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.
Cambata Aviation Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Vijay Murthy Nadar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR736; 2008(3)BomCR620; 2008(4)MhLj883
Marlapalle B.H., J.1. This petition was admitted on 17/8/2006 and Rule on interim relief was made returnable after six weeks. Civil Application No. 723 of 2008 has been filed by the respondent-employee praying for directions against the petitioner-employer to pay him 50 per cent of his monthly wages from month to month and deposit the arrears of wages from 29/1/2005 till date. R. and P. in Complaint (ULP) No. 240 of 2002 from which this petition arises has also been perused and with the consent of the parties the petition is finally heard.2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of ground handling (handling the baggage) at the International Airport in Mumbai and engaged by the International Airlines. It is mainly responsible for loading and unloading the baggages. The respondent-workman was in its employment as a loader and on 11/3/2001 he was allotted the duty of Gulf Airways Flight No. GF-059 of loading the departure baggage and he was on over time duty. After the departure bagga...
Smita W/O Arun Kashikar Vs. Collector and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR633; 2008(6)BomCR249; 2008(3)MhLj191
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the order dated 30-6-2000 passed by S.D.O. Wardha in Revenue Case No. MRC-81/Deoli-10/99-2000 rejecting the application made by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (in short M.I.D.C. Act) for making a reference to the Civil Court for enhancement of the compensation for the land of the petitioner that was acquired. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondents to make a reference to the Civil Court for grant of additional compensation and a declaration that the reference that was sought to be made by the petitioner under communication dated 3-2-1999 was within limitation.2. Facts:On 31-10-1989 proceedings for acquisition of lands including that of petitioner for development of Industrial Area by M.I.D.C. were initiated and a public notice to that effect was published in the official gazette on 14-12-1989. Petitioner is the owner of field Su...
Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Jagruti Industr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR284; 2008(4)MhLj471
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. In the case of Ujawalaben Mahindra Shah and Anr. v. Kesharchand Gulabchand and Ors. : 2002(1)MhLj378 , learned single Judge of this Court at Aurangabad Bench took the view that objection with regard to maintainability of a suit, on the plea that the plaintiff, a partnership firm, was not a registered partnership firm and thus the suit was hit by the provisions of Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932, was not a pure question of law and thus could not be tried and decided as a preliminary issue. In this case, the objections of the defendants in the suit was that there was no firm in the plaintiffs name registered with the Registrar of Firms at the time of filing of the suit and a firm with the name of 'M/s Kesharchand Gulabchand Munot' was in existence and subsequent to the filing of the suit, the plaintiff had approached the Registrar of Firms for deletion of the name 'Munot' from the firm's name. Thus, the suit was not maintainable and the trial Court ought t...
Keshav Gopal Chandanshive Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR436; 2008(4)MhLj741
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai on 8th of August, 2003 in Original Application No. 101 of 2002. That application was filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 16th of August, 2001 passed by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of India, imposing the penalty of 20% cut in the monthly pension receivable by the petitioner for a period of two years. In Appeal, the Central Administrative Tribunal has by the order dated 8th of August, 2003 dismissed the said application filed by the petitioner. The facts that are material and relevant in the case are as follows:2. The petitioner was in service of the respondent No. 1 Union of India as Assistant Collector. He retired from the service on 30th April, 1993. The charge-sheet dated 27th of July, 1994 was served on him after his retirement; two charges were levelled against him. This charge-sheet, admittedly, was served under the provisions of Rul...
Pipe Arts India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gangadhar Nathuji Golamare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: (2008)IIILLJ121Bom; 2008(6)MhLj280
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. On somewhat similar facts, the learned single Judge had passed the order 'Prayer for interim relief is rejected' giving rise to the above nine appeals. As a common question of law is raised in all these appeals, it will be appropriate to dispose of these appeals by a common judgment. However, for the purposes of convenience, we have referred to the facts of W.P. No. 7373/2007.2. The appellant-company is incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, carrying on the business of fabrication of components partly at its factory and partly at the site of its customers with the help of various workmen in its employment.3. On February 21, 1999, the workmen: suddenly proceeded on an illegal strike and started causing obstruction to ingress of men and material at the gate of the factory. According to the workmen, their services had been terminated orally on August 25, 1999 and, therefore, they referred the matter to the Conciliation Officer seeking reference of ...
Balasaheb Rangnath Navale Vs. Bharat Forge Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR589]; (2008)IIILLJ280Bom
R.M. Savant, J.1. These petitions take exception to the Common judgment and Order dated April 26, 2006 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Jalgaon, by which Complaint (ULP) No. 104 of 2002 to 120 of 2002 were dismissed. The said complaints were filed by about 17 workers of the respondent Company working at Jalgaon. Amongst these 17 workers, 7 have filed the above petitions.2. The respondent company had three units, one at Mundhawa, Pune, one at Satara and one at Jalgaon. The petitioners were working in various capacities since the year 1987 or thereabout in the Jalgaon Plant. On account of the Jalgaon plant becoming financially not viable, the respondent company intended to close down the said plant and issued a notice of closure on February 11, 2001. The petitioners by their letter dated March 11, 2001 immediately approached the respondent company and applied for V.R.S., which had been floated by the respondent company. The applications of the petitioners were accepted by ...
Abasaheb Yadav Honmane and Ashwini Abasaheb Honmane Vs. the State of M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)MhLj856
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Introduction and Legislative History 1.1 Legislative amendments and judicial pronouncements over a period of time have effectively expanded the scope of the canons of criminal jurisprudence in our criminal justice delivery system. Article 21 of the Constitution has been interpreted to provide the right to every person including an under-trial to live with dignity. No person could be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law and also in consonance with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without informing the person the grounds of his arrest or detention. Such person would be provided a due right to defend himself by a legal practitioner of his choice. In addition to this, various safeguards are provided for the exercise of power by prosecuting agencies and conduct of trials by Courts. The radical change in judicial approach relating to criminal trial, ...
Sayyed Issaq S/O Sayyed Razzak, Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through N ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2950
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. These three appeals are being disposed of together inasmuch as they arise out of same Judgment rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, in Sessions Trial No. 1/2007. By the impugned Judgment, appellants, named above, have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 414 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Each of them is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs.Five thousand), in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. Original accused Nos. 1 to 3 have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 497 of 2007, original accused No. 4 has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 484 of 2007 whereas, original accused Nos. 5 and 6 have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 485 of 2007. All of them challenge the impugned Judgment on identical grounds. 3. Background facts of the prosecution case, stated briefly, are as follows:Consequent upon receipt of secret information, on May 8th, 2006, Police Naik - Rajendr...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aatur Holdings Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR1143; [2008]146CompCas152(Bom); [2008]302ITR92(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The revenue has preferred this appeal on the following questions:i) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the dejure owner of the shares alone is entitled to the dividend declared by a company, though the assessee company might be defacto owner of shares but had no right to receive the dividend from the company unless it is the registered shareholder of the company ii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the dividend of Rs.16,84,150/-has not accrued to the assessee and thereby holding that such dividend income could not form part of the total income of the assessee iii) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law, in accepting the assessee's submission, that even though the amounts were paid for acquiring the shares, shares have not been delivered to the assessee company and the change in ownership of the shares ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Vidarbha Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR772; 2008(4)BomCR567; 2008(3)MhLj325
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The matter is part heard. Nobody appeared for the respondent even yesterday. Heard Shri Gulhane, Advocate for the appellant.2. Second Appeal has been admitted on 7-8-1992 with question 'whether Article 113 of the Limitation Act applied or the case was covered by Article 100, which is specific provision which prescribes one year's limitation ?' Shri Gulhane, Advocate points out that Special Civil Suit No. 51 of 1977 was filed by present respondent on 4-5-1977 for recovery of amount of Rs. 32,352.78 ps. with cost and interest contending that the excise duty for the period from 5-6-1969 to 16-6-1969 was wrongly recovered from them and its refund was also wrongfully rejected finally in revision on 7-8-1974. He contends that a specific defence was raised before the Courts below that the refund was sought by ignoring or by setting aside the orders passed by departmental authorities and therefore the limitation to file suit was one year. He invites attention to consid...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »