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.
Sumatibai Anandrao Rajurkar Vs. Punamchand P. Lohade, Since Deceased L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR592; 2009(2)MhLj300
Mohta Anoop V., J.1. The Petitioner/plaintiff/landlady has challenged the orders passed by the Courts below, whereby her Suit for eviction is dismissed which was under Section 13(1)(a) and (1) of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short, 'Bombay Rent Act') by holding that there is no change of user of the suit premises and though the Respondent/tenant-acquired suitable residence, but still not entitled for possession.2. The basic facts are that the suit premises were given in leave and licence by executing an agreement by the Plaintiff with the Defendants on 10.12.1962 and, therefore, the Defendant is claiming protection under Section 15(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. The Plaintiff/Petitioner's case is that it was for residential purposes, whereas Defendant's case is that it was for composite purpose. The Defendant was doing his profession as Income-tax Practitioner and, therefore, using part of the said premises as consultancy office. On 27.4.1982 the def...
The Peoples Education Society Jat, a Public Charitable Trust Through I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR32; 2009(2)MhLj745
V.C. Daga, J.1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith in all petitions. Heard all these petitions finally by consent of parties. Perused the petitions, counter-affidavits and replies.Introduction2. All these writ petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are directed against the various orders passed by Shri M.K. Dongare, learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Sangli Division, Sangli ('the ACC' for short) in exercise of powers under Section 41A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1960 ('the BPT Act' for short).3. The parties are different, but the issue involved is identical so also the challenges set up against all the impugned orders passed by the learned ACC unfolding very sad and sorry state of affairs prevailing in the office of the ACC, Sangli, sufficient to tarnish the image of the judiciary as such all these petitions were heard together and closed for judgment with a view to dispose of by a common judgment.4. The modus operandi adopted by all the contesting respon...
Shri Saptashrung Niwasini Devi Trust Sevakanchi Pat Sanstha Limited Vs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR586; 2009(2)MhLj328
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, by consent of the learned Counsel made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the Respondent waives service. With the consent of the learned Counsel and at their request, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The Petitioner before the Court is a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The First Respondent is in the employment of the Petitioner and holds the post of Secretary since 7th June, 1995. The First Respondent instituted proceedings under Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming the benefit of a difference in wages between September 1999 and June 2005 on the basis that he was entitled to the benefit of the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission. The Labour Court allowed the application and directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,57,175/- before 31st October, 2008 failing which the amount was to carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum.2A. Counsel appe...
Abdul Sattar Sher Mohammad Qureshi and ors. Vs. Haji Mustaq Ahmad Sher ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR43
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This Second Appeal is filed by the original non applicants before the Deputy Charity Commissioner in a Change Report Enquiry.2. The facts are as follows:There is a Public Trust known as Fakkruddin Shikshan Sanstha at Nagpur. One Haji Mustaq Ahmed and others filed a Change Report under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trust Act before the Deputy Charity Commissioner on 02.04.1992. It was registered as an Enquiry No. 895 of 1992. It was alleged that the election of managing committee was held on 19.01.1992 and Jainab Mustaq Kanoje was elected as Vice President and Chand Bee Suleman, Shaikh Ismail and Batul Bee were elected as Members of the Executive Committee. It was further alleged that Padmakar Bhanudas Ambore, Vice President, Dr. Habib Sher Mohd. Kanoje, Secretary, Shashikala Mudholkar and Mohd. Mustafa had resigned. Hence prayer was made to delete the names of these 4 trustees to substitute the names of those reporting trustees.3. The Change Report was accepted o...
Vitthal S/O Sopanrao Kalbande Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its P.S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(111)BomLR349
R.C. Chavan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the appellant's conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/- or in default RI for six months, for offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code and RI for ten years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default RI for three years on each count for offences punishable under Section 304-B and 306 of the Penal Code.2. Facts, which led to prosecution and conviction of the appellant, are as under:Complainant Rajmati's daughter Kaveri was married to the appellant on 12-2-2005, at which Kaveri's uncle Uddhav had paid a dowry of Rs. 81,000/-. The appellant was allegedly residing jointly with his parents and brothers, who too were co-accused at the trial, but have been acquitted. It was the prosecution case that Kaveri was ill-treated by all the accused on account of her failure to get a sum of Rs. 1 lac to secure job for the appellant. On 3-12-2005, Kaveri committed suicide by consuming poison. On a...
Firoz S/O Aziz Khan Through His Wife Smt. Nurusuba W/O Firoz Khan Vs. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(111)BomLR160
K.J. Rohee, J.1. Heard.2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.3. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 12.6.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City (R-2) directing detention of the petitioner under Section 3(1)(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.P.D.A' Act). Along with the detention order the grounds of detention were served on the petitioner. The grounds disclosed that the petitioner has been involved in 14 offences which showed his tendency towards commission of grave offences which are against the maintenance of public order. However, these offences were not considered while passing detention order against the petitioner.4. Crime No. 72/2008 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 294, 506(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Crime No. 3054/200...
General Secretary, Van Shramik Sangh Vs. the Director, Social Forestry ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR589; [2009(121)FLR53]; 2009(2)MhLj956
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. A complaint of unfair labour practices was instituted before the Industrial Court under Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The complainant-workmen were appointed as daily wagers under the Social Forestry Department. The workmen sought permanency and consequential benefits.2. The Industrial Court by its judgment dated 11th April 2008 held that the workmen were not appointed on a regular vacant post, no sanctioned post was available and that appointments to a public post must be consistent with the constitutional scheme. The appointments of the complainant-workmen were not made in accordance with the prevailing rules by furnishing an equal opportunity to others. No regular vacant post being available, the workmen would not be entitled to permanency merely upon the completion of 240 days' service. The Industrial Court has inter alia relied upon the judgments of the S...
Dattatraya Machchimar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Vs. State of Maharasht ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR21
Joshi A.H., J.1. This Court had issued notice returnable on 20th August, 2008. Learned Government Pleader had waived service for all respondents, except respondent No. 3, who has been served. Contesting parties have filed affidavits.2. Hence Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, and is heard by consent.3. Challenge in the petition is to the allotment of Upper Wardha Reservoir, an Irrigation Tank, for fishing lease for five years in favour of respondent No. 3.4. For allotment of contract in question, a meeting of the Allotment Committee was held on 8th July, 2008. Fishing lease was to be allotted to highest bidder. Six bidders had participated, and the details of bids were recorded by District Fishery Officer, Amravati, and the same were placed before the Committee.5. The offers were scrutinized as to the eligibility of the bidder in terms of the norms prescribed by the Government.6. Petitioner's allegation is that the respondent No. 3 was not eligible, as it did not comply with the ...
Harish Kanayalal Thawani and ors. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-2008
Reported in: [2009]138ITR137(Bom)
P. B. Majmudar, J. 1. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners are challenging orders at Ext. 'E' and Ext. 'N'. So far as the impugned order dated 26-7-1993 (Ext. 'E') is concerned, the same was passed under Section 269UD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioners, thereafter preferred rectification application and the same was rejected by order dated 7-9-1993, which is annexed at Ext. 'N' to the petition.2. So far as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, they are purchasers of the flat sold by petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. A show-cause notice dated 14-7-1993 was issued for acquiring the said property under the provisions of Section 269UD(1) of the Act. By the impugned order (Ext. 'E'), the Appropriate Authority, after considering sale transaction, came to the conclusion that the flat in question is superior as compared to other flats regarding whose transaction reliance was made on behalf of the petitioners. The Authority found that the rate wor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›