Mumbai Court April 2008 Judgments

Harishchandra Ramchandra Dhakate Vs. Santosh Ramchandra PalThe and Vit ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR320; 2008(4)MhLj83

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of common judgments delivered by the trial Court in two suits and thereafter by lower Appellate Court in two appeals concurrently against the appellant before this Court. Regular Civil Suit No. 1408 of 1983 was filed by present appellant for specific performance of agreement against present respondents while Regular Civil Suit No. 1687 of 1983 was filed by present respondent No.1 against the appellant for recovery of possession on the basis of title. Second Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, vide judgment dated 1.11.1985 dismissed Regular Civil Suit No. 1408 of 1983 and decreed Regular Civil Suit No. 1687 of 1985. The present appellant then filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 197 of 1987 and 439 of 1987 challenging this common judgment. Regular Civil Appeal No. 439 of 1987 challenged decree granted in Regular Civil Suit No. 1687 of 1983 while Regular Civil Appeal No. 197 of 1987 challenged dismissal of his suit i.e. Regular Civi...

Mr. Biswaroop Ghosh and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008CriLJ2521

1. Heard learned cCounsel for the Petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2.2. By this petition which is filed Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the Petitioners are seeking order of this Court for quashing of the complaint which is filed by the Respondent No.2 Under Section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC against the Petitioners vide F.I.R.No.338/05 dated 21/12/2005. Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 got married on 08/12/2003 and after married had broken, Petitioner No.1 went back to his parents and Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint Under Section 498-A of IPC r/w 34 of IPC. Thereafter in July, 2006, Petitioner No.1 filed a Divorce Petition in the Family Court, Bandra. Said petition was converted into petition for divorce by mutual consent. In this petition consent terms were filed on 17/10/2007 and permanent alimony of Rs.2,00,000/-was paid by the Petitioner No.1 to the Respondent No.2 and petition was decreed ...

Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-officio Joint Secretary (School Education), Public ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2008Bom120; 2008(4)ALLMR586; (2008)110BOMLR1238; 2008(4)MhLj822

S.A. Bobde, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. Heard by consent. 3. The petitioner is Public Information Officer appointed as such under the Right to Information Act, 2005. She has challenged the order dated 27.7.2007 passed by the Goa Information Commission holding her responsible for furnishing incorrect, incomplete or misleading information to the respondent No. 2 and also for providing false information. 4. The respondent No. 2 had sought the following information from the P.I.O. under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Information sought by the Complainant Information provided by the Opponent III 186/c letter from GPSC No. COM/1/1/15/1705/754 dated 03/11/2006 N.A. XIV 146/c letter No. COM/11/11/15(1)05 dated12/06/2006 regarding filling up the post of Curator clarify N.A. XV 117/c letter from GPSC to communicateseniority list of Librarian may be sent if not then kindly clarify under whatprovision of Rule the department to fill up the post by pr...

Nari Shringar Big Bazar and anr. Vs. Pantaloon Retalining (India) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR394; 2008(3)BomCR276; 2008(3)MhLj698

Pangarkar C.L.J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs whose plaint was rejected by the trial Court and which order was confirmed by the first Appellate Court.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows-The plaintiff No. 1 is a Proprietary Firm and No. 2 is its owner. He was in search of a good accommodation for running his business. When the building known as 'Land Mark' was under construction, an advertisement was issued by defendant No. 1 to offer part of the building for running the business therein. In pursuance to that offer, plaintiff No. 2 approached defendant No. 1 and had shown his desire to work with defendant No. 1 The plaintiff desired to carry out the retail business there under the name and style 'Nari Shrungaf'. Defendant No. 1. Agreed to offer 100 sq. ft. area on the second floor of building known as 'Land Mark'. According to that agreement, the plaintiff was allotted 100 sq. ft. of area on the second floor. The plaintiff started his business. An agreem...

Ramnath S/O Radhakishan Mahale Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR1095

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment rendered by Special Judge, Ahmednagar in Special Case No. 11/1998, whereby appellant has been convicted for offence punishable Under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen (15) days and has been further convicted for offence punishable Under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen (15) days.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that appellant -Ramnath Radhakisan Mahale, was attached to Cooperative Court at Ahmednagar as a Sheristedar. He was entrusted with work of conducting scrutiny of the Suits, Election Petitions and other matters filed in the said Court. He was ...

Gajanan Bhaurao Waghmare and Madhukar Fakiraji Sute Vs. State of Mahar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR349; 2008(3)MhLj225

R.C. Chavan, J.1. Rule in W.P. No. 234/2007. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally at this stage with the group of connected petitions.2. By these petitions, the petitioners question the validity of amended Rules 3 and 5 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayats (Qualifications and Appointments of Nominated Councilors) Rules,2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules.) which was notified on 20.12.2006.3. Section 9(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act,1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) providing for nomination of councillors by Municipal Council reads as under:9.(1) Every Council shall consist of(a) ...(b) such number of Councillors, not exceeding ten percent of the total number of elected Councillors or five, whichever is less, having special knowledge or experience in municipal administration, to be nominated by the Council in such manner as may be prescribed.4. Rules in force prior to impugned notification dat...

Mehta Mody and Co. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR350; (2008)220CTR(Bom)353; [2010]321ITR307(Bom); 2008(4)MhLj642

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By this Petition, the petitioners are challenging an order dated 25-2-1993 passed by the Appropriate Authority being the respondent No. 1 herein under Section 269UD(1) of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. The brief facts are that the petitioners had entered into an agreement on 11-4-1989 to purchase the flat viz. Flat No. 302, 3rd Floor, at the Anjali Cooperative Housing Society Limited, situated at French Bridge, Opera House, Mumbai, for a total consideration of Rs. 17,85,000/- and the petitioners had also made payment of Rs. 10 lakhs on the same day. On 28-4-1989, the balance amount was paid by the petitioners and the possession of the said flat was taken from 3rd respondent on the very same date. Thereafter the petitioners had filed a statement in Form No. 37-1 under Chapter XXC of the Act on 9-5-1989. The Appropriate Authority had called upon the petitioners to file certain particulars, and the Department's Approved Valuer had inspec...

M.K. International Vs. Abhay S. Birje

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)IILLJ295Bom; 2008(6)MhLj192

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 petition arises out of an order passed by the Labour Court on 12th June, 2007 in an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and an order passed subsequently on 2nd July, 2007 declining to allow an application filed by the petitioner for being deleted from the proceeding.3. The respondent was an employee of a company by the name of M/s Ganpati Exports Pvt. Ltd. The aforesaid company was ordered to be wound up in pursuance of an order dated 18th November, 1998 passed by the Calcutta High Court in Company Petition 92 of 1998. The Official Liquidator was appointed as liquidator of the business of the company for the purposes of winding up. Some time in the year 1998, a reference to adjudication was made by the Deputy Commissioner of labour...

Biddle Sawyer Limited Vs. Chemical Employees Union

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)IIILLJ983Bom

Abhay S. Oka, J.1. I have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties on March 31, 2008. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-employer has taken an exception to the judgment and order dated March 3, 2007 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court. The impugned judgment and order has been passed on a complaint filed by the respondent-Union under Section 28 read with Item 5 of Schedule II and Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1971).2. With a view to appreciate the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it will be necessary to: briefly refer to the facts of the case.3. The prayer in the complaint filed by the respondent was for a direction to the petitioner to implement the award dated November 29,; 1999 read with settlement dated July 14, 1990 to pa...

Netel Chromatographs Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue in dispute in the present appeal is the classification of chromatography data station - whether as part of gas chromatographs under CET sub-heading 9027.00 or CET sub-heading 8471.00 as an automatic data processing machine. (Duty has been demanded and penalty imposed as a result of classification in the latter sub-heading). The period in dispute is October 1992 to September 1996.2. The appellants have asked for a decision on merits including the grounds of appeal; hence we heard the learned SDR and perused the records.3. We find that the data stations consist of interface cards (fitted inside the system interface box or CPU of the PC), monitor (CRT), floppy's printer, ASC/keyboard and interface cable, that the interface cable is connected with detectors of gas chromatograph and receives output signals from the gas chromatographs, processes those signals and the results are displayed on monitor in the form of peaks. The areas covered by these peaks are indicative of differ...