Mumbai Court February 2008 Judgments
Shri Prabhubhai Jadhavji Rathod Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR35; 2008(3)ARBLR204(Bom); 2008(4)BomCR594; (2008)110BOMLR852; 2008(4)MhLj238
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This First Appeal filed under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Act) challenges the judgment and order dated 16/6/2007 delivered by learned District Judge, Nagpur in Misc. Civil Application No. 531 of 2003 whereby the learned District Judge has allowed application under Section 34 thereof filed by present Respondent. Appellant had stated that controversy herein is covered by the judgment dated 23/12/2005 in First Appeal No. 601/2005 and hence both parties had agreed to address the court finally at the stage of admission itself. On one date, Respondent stated that another matter vide F.A. No. 284/2007 between parties involving similar point was already closed for judgment and therefore it was thought fit to await such judgment. The said Appeal was decided on 20/12/2007. In the meanwhile record & proceedings from Court of District Judge were called for and thereafter, parties were heard on 11th, 12th and 13th Februar...
Tag this Judgment!Sadashiv Mahadeorao Pokle (Since Deceased Through Lrs. Ramabai Sadashi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR45; 2008(4)BomCR798; 2008(4)MhLj747
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The original defendants have filed present Second Appeal challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by Courts below for their eviction. Respondents No. 1 & 2 filed Special Civil Suit No. 221 of 1983 through their father and natural guardian against present appellants for recovery of possession and for damages. They claimed possession of house property located at Baraipura, Lalganj, Nagpur, on the basis of Will. The suit came to be decreed and appellants (original defendants No. 1 to 3) were directed to hand over the possession to plaintiffs. The appellants then filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 530 of 1985 & the Court of 10th Additional District Judge, Nagpur, dismissed it with costs on 19.9.1991. On 22.11.1991 the present Second Appeal has been admitted on two substantial questions of law, the first being about the explanation of suspicious circumstances shrouding the Will and second about protection of Rent Control Legislation. During the pendency ...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Bafna, Carrying on Business of Sole Proprietorship Under the Na ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR717; (2008)110BOMLR868; 2008(127)ECC31; 2008(153)LC31(Bombay); 2009(234)ELT606(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. The appeal preferred by the petitioner herein was dismissed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) Goa on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation. An appeal lies under Section 128 of the Customs Act. The limitation provided under Section 128(1) starts from the date of communication of the decision or order. Under Section 153 of the Customs Act an order or decision passed has to be served either by tendering the order or decision or by sending it by registered post to the person for whom it is intended or to his agent. The order or decision if it cannot be served in the manner as earlier set has to be done by affixing it on the notice board of the customs house.3. Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 reads as under. Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by an officer of Customs lower in rank than a Commissioner of Customs] may appeal to the [Commissioner (Appeals) ] [within six...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Prakash Shivraj Dalvi Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)MhLj565
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition arises from the Judgement and order dated 26-11-1997 rendered by the School Tribunal at Kolhapur in Appeal No. 164/1996 filed by the petitioner whereby the appeal came to be dismissed. The factual matrix which is not in dispute and relevant to decide this petition would be stated as under. The Petitioner who had his M.Sc. (Mathematics) qualifications, obtained B.Ed. degree in the year 1992. On 4-5-1995 Respondent No. 3 & 4 released an advertisement and published in the local newspaper to fill in the post of Assistant Teacher in D.B.J. Junior College at Chiplun for the academic year 1995-96 and as per the said advertisement, full time lecturers in Mathematics, Marathi and Psychology were to be appointed whereas in English and Sanskrit a part time lecturer was to be appointed and in Geography a lecturer on C.H.B. (clock hour basis) was to be appointed in the Senior Section. The Petitioner responded to the said advertisement by submitting his applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Nagnath Sadhu Gaikwad Vs. Maharashtra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR460; 2008(5)MhLj474
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This Petition is directed against order dated 23-7-1998 rendered by the Pune thereby dismissing the Appeal No. 110/1996 filed by the present Petitioner.2. The Petitioner joined as an Assistant Teacher in the Respondent No. 2 School on 19-9-1977 he possessed the qualifications of S.S.C. + D.Ed (2 years course), Whereas the Respondent No. 3 also joined the very same School on 6-10-1977 S.S.C. + C.P.Ed.(one year course). obtained his B.Ed. degree in 1984 whereas the Peitioner obtained the said degree in 1991. On the Judgement andSchool Tribunal atand at that timewith qualifications ofThe Respondent No. 3 1-3-1996 the Respondent No. 3 came to be appointed by way of promotion to the post of Head Master by the Respondent No. 1 and 2 and said order of promotion came to be challenged by the Petitioner in Appeal No. 110/1996. It was contended by the Petitioner before the School Tribunal that on acquiring qualifications of B.Ed. in 1991, his seniority was required to be cou...
Tag this Judgment!Ritesh Prem Gayal Vs. Senior Inspector of Police and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2118
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard. 2. By these applications under Sections 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), the applicants seek bail in connection with an offence registered at C.R. No. 109 of 2006 with Saswad Police Station, Pune punishable under Sections 306 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Apprehending her arrest, Snehlata Vikram Kamble, the applicant in Application No. 36 of 2008, had previously made an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, Pune. By an order dated 10th October 2006, the Additional Sessions Judge allowed the application and granted pre-arrest bail to her in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-. However, the application made by Ritesh Gayal, the applicant in Application No. 35 of 2008, was rejected by the Sessions Court. He therefore moved this Court for anticipatory bail. By an order dated 22nd December 2006 passed in Criminal Application No. 4568 of 2006, this Court (Coram: S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) granted him pre-arrest ...
Tag this Judgment!Maruti S/O. Laxman Zhipare (Gawali) Vs. Rahul S/O. Arjun Sarang and Vi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR60; 2008(6)BomCR278; (2008)110BOMLR781; 2008(3)MhLj821
B.R. Gavai, J.1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.2. Learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 waives service for the said respondent. None appears for respondent No. 2 though duly served.3. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 31st August 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Latur, below Exhibit 103 in Regular Civil Suit No. 10 of 1996, vide which the application filed by the respondents for placing on record his counter claim has been allowed.4. The petitioner has filed a suit for declaration of ownership in respect of the suit plot. The said suit is filed in the year 1996. The suit is resisted by the respondent by filing a written statement which was filed on 22nd July 1996. In the said suit, issues are framed, evidence of the plaintiff / petitioner is also over and the suit is kept for evidence of the respondent. At that stage, an application came to be filed by the defendants / respondents for permission t...
Tag this Judgment!Savitri W/O Sudesh Subba and anr. Vs. the Principal Judge, Family Cour ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR295; 2008(5)MhLj400
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioners before this Court are husband and wife and they are challenging the order dated 13-1-2006 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur, rejecting their request to waive prescribed period of six months under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and to consider their application for grant of divorce by mutual consent immediately.2. The petitioner No. 1 - wife is stated to be 24 years old while petitioner No. 2 - husband is stated to be 28 years of old. Both of them performed their marriage at Arya Samaj, Hansapuri at Nagpur on 7-12-2004 according to Hindu religion and ceremonies. It is stated that said marriage is love marriage. The parties state that they are living separately since 10-12-2004 when they decided to live separately. It is the contention that in recent past they realised that their likings, tastes of life, temperaments, ideas, ideologies, thinking, attitudes, aptitudes, intellectual reactions, capacities, feelings, moods,...
Tag this Judgment!infomedia India Ltd. Vs. Tata Press Employees' Union and Ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR984]; (2008)IIILLJ226Bom
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, by consent of counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent waives service. By consent of counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been instituted in order to challenge an award of the Labour Court in a reference to adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court has held that the two chargesheeted workmen had committed serious misconduct upon which an order of dismissal from service could not be regarded as harsh or disproportionate. The Labour Court was of the view that the workmen were consequently not entitled to an order of reinstatement with full back wages. Having held thus, the Labour Court has awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs to one of the two workmen, (A.S. Borade), and Rs. 3 lakhs to the other (V.B. Sawant). The correctness of this order is challenged by the employ...
Tag this Judgment!Bakerbeg S/O Subhanbeg and anr. Vs. Shrikant S/O Laxminarayan Zanwar a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR656; 2008(5)MhLj883
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Necessity of adjudication of dispute inter se between defendants in suit for specific performance and maintainability of appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure by one of the defendants challenging the findings recorded in favour of other defendant in such suit which has been dismissed against all of them and scope of entitlement of subsequent i.e. lis pendens transferee to join for hearing are the questions argued in this Second Appeal under Section 100 thereof.2. This Appeal is filed by original defendants No. 2 and 3 in Regular Civil Suit 318/1981 challenging the judgment of Lower Appellate Court declaring that sale deeds in their favour vide Exhibits 77 and 78 executed by defendant No. 1 Namdeo are not legal whereby findings about the right, title, interest and possession delivered in their favour by trial Court have been set aside. Namdeo, respondent No. 3 in this Appeal is the original owner of Field Survey Number 120/1 admeasuring 1 Hector...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »