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.
Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited and anr. V ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR424
Kingaonkar V.R., J.1. Substantial question of law involved in this appeal is as follows: 'Whether the exemption granted vide Government Notification, issued under Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, in respect of establishment of the Apex body of a Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, would be applicable and valid so as to claim exemption from payment of Employees State Insurance (E.S.I.) contribution in respect of other units of the Co-operative Marketing Federation?'2. By consent, the appeal is finally heard at stage of admission.3. The appellants filed an application under Section 75 read with sections 77 and 78 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the E.S.I. Act'), before the Industrial Court, Aurangabad. The applicant No. 1 is a registered Cooperative Society under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the appellant No. 2 is a unit dealing in manufacturing of granulated fertilizers ...
Khairrunisa Haji Mohammed Vs. Afzal Haji Mohammed and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR370
Dalvi Roshan, J.1. This Suit is for partition between the two branches emanating from a common ancestor. One branch is of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 7. The other branch is of defendant Nos. 8 to 17. The Suit for partition was filed. Both the branches are equally entitled to the suit property. The suit property is essentially an immovable property. The relief in the Suit is with regard to that immovable property. The immovable property is a building consisting of 6 flats, 1 garage and 1 ground-floor portion. The Plaint was stated to have been served upon all the parties. The Notice of Motion for interim reliefs came up before the Court. The admission of the parties of the 1/2 share of the two branches came to be seen. The relief prayed for in the Notice of Motion was seen not required to be granted. The Suit itself was required to be disposed of upon admission of the parties of their equal shares in the suit premises, it being a partition Suit. An order came to be passed part...
Mrs. Ranjana Jayant Aundhe Vs. Ashok Namdeo Inamdar and Prakash Namdeo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR566; 2008(111)BomLR321; 2009(2)MhLj800
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The Petitioner-Original Plaintiff, Advocate by profession, has challenged the concurrent finding of facts, whereby, both the Courts dismissed her suit for possession under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947. (for short, 'the Bombay Rent Act'), on all grounds; default in paying the rent; acquiring suitable accommodation by Respondent No. 1; bonafide/personal requirement; illegal subletting and also her application for enhancement of the Rent.2. The Petitioner's case is as under:3. On 01/09/1978, original owner Shri Thite gave one room about 15' x 10' situated on first floor of the suit premises on rental basis to Respondent No. 1 on monthly rent of Rs. 100/- per month.4. Respondent No. 1 at the time of accepting tenancy, paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to original landlord Shri Thite. At the time of sale, the amount deposited with the original landlord was Rs. 2,800/- and Rs. 2,200/-remained with the landlord which became the liability of ...
Bank of Maharashtra, a Banking Company Governed by the Provisions of t ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR569; 2009(2)MhLj909
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The Petitioner Bank has challenged the impugned order dated 3rd November, 2006 whereby an application under Section 144 and 145 of the Civil Procedure Code, (for short, 'C.P.C.') for restoration against Respondent No. 1 pursuance to the directions of Hon'ble High Court Bombay given in Appeal No. 1007 of 2001 directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- (Rupees thirty five lacs only) along with interest @ 9% per annum forthwith, and on failure of Respondent No. 1 to deposit the amount, Respondent No. 3 Bank of Maharashtra is directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 17,50,000/- (Rupees seventeen lacs fifty thousand only) as against the bank guarantee Exhibit-33 and on failure of Respondent Nos. 1 and 3, the Applicant is permitted to execute the order in manner provided for execution of decree as contemplated under Section 144 and 145 of the C.P.C..2. The present Petition is filed only by the Petitioner Bank (Original Respondent No. 3) and not by Respondent No. 1.3. ...
Empeegee Portfolio Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sharada Navinchandra Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR579
Mohta Anoop V., J.1. The petitioner-landlord's challenge is restricted to portion of the impugned order as the Appellate Court rejected his application to inspect the premises with an architect.2. The petitioner/landlord, as the respond enttenant not permitting him to inspect the premises though prior notice was given, moved this application under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act' for short). The Appellate Court however, by impugned order observed as under:Appeal is partly allowed. Order passed by the Ld. trial Court in respect of seeking order to the defendants for facilitating Architect to visit the suit premises is hereby set aside. Respondents/plaintiffs are at liberty to follow the appropriate course as found fit in that regard.3. The result of this, that the landlord's application was rejected mainly because he wanted to inspect the premises with an architect. Considering the scheme and object of the Act and specially Sectio...
Maitabkhan Yakubkhan Pathan Vs. Baburao Motiram Nandagaoli and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-2008
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR868; 2009(2)MhLj354
Rohee K.J., J.1. The present appeal is preferred by the original plaintiff Maitabkhan Yakubkhan Pathan against dismissal of his suit (Regular Civil Suit No. 73/1980) for permanent injunction, alternatively for possession and damages by the Additional District Judge, Bhandara in Regular Civil Appeal No. 29/1987 by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sakoli in favour of the present appellant.2. The dispute relates to the land bearing Gat No. 242, Khasra No. 132/2, area 0.50 acre situated at village Bhugaon, tahsil Sakoli, district Bhandara which was owned by Tukdu Kisan Nandagaoli (here-in-after referred to as 'D-3 Tukdu'). It seems that on 26.6.1967 D-3 Tukdu agreed to sell the said land to Vithoba Sitaram Nandagaoli (hereinafter referred to as D-2 Vithoba.). However, on 28.6.1967 D-3 Tukdu sold it to Baburao Motiram Nandagaoli (hereinafter referred to as 'D-1 Baburao'). Soon thereafter D-1 Baburao obtained possession of the said land. On 17...
The Ammunition Factory Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Vs. Badrinaray ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR580; [2009(121)FLR936]
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The petitioner is a Credit Co-operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Its members consist of workmen employed in the Ammunition Factory and its allied establishments at Khadki. The Co-operative Society was formed with the objective of providing loan facilities to its members. The finance required by the society is raised through share capital which is contributed by members of the Society. Persons who are not employed in the Ammunition Factory are not allowed to become members of the Society.2. The 1st respondent joined the service of the Ammunition Factory as an Orderly in 1957 and was promoted through the ranks ultimately as an Upper Division Clerk. On 16/3/1989 the workman was informed that he would be attaining the age of 55 years on 28/7/1989 and that he should submit a certificate of medical fitness should he desire to continue in service. The workman submitted a certificate of medical fitness by a letter dated 3...
Shabir Ahmed Abdul Rehman Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2008
Reported in: 2008(161)LC28(Bombay); 2009(235)ELT402(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. During the pendency of an appeal filed against the confiscation order, whether the customs authorities could sell the confiscated gold and when it is ultimately held that the petitioner is entitled to redemption of the confiscated gold, whether the sale proceeds could be returned after deducting the customs duty from the sale proceeds, is the question raised in this petition.2. In the present case, on 17/4/1997 the petitioner on his arrival from Muscat was apprehended at the Airport as he was carrying 41 gold bars valued at Rs. 18,88,337/- (international market value)/Rs. 23,16,500/- (local market value) concealed in a pouch. The said gold bars were seized from the petitioner on the reasonable belief that they are liable to be confiscated.3. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 3rd July, 1997 and by an order in original dated 11/11/1997 (despatched on 25/11/1997) it was ordered that the seized gold bars are ...
PravIn Son of Moharao Unhale Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Secr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR5; 2008(111)BomLR221; 2009(2)MhLj503
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, and is heard by consent.2. The Petitioner has passed his LL.B. Examination held in April-May, 2004 from the Amravati University, the result whereof was declared on 3rd July, 2004. The petitioner passed the said Final Year LL.B. Examination with 57.3 per cent marks.3. On 4th July, 2007, the respondent No. 2 - the Maharashtra Public Service Commission ['MPSC' for short] had published a proclamation inviting applications for the posts of Civil Judges [Junior Division] & Judicial Magistrates First Class ['Junior Civil Judge', for short], and the applications were to be received by 3rd August, 2007. Another proclamation was published by the MPSC on 3rd August, 2007, for the additional posts of 175, thus, increasing the total posts to 325 and the last date to receive the applications was extended from 3rd August, 2007 to 10th August, 2007. The eligible candidates to apply for the said posts were divided in six different categorie...
Vodafone International Holdings B.V., a Company Incorporated Under the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-2008
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR258; (2008)220CTR(Bom)649; [2009]311ITR46(Bom)
S. Radhakrishnan and A.V. Nirgude, JJ.1. Mr. Chagla, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner broadly made the following four propositions:I. Assuming the validity of the 2008 amendments and further assuming that the transaction is chargeable to tax then nevertheless it is submitted that the Show Cause Notice is without jurisdiction as both before and after 2008 amendment the Petitioner is not deemed to be an assessee in default.II. The provisions of Section 195 have no extra territorial application. In an offshore transaction involving two non residents in respect of a capital asset (i.e. share capital) and payment outside the country, even assuming that such transaction is chargeable to tax, there is no obligation to withhold tax under Section 195.III. The 2008 amendment to the extent that they purport to be retrospective are unconstitutional. Under the unamended Sections 191 and 201 the Show Cause Notice is clearly without jurisdiction.IV. In any view of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »