Mumbai Court February 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.
Coldspot Represented by Its Sole Proprietor Shri AmIn Patel Vs. Naik H ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: IV(2008)BC166
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. This appeal arises from the Judgment and Order dated 9.9.05, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji in Criminal Case No. 799/OA/2001/D. 2. By the impugned Judgment, the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act, for short) has been disposed of by acquitting the respondents-accused of the offence punishable under the said section. The challenge to the impugned Judgment is essentially on the ground that the trial Court failed to consider that the cheques in question were issued towards the payment of rentals from February, 2001 onwards and considering the fact that such payment was made by way of cheques, there was presumption about existence of liability of the drawer of the cheques on the day when the cheques were issued. The trial Court having ignored this aspect of the matter, as well as the the presumption arising under Section 139 of the said Act in relation to the said cheques in favour of the appe...
Bhagwan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and ors. Vs. Rajendra S/O Hemraj Mara ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MhLj464
A.H. Joshi, J.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent.2. According to the petitioner/management:--(a) The petitioner was appointed for the first time on 20-6-1994, the post was meant for reserved category candidate, however, the management did not mention the said fact in the appointment order.(b) After completion of two year's service, the petitioner was issued a fresh appointment order dated 24-6-1996, which admittedly mentions that this time, he is given appointment on probation of two years against a reserved vacancy.3. After termination, the petitioner preferred Appeal No. 202/1998, which was delayed by 7 months. Petitioner claimed that he had gained permanency and claimed the relief of reinstatement and backwages alleging that the termination is illegal.4. The appeal was opposed urging inter alia that:(1) as the post was reserved there cannot be any permanent appointment of an open category candidate against a vacancy meant for candidate belonging to particul...
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: (2008)2LLJ657Bom
1. This is a writ petition challenging the show cause notice issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment to the petitioner to show cause as to why the legal action under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 should not be taken against him for non-implementation of the award in favor of the workman.2. It appears that before this notice a show cause notice had been given asking the petitioner to explain as to why he has not implemented the award completely. The petitioner replied to the notice stating therein that he had implemented the award. But it appears that the Government of India did not accept his contention that the award has been implemented and the Government of India issued a fresh order dated November 8, 2007 asking the petitioner to implement the award in full within 10 days.3. At this stage we do not find that this order gives any cause for the petitioner to come to this Court. He may, however, seek clarification from the Government ...
Namdeo Girmaji Tarfe Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MhLj341
A.P. Lavande, J.1. Heard Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mirza, learned A.P.P., for respondents.2. Rule. Mr. Mirza waives notices on behalf of respondents. By consent heard forthwith.3. By this petition, the petitioner who is undergoing imprisonment for life for having committed offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code at Central Jail, Amravati, challenges the order dated 8-10-2007 passed by the competent authority rejecting the application for parole filed by the petitioner.4. The competent authority has rejected the application for parole filed by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the petitioner was earlier granted parole by the order dated 27-3-2007, pursuant to which the petitioner was released and he surrendered on 10-5-2007. Placing reliance upon the Circular dated 28-11-1989 (wrongly mentioned as 28-11-2007 in the impugned order) the competent authority has held that the petitioner is not entitled to parole since in terms of t...
Suresh S/O Charandas Vaishnv Vs. Jagdish S/O Kishandas Vaishnv and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR286; 2008(4)MhLj458
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent.2. The application for setting aside ex parte decree filed by the present respondents being Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 73/1998 was rejected by the trial Court by order dated 16th December, 2002.3. The trial Court rejected the application for setting aside ex parte decree on the ground that the applicant had knowledge about the decree since:(i) On the date of judgment since the defendant was present in the Courts.(ii) That, the certified copy of decree passed was brought on record in revenue proceedings and it was on record.(iii) Further the judgment of Tahsildar in said proceedings was noted by the Advocate for defendant.4. This order was challenged by the present petitioners by filing Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 4/2003.5. Learned appellate Judge apparently examined the case on grounds as provided in Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for setting aside ex parte decree. The ...
Prabhu Babu Chaware Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MhLj345
Naresh H. Patil, J.1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith.2. The petitioner is a convict undergoing imprisonment in connection with Sessions Case No. 18 of 1984 decided on 10-5-1985 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon.3. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner applied for parole leave in writing by application dated 5-8-2006 addressed to the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad called for the report of concerned police by communication dated 14-8-2006. The report was submitted through the Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon on 26-9-2006. The police at that stage had certain reservations regarding release of the petitioner. They, in fact, objected to the release. The Divisional Commissioner thereafter called for another report by communication dated 10-10-2006. It is the case of the police that the report was submitted to the office of the Divisional Commissioner on 14-12-2006. Accordingly by order dated 27-8-2007 the Deputy Inspector Gen...
Savitriben M. Sanghvi Vs. Pankaj Champaklal Gandhi (Dr.) and Jyoti Pan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR355
Vazifdar S.J., J. 1. The learned Commissioner Mr. A.R. Bapat has made an application for fixing his remuneration and for the payment thereof by the parties to the above proceedings viz. the plaintiff, the defendant and the Obstructionist.2. As the defendant and the Obstructionist, husband and wife, have appeared in person and as the matter requires the determination of questions of law, I considered it appropriate to appoint amicus curiae. Mr. Colabawala and Mr. Saraf appeared amicus curiae. I must at the outset express my appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by them so willingly.3. The above Summary Suit was filed on 22.12.1998 and decreed on 10.12.2002. The plaintiff filed an execution application on 19.4.2003. The defendant's wife, the Obstructionist, obstructed the execution of the decree. The flat which is the subject matter of the execution proceedings was attached on 29.7.2004. The plaintiff therefore filed Chamber Summons No. 395 of 2004 on 15.4.2004 for removing t...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kwh Pipes (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2008
Reported in: (2008)(128)ECC199
1. The factory of the respondents herein who are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE pipes and fittings falling under Chapter 39 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, was visited by preventive officers of central excise on 8.9.1998 and on verification of the stock of finished goods, shortage of stock compared to the balance recorded in the RG1 register was detected. The finished goods, i.e. HDPE pipes of various qualities involving duty of Rs. 3,75,791/-, were found short. The assessee paid central excise duty on such shortage. Further scrutiny of records revealed that the assessees cleared their goods, viz. HDPE pipes sprinkle irrigation, to various depots all over India, from where they finally sold to customers/dealers. Price declaration of the finished goods was filed by the assessees and it was noticed that the assessees had charged a higher price for sprinkler coupler than declared in annexure-II. It was also found that they were charging their customer fo...
Vasudeo Ananda Zambre Vs. Ramrao Gopalrao Zanak Education Society Thro ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)BomCR647
K.J. Rohee, J.1. Heard. Admit. Heard forthwith by consent of parties.2. The appellant was appointed as Peon on probation for a period of two years by respondent No. 1 by order dated 1-4-1991. It is not disputed that the date of birth of the appellant is 24-8-1953 and obviously on the date of his appointment, he was overaged. Subsequently by resolution dated 10-4-1993, the services of the appellant were confirmed as they were found satisfactory. On 26-6-1995, respondent No. 1 sent a letter to the Director, Higher Education, Maharashtra State, Pune, for condoning the age of the appellant. The last para of the said letter shows that the work of the appellant was satisfactory, that the appellant completed four years of service, that his services were required by the College and that if approval is not given, the Management will have to suffer financial difficulties. It seems that the said prayer was not granted. Thereafter on 6-9-1995, respondent No. 1 issued a notice of termination to the...
Baban S/O Kundlik Karale Vs. Mahendra S/O Yelnath Karale and Yelnath S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)BomCR524; 2008(3)MhLj222
Naresh H. Patil, J.1. Notice for final disposal of petition at admission stage was issued to respondents. None appeared for the respondents.2. Rule, returnable forthwith.3. The petitioner, plaintiff, filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 144 of 2005 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Paranda, District Osmanabad, for possession of the suit property. In short, the petitioner's case is that at the time of measurement of land, it was noticed that respondents had encroached upon the land owned and possessed by the petitioner. The petitioner requested the respondents to remove the encroachment, but as they were found to be reluctant, the petitioner was constrained to file suit. The suit was filed in the year 2005. According to the petitioner, respondents defendants appeared in the suit.4. The defendant No. 1, who is a son of the defendant No. 2, filed an application dated 28/10/2005 stating therein that the defendant No. 2 does not hold any land in Block No. 260 in his name; ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »