Mumbai Court March 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.
The Commissioner, Nashik Municipal Corporation Vs. Shri Chandrashekhar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR412; 2008(3)BomCR43; [2008(117)FLR655]; 2008(3)MhLj629
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Five employees holding the post of Fireman under the Nashik Municipal Corporation had approached the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 245 of 1999 filed under Section 28(1) read with Items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 ('the Act' for short) and prayed for the relief of directions to the Corporation to promote them on priority to the post of Junior Clerk under the Corporation and the said complaint came to be allowed partly by the Industrial Court on 6/10/2004. The Industrial Court held that the Corporation had engaged in unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act and consequently directed the promotions to be given to the complainants on priority basis than that of appointment by nomination, if any. The said judgment and order is under challenge in Writ Petition No. 4497 of 2005. Another set of 24 firemen working in the Fire Department of the petitioner -Corporation approached the Industrial Court ...
Oriental Bank of Commerce Through Its Asst. General Manager Vs. Sir Ki ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR23; 2008(2)ARBLR456(Bom); 2008(2)BomCR725; (2008)110BOMLR886; 2008(4)MhLj217
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Being aggrieved and affected by the Judgment/order passed by the learned Single Judge in Arbitration Petition No. 311 of 2003 whereby the interim award dated 29/11/2002 passed by the learned Arbitrator has been confirmed. Therefore, this Appeal.2. The case of the Appellants/ Original Petitioners is as under:In the year 1945, Respondent No. 1 Sir Kikabhai Premchand Trust settlement No. XI (the Trust) was created in Mumbai.3. Some time in the year 1994, Shri. Manhar Lal C. Shah (Respondent No. 2) took over the Management of the Trust.4. On 28/07/1994, M/s. Adrik Traders was registered with the Registrar of Companies with 4 directors namely Shri. Bharat M. Shah, Navnit L. Shah and 2 NRIs. 5. On 16/04/1994, the Trust opened a S.B. Account No. 64661 with the Dadar (West) Branch of the Appellant Bank, in the name of 'Sir Kikabhai Prem Chand Trust Settlement No. XI'6. On 02/09/1994, Shri. Bharat Shah son of the Chairman of the Trust, addressed a letter to the Chairman OBC...
Cit Vs. Metro Shoes Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-2008
Reported in: [2008]306ITR130(Bom)
R.S. Mohite, J.1. The common questions of law as raised in para 5 of all these appeals are the same and are as under:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Tribunal was legally justified in relying upon its decision dated 19-12-2001 in ITA Nos. 1776, 1753 to 1759, 4957, 2543, 3101 to 3107 and 3645/Mum/1999 in the case of M/s Metro Shoes Ltd. in assessment years 1987-88 to 1994-95 and 1996-97 without appreciating the fact that the said decision of the learned Tribunal has not been accepted and further appeal against the same under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is being filed before the Hon'ble High Court ?(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the statement recorded initially is not enough evidence for making addition, ignoring its own decision in the case of Param Anand Builders (P) Ltd. v. ITO , wherein it was held that subsequent retraction...
Ashitkumar Surendra Mehta Vs. Trilochanaben Thakorlal Fojdar and 3 ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)BomCR372
Daga V.C., J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Perused Notice of Motion.3. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking declaration that the Caveats dated 28th June, 2006, filed by Ms. Pana Krishnalal Shah (Caveator/respondent No. 2), Mr. Jitendra Krishnalal Shah (Caveator/respondent No. 3) and Caveat dated 28th April, 2004, filed by Kishore Krishnalal Shah (Caveator/respondent No. 4), are not maintainable and as the Caveators (have neither locus standi nor caveatable interest in the subject-matter of the estate.4. The reliance is placed by the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff on unreported Judgment of this Court in the case of Mr. Kenin Garvil Nunes v. Mr. Rajendra Krishnarao Divecha passed on 25th July, 2002 (Smt. Justice K.K. Baam), which clearly supports the contentions raised by the plaintiff.The learned Counsel appearing for the caveators, initially prayed for adjournment. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that prior to this, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›