as far back as on 17th September, 1975 under a Deed of Partnership executed between the deceased husband of defend...
Mr. Guna Krishna Gauns and Mrs. Lakshimi Guno Gauns Vs. Mr. Antonio Jo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-2008
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR716
N.A. Britto, J.1. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs, and, shall hereinafter be referred to as such, whose suit for declaration and other consequential reliefs has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment/order dated 30/03/2005, and, aggrieved by the said judgment/order the present appeal has been filed. In order to dispose of the same, some facts are required to be stated.2. The plaintiffs were the owners of a property known as Odlem Bhat admeasuring 22474 sq. mts. surveyed under Nos. 52/3 and 51/3 of village Curca in which there were some mundkarial houses. On or about 24/12/1992, the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 executed a deed styled as agreement of sale and the plaintiffs also executed in favour of defendant No. 1, an irrevocable general power of attorney. In terms of the said agreement of sale, the plaintiffs agreed to sell the suit property for an amount of Rs. 14 lacs and received a sum of Rs. 3 lacs and the balance was payable on future dates i.e. Rs. 2 ...
Commissioner of Income-tax-15 Vs. Plastika Enterprises
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-2008
Reported in: [2009]180TAXMAN293(Bom)
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the affidavit dated 3-12-2008 filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax. For the reasons stated in paragraph No. 7 of the said affidavit, we recall our order dated 19-11-2008 regarding the imposition of costs on the appellant, quantified at Rs. 5,000 to that limited extent only. It appears from the said affidavit that the respondent has already been served in the above matter.2. By way of the present appeal, the appellant is seeking to raise the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessment completed by the Assessing Officer is barred by limitation ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the last Panchnama drawn on 20-9-2000 cannot be taken into account for the purpose of calculation of time limit under Section 158BE for com...
Hongkong Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Alvaro Jose Elvino De Braganza a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR415
Khanwilkar A.M., J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. Although all respondents are served, only respondent No. 2 has appeared to oppose this application.3. The Applicants pray for following reliefs in the present Chamber Summons:(a) that the abatement of the suit, if any, be set aside;(b) that the delay of about 17-1/2 years in making the present application be condoned;(c) that the Applicant be permitted to amend the plaint and proceedings as per the Schedule appended hereto and the Applicant and Respondents be brought on record of the suit;(d) that costs of this Chamber Summons and of the orders to be made thereon be provided for;And(e) for such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require be granted.4. Insofar as prayer Clause (a) is concerned, I am in agreement with the argument of the plaintiffs that the same is redundant. This is so because in the proceedings such as the present one, provisions of Order 22, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedu...
Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. Shahnawaz Kasim Shaikh and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-2008
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR461
Mohta Anoop V., J.1. The petitioners have challenged the impugned Order dated 30th May, 2008 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik, whereby it is held that the valuation made by the respondents/plaintiffs and the Court fee paid thereon is proper and, therefore, the plaint cannot be rejected.2. The petitioners are Agriculture Produce Market Committee (for short, 'APMC, Nasik') who, in pursuance to Agricultural Produce Market Committee Act, (for short, 'APMC Act'), entitled to levy and impose market fees and supervision charges in respect of the goods imported by the plaintiffs/respondents in Nasik city along with others.3. The respondents are traders engaged in the business of selling and buying various types of fruits from different districts and selling it on wholesale and retail basis within Nasik district which is notified market area under Section 4 of the APMC Act. They have filed the present suit for declaration and injunction whereby they are claiming an order of res...
Dockyard Employees Union Vs. Mazgaon Dock Ltd.,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2008
Reported in: [2009(121)FLR1068]
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. Petitioner is a Trade Union registered under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act. It has amongst its members workmen working with respondent No. 1, which is a State or other authority or instrumentality within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and hence amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are sued in their capacity as Chairman and Managing Director and General Manager of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 4 is the intervenor Union which has also membership amongst workmen engaged by respondent No. 1. Since 10th February, 1992 pursuant to cancellation of certificate of Recognition granted to the Association of Engineering Workers, there is no recognised/representative union of the workmen. The 1st Respondent in the year 1992 had decided to form a bargaining Council consisting of some management representative and two representatives each, from the then four registered trade unions for ...
Kundalik Hindurao Patil Vs. Gunda Hari Khot, Since Deceased by L. Rs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR494
Mohta Anoop V., J.1. The petitioner/plaintiff's application to implead a third person who is in possession of the property in view of the subsequent events is rejected by the trial Court. It was moved under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short, 'C.P.C.'). The suit is for removal of encroachment and for possession. Therefore, whosoever is in physical possession even though in view of subsequent events, is a necessary party for proper adjudication of the dispute.2. The learned trial Judge by relying on the observations made by the Apex Court in para 6 of its decision in Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh reported in : (1996)5SCC539 , held that the transferee pendentilite need not be impleaded as party to the suit. The relevant observations in the said para 6 reads thus:Therefore, the alienation obviously would be hit by the doctrine of lis pendense by operation of Section 52. Under these circumstances, the respondents cannot be considered to be either necessary or proper p...
A.M. Yusuf Vs. Mumbai Municipal Corporation, Municipal Corporation Est ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2008
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR452
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal at the admission stage itself.3. Respondent No. 1 Mumbai Municipal Corporation issued different six tenders for supply of different articles such as Uniform sets for MCGM students, socks, shoes, school bags, stationery, etc., for the students studying in the schools of the Corporation. This notice was published on 22nd October, 2008.4. The Petitioner, being interested in submitting his tender in response to the above tender notice, purchased the tender form. The Earnest Money Deposit for the first tender relating to supply of Uniforms, was Rs. 38,01,000/- i.e. 0.5% of the value amount. However, after the issuance of the first tender notice on 22nd October, 2008, a corrigendum was issued by the Corporation increasing the Earnest Money Deposit from Rs. 38,01,000/- to Rs. 1,52,04,000/- i.e. From 0.5% to 2%. Such a depos...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sesa Goa Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2008
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR443; 2009BusLRSN-6(Bom); (2009)221CTR(Bom)590; [2009]316ITR399(Bom); [2009]177TAXMAN270(Bom)
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act,' directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, dated 2nd May, 2002. The Appeal was admitted by an order of a Division Bench of this Court on 21st October, 2002 where it framed the following substantial questions of law.(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material before the ITAT come to the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 18,73,192/- paid by the assessee to its workers over and above the Payment and Bonus Act, is in the nature of Customary Bonus ?(B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 18,73,192/- paid by the assessee to its workers, is allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(ii) of the IT Act?2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was concerned with the Assessment Years 1985-86, 1988-89 and 1990-91. The qu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »