Mumbai Court April 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.
State of Maharashtra Vs. Anwar NizamuddIn Shaikh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MhLj847
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The State has filed the writ petition against the order passed by the Sessions Court, Thane in 3 criminal appeals. The Sessions Court has while allowing the appeals set aside the order passed by the Assistant Forest Officer under Section 61A of the Indian Forest Act (Maharashtra Amendment) whereby tempo MFI05/5424 belonging to the respondent was seized. The Sessions Court has directed that the tempo be returned to the respondent herein. On 13-1-1999, the aforesaid tempo was intercepted by the authorised officer approximately at 6.30 a.m. The tempo was found loaded with 4200 cu.metrs of debarked khair logs. The tempo and the forest produce goods were seized. The driver of the tempo was also arrested. An FIR was lodged bearing No. 24 of 1998 for offences under Section 26F, 41(2) and 52 of the Indian Forest Act against the driver i.e. respondent No. 2 herein.2. A notice was issued as required under Section 61B(1) of the Indian Forest Act to the owner of the vehicle on...
Bhagwandas Laxmichand Shah and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR32; 2008(6)MhLj429
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28th February, 2008, rejecting the Notice of Motion taken out by the plaintiffs-appellants praying for interim relief of injunction restraining the Union of India, the Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion) and the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Tax Recovery Cell, (Export), from acting in any manner in furtherance to the recovery certificate and the order of attachment dated 25th April, 2007.The facts, as recorded in the impugned order and which appear from the record before us, are that on 4th August, 1987, an order was passed by the Collector of Customs, New Customs House, Mumbai, in exercise of the power of adjudication under the Customs Act, 1962, holding that the partnership under the name and style of M/s N. Devidas & Company, was liable to pay an amount of Rs. 2,83,43,821/- and personal penalties were also imposed on the firm and its partners. The partnership had four partners. The said partners were...
icici Bank Limited Vs. Tata International Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)MhLj446
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Whether a bank guarantee valid for 90 days, can be invoked on the 91st day, if the 90th day happens to be a public holiday or a Sunday is the question raised in this appeal.2. The learned Single Judge, primarily relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of HUDA v. Dr. Babeswar Kanhar reported in : (2005)1SCC191 answered the above question in the affirmative. Challenging the aforesaid decision, the present appeal is filed.3. In the present case, on 13-3-1978, the Appellant - Bank had executed a performance guarantee on behalf of M/s Vishal International, Bombay, in favour of the respondent for US$ 9000. The said guarantee was conditional and was valid for 90 days.4. It is not in dispute that the 90th day under the aforesaid guarantee dated 13/3/1978, fell on 11-6-1978 which was a Sunday and the offices of the bank were admittedly closed on that day. The respondent invoked the bank guarantee on 12-6-1978 by calling upon the appellant to pay the guarantee...
Vimal Wd/O Madhukar Deshmukh and ors. Vs. Nagorao Babanrao Ghodaskar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)MhLj868
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This Second Appeal is at the instance of the defendant against whom a decree was passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate Court. The parties shall be hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendant. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:Plaintiff is the owner of field Survey no. 58/1 5.29 gunthas land of village Bhamod. Defendant is the owner of field Survey No. 58/2 which lies to the south of the plaintiff's field. The plaintiff contends that defendant destroyed the boundary i.e. Dhura in between plaintiff's field and that of the defendant and has committed an encroachment to the extent of 32 gunthas. Plaintiff submits that he got his field measured on 24.02.77 and the Measurer found that the defendant has committed an encroachment to the extent of 32 gunthas. 3. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff's predecessor in title namely Punjaji cultivated 5.29 gunthas of land. Punjaji sold the same acrage of lan...
Tirupati Ginning and Pressing Factory Through Vijaykumar Jethamal Mant ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR578; 2008(5)MhLj393
A.H. Joshi, J.1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondents.2. Petitioner is an auction purchaser in the auction conducted by respondent No. 2 furtherance to recovery of dues of the respondent No. 3 from the respondent No. 1.3. Admittedly, auction purchaser-petitioner has been put in possession of property.4. Respondent No. 1 herein filed a Civil Suit claiming declaratory relief that the defendants are not entitled to act furtherance to provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and consequential reliefs.5. Petitioner and other defendants raised objection in the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 on the ground of bar under Section 163 and want of notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, in view that the dispute, subject-matter, touches the business of Co-operative Society as defined under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.6. The learned Trial Judge rejected the application and hence the petiti...
Vip Industries Limited Vs. Maharashtra Kamgar Karmachari Sanghatana an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR124]; (2009)ILLJ69Bom; 2008(5)MhLj788
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents waive service. By consent of Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The challenge in these proceedings is to an order dated 14th February, 2008 of the Industrial Court at Satara by which, pending the hearing and final disposal of a complaint of Unfair Labour Practices, the petitioner was restrained from giving effect to an order dated 28th January, 2008 by which the employees of the factory at Satara were transferred to the factory at Sinnar. The petitioner conducts a factory at Satara which is engaged in the business of manufacturing luggage and about 171 employees have been employed at the unit. In April, 2007, a scheme of arrangement was formulated under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 by and as a result of which the industrial unit belonging to a company by the name of Artistocrat Luggage Limited came to be transferre...
Ram Sampath Vs. Rajesh Roshan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)MhLj167; 2009(40)PTC78(Bom)
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard counsel.2. In a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from directly or indirectly infringing in any manner the plaintiff's copyright in musical composition/theme tune entitled 'The THUMP' and for damages the plaintiff has taken out this motion for an interim relief of injunction.3. The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff is a music composer and the owner of a proprietory concern 'The Mint'. Defendant No. 1 is a music director/composer of repute. Defendant No. 2 is the brother of defendant No. 1 and is a director of defendant No. 3 company which is engaged in the production of feature films and has produced a cinematographic film titled as 'KRAZZY 4'. Defendant No. 4 is a manufacturer and distributor of compact discs (CDs) and audio tapes containing the sound track of music contained in the film 'KRAZZY 4'. Defendant No. 5 is a foreign company engaged in the entertainment business including sale, distribution and exhibition of cinematograph...
Extermpore Securities and Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-2008
Reported in: (2008)116TTJ(Mum.)525
1. In this appeal the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned CIT(A)-IV on the facts and in the circumstances of the case erred in confirming the order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act by the AO assessing total income at Rs. 1,19,13,449 and determining speculation loss of Rs. 1,27,26,924. 2. The learned CIT(A)-IV on the facts and in the circumstances of the case erred in upholding the additions made by the AO of Rs. 65,56,631 being deemed dividend in terms of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3. The learned CIT(A)-IV on the facts and in the circumstances of the case erred in confirming that the assessee company is engaged in the business of trading in shares and Explanation to Section 73 of the Act is applicable and allocating an amount of Rs. 1,27,26,924 to the speculation business by apportioning an amount of Rs. 1,38,51,924 being interest paid to bank and claimed as deduction from business income. 4. The learned CIT(A)-IV on the facts and in the circums...
Balaji S/O Laxman Itkar and Suresh S/O Laxman Pawar Vs. the State of M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3224
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to Judgment rendered by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, in Sessions Case No. 4/2007. By the impugned Judgment, both appellants have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years each and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-(Rs. Five thousand) each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.2. Background facts of the prosecution case may be briefly stated as follows:The prosecutrix (PW-3 Lalita) was aged around eighteen years and is member of 'Wadar' community. Both the appellants are young lads belonging to same community. In the noon of August 27th, 2006, the prosecutrix was returning from 'Gairan' (Pasture land) after answering call of nature. While she was passing from near a dilapidated house of one Gujare, appellant No. 1 -Balaji called her towards that house. She saw that appellant No. 2 - Suresh was...
Krishna Sheena Shetty Vs. Suresh Anant Sawant and Nandkumar Mahadeo Pa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR291; (2008)110BOMLR1262; 2008(5)MhLj117
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties taken up for final hearing. Mr. Suryawanshi, learned Counsel waives service for the respondents. 3. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed a special civil suit No.632 of 1998 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 against the respondent-defendants, who allegedly dispossessed the petitioner forcibly from the suit premises. In the suit, the petitioner sought to produce two documents, alongwith his affidavit in lieu of an examination in chief, namely, an agreement for sale and a general power of attorney, both dated 6th April, 1996. The first respondent by filing an application at Exhibit-109 prayed for the impounding of these documents on the ground that they are neither registered nor sufficiently stamped. The Trial Court by an order dated 3.2.2006 allowed the application and impounded both these documents and directed the plaintiff to pay deficit stamp duty with ten ...