Mumbai Court March 2008 Judgments

Shri Namdeo Sheshrao Dinde, Medical Practitioner Vs. Sau. Rekha W/O Na ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR1139; II(2008)DMC585

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Heard.2. Question involved in this petition is whether the conditional order of maintenance rendered as a result of settlement is executable or that it is only a term of an agreement, which can be considered in afresh proceeding of Criminal Application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code or may be in a Suit filed under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 ?3. Undisputedly, the parties are husband and wifeand are at logger heads. The marriage ties received set-back and, therefore, the wife filed proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (M.A. No. 120 of 2001). There took place compromise between the spouses. A Compromise Petition was filed on 21-02-2002. The husband agreed to pay maintenance allowance at rate of Rs. 5000/- p.m. in the event he would not maintain the wife after the settlement. The proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code came to be disposed of as per the compromise though the ...

Shri Sadashiv Shyama Sawant (Smt. Satyabhama Sadashiv Sawant and ors.) ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR1114; 2008(5)MhLj279

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. This Revision Application is filed by the original defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 or legal representatives of some of them.2. To state in brief, the plaintiff-respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No. 11 of 1989 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for possession of the suit property on the ground that the contesting defendants had forcibly taken possession of the suit property by throwing away the articles of her tenant P.V. Varik from the suit property on 1.10.1981. According to the plaintiff, she had purchased the house No. 97 from defendant No. 4 Nanibai Sawant on 1.10.1981 for consideration of Rs. 5,000/- under the registered sale and she was put in possession of the suit house by defendant No. 4. At that time, one Pandurang Vichare was occupying a part of the suit premises as a tenant. After the house was vacated by Pandurang, the plaintiff had inducted another tenant P.V.Varik in a part of the said house. According to her, the House No. 97 as described i...

The Sales Tax Practitioners' Association of Maharashtra and Tushar P. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR396; [2008]14STT348; (2008)14VST69(Bom)

F.I. Rebello, J.1. All these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment as the main challenge in all the petitions is to the constitutional validity of Section 61(1) and the explanation thereto, of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on the ground that it infringes the equality clause as enshrined in Article 14, the right to carry on profession under Article 19(1)(g) as also under Article 254, as the provisions for 'audit' would not fall within the competence of the State Legislature under Entry No. 54 of List II of the VIIth schedule to the Constitution of India. In the alternative to read down Section 61, so as to empower Advocates and Sales Tax Practitioners to audit and give report in Form No. 704. There are some other incidental challenges in Writ Petition No. 1777 of 2007 to contend that the explanation also be declared void as being violative of Article 265 which provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by the a...

Claridges Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Surendra Kapur and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2009Bom1; (2008)110BOMLR1120

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The present judgment will govern two Motions for interlocutory relief in a suit for specific performance of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 17th January 2006. The pleadings being complete, the Motions have been taken up for hearing and final disposal with the consent of Learned Counsel.2. The dispute in the present case relates to 29.4% of the shareholding of the Fifth Defendant which is held by the First to Fourth Defendants. The aforesaid Defendants together with a person by the name of M.H. Merchant and his family and a Company by the name of Asian Hotels Ltd., are the only shareholders of the Fifth Defendant. The Merchant family holds 19% of the share capital, while Asian Hotels Ltd., holds 52%. The Fifth Defendant is stated to have a claim on a plot of land admeasuring 31,000 sq.mtrs. or thereabouts situated near the International Airport Terminal at Sahar. On 31st August 2005, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between the Plaintiffs and Def...

Hansa Travels Vs. Ccex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This stay application is directed against the confirmation of demand of Rs. 99,57,862/- and penalty of equivalent amount imposed upon the applicant.3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the taxability of the services under the category of "Tour Operator". The demand is for the period of April, 2001 to Sept. 2005. The Tour operator as defined w.e.f. 10.9.2004 is a person engaged in the business of planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging tours (which may include arrangements for accommodation, sight seeing or other similar services) by any mode of transport and includes any person engaged in the business of operating Tour Operation in a tourist vehicle covered by a permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the Rules made there under. Prior to 10.9.2004 the definition of Tour Operator was a person who hold a 'tourist permit' granted under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 to undertake tour operator business. In the case of CCE & Cus, Vadodara-II v. Gandhi Trav...

Deepika Yogeshwar Nandanwar Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Secre ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR537; 2008(3)BomCR630; (2008)110BOMLR1047; 2008(3)MhLj872

Ranjana Desai, J.1. The petitioner claims that she belongs to Halbi Scheduled Tribe which is recognized as Scheduled Tribe under the Presidential Notification issued under Article 324(1) of the Constitution of India. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge judgment and order dated 24/1/02 passed by respondent 2 i.e. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Thane ('the Scrutiny Committee' for short). 2. The facts of the case may have to be shortly stated. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was granted caste certificate on 10/11/98 by the Competent Authority certifying that she belongs to Halbi Scheduled Tribe. While the petitioner was prosecuting her studies in the 12th Standard, she moved the Scrutiny Committee in the month of November, 2005 for validation of her caste certificate. The Scrutiny Committee however, did not take any steps in the matter. The petitioner passed her XII standard ...

Central Warehousing Corporations Government Undertakings Vs. the Board ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR612; (2008)110BOMLR912; 2008(4)MhLj190

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Mumbai Port Trust has filed an application under Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') before the Estate Officer (Case No. EO/TM/(128)(128A) of 2007) for eviction of the respondents including the Warehousing Corporation from the premises in question and also for payment of Rs. 81,96,06,206.10 ps. towards arrears of rent alongwith interest and damages to the extent of Rs.11,01,74,624.59. The grounds taken for eviction by the Mumbai Port Trust were that the respondents have sublet the portions of the premises given to them without their consent and on account of default in payment of rent. According to the Port Trust, unauthorised activities have also been carried in the said premises. 2. The said application was contested by the Central Warehousing Corporation. Besides taking up the plea that the notices of termination dated 24.12.2005 and 21.12.2006 were not proper, the correctness...

S.P. Brothers, a Partnership Firm Vs. Biren Ramesh Kadakia

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR379; 2009(1)BomCR453

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter the Code) against the defendant praying for a decree of Rs. 8,28,605.95 with future interest on the principal amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realisation. This decree was prayed by the plaintiff on the facts that the defendant is a partnership firm , carrying on the business at Narayan Dhru Street, Mumbai. The plaintiff being a non-resident Indian filed the suit through his father and power of attorney holder. According to the plaintiff, his father and the family of the defendant had good relations. Shri Sharad P. Kadakia, a partner of the defendant firm approached the plaintiff and took a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/-. This loan was paid by a cheque drawn on the Ahmedabad Mercantile Co-operative Bank Limited. There was an oral agreement between the parties that they would pay interest a...

Mr.Mahesh Varma, Director of Michigan Rubber India Limited and Michiga ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR448; 2008(4)MhLj657

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the pre qualification criteria attached to a technical tender invited by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) mainly on the ground that the same is unfair, unreasonable and opposed to public policy.2. Both the parties agree that the petition be heard and disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself. Accordingly, Rule is granted and made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing by consent of both the parties. 3. MSRTC is a statutory Corporation established to provide transport service in the entire State. For its transport service, MSRTC purchase buses / truck chases from Tata Motors Private Limited, Ashok Leyland Private Limited and Volvo Company. 4. MSRTC has its own workshop for repairing its buses. The spare parts including tyres and tubes required for its buses are purchased by the MSRTC from various manufacturers by giving tender intimation. 5. The petitioner No. 2 is a company eng...

Shri Bhaskar Shankar Wagh Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR935

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Both these appeals are being disposed of together in as-much-as they arise out of same judgement rendered by learned Special Judge, Dhule, in Special Case No. 5 of 1991. By the impugned judgement, both the appellants, who are husband and wife interse, have been convicted for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 of the I.P. Code, respectively. Appellant Bhaskar Wagh (original accused No. 1) has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs. three (3) lacs, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three (3) years. Appellant Sow. Mangala Wagh (original accused No. 2) has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three (3) years and to pay a fine of Rs. two (2) lacs, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two (2) years.2. T...