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.
Shri Basaveshwar Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Through Its Administr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2008
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR504; 2008(111)BomLR366; 2009CriLJ3185; 2009(2)MhLj216
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. By this common judgment, we will dispose of the above referred seven Letters Patent Appeals as all of them are directed against the order dated 14th December 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of all the seven Writ Petitions by the same order.2. The Respondents in all these Appeals had borrowed several sums of money from the Appellant Society from time time. To begin with, the operation of the loan accounts were satisfactory. However, subsequently, as the Oil Mills suffered a set back, the accounts of the Respondents became irregular resulting in filing of an application under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for recovery of the loan amounts stated to be advanced by the Society. As a result of these proceedings, an exparte award came to be passed for recovery of the loan amounts. Subsequently, the parties had agreed for a settlement in terms of which the Respondent was to pay 50% ...
Shri Bala Atmaram Sahakari, Vs. the Deputy Collector and S.D.O., Ponda ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)MhLj804
N.A. Britto, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 21/11/2006 of the learned reference Court by which the claim of the applicants for enhancement of compensation has been partly allowed. Dissatisfied with the same the present appeal has been filed.2. The parties hereto are being referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the reference case. Applicants' land admeasuring about 2805 sq. mts. located on either side of National Highway 4-A was acquired by the Government for the purpose of its widening by virtue of notification published on gazette dated 26/09/1991. In fact, an area of about 700 sq. mts. was acquired from Survey No. 79, 10 sq. mts. from Survey No. 80 and 980 sq. mts. from Survey No. 78/1 lying on the right side of the said National Highway, while 1115 sq. mts. was acquired from Survey No. 83/3 lying on the left side of the National Highway, all from village Curti in Ponda Taluka, and, by award dated 20/05/1993, the Land Acquisition Officer w...
Pioneer Embroideries Ltd., a Public Limited Company Registered Under t ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)MhLj701
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The ambit and scope of the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, is the only question that arises for consideration of the Court in this facts and circumstances of the present appeal. A number of workmen of the Appellant Company filed a Petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Act before the Central Government Labour Court at Silvasa claiming overtime wages for the period from 23rd August, 1998 to 29th March, 2003 approximately Rs. 2,03,768/- on assertions that they were workmen of the Company for many years and had been working on for the said period. The Appellant-Company is an establishment to which the provisions of the Factories Act and Industrial Disputes Act are applicable. Their normal working hours from 7.00 a.m. To 7.00 p.m. and from 7.00 p.m. To 7.00 a.m., i.e. 12 hours per day. Thus, they claimed overtime wages for working four hours every day except from the holidays, and therefore, file...
Lanco Infratech Limited a Limited Company, Constituted and Incorporate ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR353
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Heard.2. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal at the admission stage itself.3. Mormugao Port Trust, a Trust constituted and incorporated under the Major Port Trust Act, 1963, issued a global tender notice, on its website, inviting tenders from interested parties in accordance with Request for Qualification (hereinafter referred to as 'RFQ'), in order to shortlist competent bidders for developing a Coal Import Terminal at Port of Mormugao, Goa on design, build, operate and transfer (DBOT) basis. Originally, the project cost was estimated at Rs. 170 crores which was subsequently increased to Rs. 332 crores.4. In order to submit their bids for the project, three Companies, namely, Lanco Infratech Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'LITL'), Pembinaan Redzai Sdn. Bhd. (hereinafter referred to as 'PRSB') and M/s Emirates Trading Agency LLC (hereinafter referred to as 'ETA') entered into a Joint Bid...
Sesa Goa Limited and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(111)BomLR261; [2009]151CompCas358(Bom); [2009]89SCL169(Bom)
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. These petitions impugn the order passed on 4.10.2006 by the additional Chief These petitions impugn the order passed on 4.10.2006 by the additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum and by the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 509 of 2004. After the Writ Petition No. 2739 of 2006 was argued, an application was made on behalf of Respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 254 of 2008 that the writ petition should be adjourned in order to permit the Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 to address the Court. The petitions involve the same issue. The parties were aware that they were being heard together and therefore, ought to have been ready to argue the matter immediately after the first petition was over. I have, therefore, refused the adjournment.2. The Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are public limited companies; Petitioner No. 2, being a subsidiary of Petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the `SIL') was ...
Indian National Shipowners Association Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2008
Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Bom)234; [2009]16STJ175; 2009[13]STR235
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this Petition the Petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of the following:(i) Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994; (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act for the sake of brevity), which has been introduced with effect from 18th April, 2006;(ii) An explanation to Section 65(105) of the Act, which was in force between 16th June, 2005 and 17th April, 2006; and(iii) Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 inserted with effect from 16th August, 2002;2. On the basis of the above provisions the Respondents are seeking to levy and recover service tax from the persons resident in India on the services which are rendered and/or performed outside India by non-resident service providers. By the aforementioned provisions although the services are performed outside India, the tax is sought to be levied and collected from the recipient of these services, who is based in India.3. The Petitioner No. 1 is the Indian National Ship Owners Association which is regis...
Amarnath Baijnath Gupta and anr. Vs. Mohini Organics Pvt. Ltd. and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR258; 2009CriLJ995
ORDERA.S. Oka, J.1. On 17th July 2008, in these two petitions, this Court issued notice for final disposal at the admission stage. Further submissions were heard by this Court on 21st August 2008 and 8th September 2008.2. When the petitions were placed before this Court (Coram: V.K. Tahilramani, J.) on 8th October 2008, the registry was directed to place these petitions before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders as a contention was raised that the petitions have been substantially argued before this Court. Accordingly, by an administrative order dated 20th October 2008 passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, these petitions have been assigned to this Court. Accordingly, the petitions were taken up for final hearing on 21st November 2008.3. It is not in dispute that the facts leading to filing of these two petitions are more or less identical. Therefore, a reference is made to the facts of the case in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1444 of 2008. The first respondent filed ...
Minoti Anand and Subal Anand Vs. Subhash Anand,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Bom65; 2008(111)BomLR372; 2009(2)MhLj251
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The order challenged in this Civil Revision Application has been passed by the Family Court, Mumbai on 8th June, 2004. By this order, the Family Court has rejected the application filed by the wife for rejecting the Marriage Petition. She had contended in her application that a Marriage Petition filed under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was not maintainable as she was married to the 1st respondent under the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969. The interim order passed by the Family Court in an application filed under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been challenged in the writ petition. Since both the Civil Revision Application and the Writ Petition arise from orders passed in the same marriage petition filed before the Family Court, they are being heard together. For the sake of convenience the wife who is the applicant in the Civil Revision Application and the petitioner in the Petition will be hereafter be referred to as the petitioner. The husband who is Responde...
Gaurishankar Govardhandas Todi Vs. Evershine Homes Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR330; 2009(2)MhLj259
Vazifdar S.J., J.1. This is an appeal against the order and judgment passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Civil Judge) Thane restraining defendant No. 1 from creating third party interests in the suit properties. The appellant is defendant No. 1. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the plaintiff and defendant No. 2. I will refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the suit.2. In upholding the order I have given reasons of my own. The plaintiff has made out more than just a strong prima-facie case requiring the parties to maintain status-quo pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit.3. The suit is filed for a declaration that an MOU dated 24.6.2003 is valid and subsisting; that the termination thereof by defendant No. 1 is illegal and for an order directing the defendants to in effect specifically perform the suit agreement. In the above suit, the plaintiff took out an application for interim reliefs in which the impugned order was passed.4. The defendants contended that the said...
Manager, Solapur Municipal Corporation and ors. Vs. Devidas Mahadev Po ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR347; 2009(2)MhLj864
Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents waives service. With the consent of the Learned Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The thirteen respondents are all pensioners who were engaged in the services of the Transport Undertaking of the Solapur Municipal Corporation. As the facts before the Court would disclose, they were constrained to move the Industrial Court in a complaint of unfair labour practices under Item 9 of Schedule IV to the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 on the ground that the pension which accrued to them has not been released on time and that generally speaking, there was an inordinate delay every month in the disbursal of the pensionary payments. According to the Municipal Corporation , there were financial difficulties which led to a delay in disbursement of monthly pension payments, between th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »