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.
Dr. Narendra S/O Chirkutrao Balpande and Ramkrishna S/O Tanbaji Kale ( ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR497; 2008(3)BomCR257; (2008)110BOMLR1065; 2008(5)MhLj420
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The original defendants have by this Second Appeal challenged the reversing judgment dated 22.12.1989 delivered by the IInd Additional District Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 503/1984. By that judgment while setting aside the dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No. 31/1978, filed by the present respondents in the Court of 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur; the Lower Appellate Court permanently restrained the appellants from erecting any structure over the portion lying to western side of the plaintiffs' plot No. 20A in Khasara No. 54 of Sakkardara Road, Mouza Sakkardara, Tahsil and District. Nagpur. The suit was filed by the respondent contending that to the West of his plot No. 20A there is 80 feet vide public road and present appellants have started construction over the said road illegally. The suit was dismissed by the trial court after observing that the plaintiff could not establish that said construction undertaken by the defendants i...
Mr. Anthony Xavier Fernandes Vs. State of Goa Through Chief Secretary ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR715; (2008)110BOMLR1274
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. On 12th February, 2008, the Division Bench of this Court passed the following Order:Considering the grievance about the non-disposal of number of matters pending before the Administrative Tribunal for a long time and as it is revealed that already there is selection for the Additional Judge to the Tribunal, it is not known why the vacancy has not been filled up till this date. In the circumstances, the Registry to register the letter in question as P.I.L. and issue notice to the State of Goa, through the Chief Secretary and the Registrar General of Bombay High Court returnable on 3rd March, 2008.2. It appears from the record of the case file that respondent No. 1 was served. However, service on respondent No. 2 was awaited. Thereafter, even respondent No. 2 was served. The case remained pending before this Court. However, on 18.3.2008, the learned Advocate General appearing for the State informed the Court that the decision had been taken to establish a separate...
Prakash S. Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR296; 2008(6)BomCR900; (2008)110BOMLR1385; 2008(5)MhLj202
S.S. Shinde, J.1. The Petitioner takes exception to the order dated 12th July, 2006 passed by the regional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Pune. The brief facts as narrated in the writ petition are as under:1. The Petitioner claims that he belongs to 'Kunabi' caste which is recognized as 'Other Backward Caste' in State of Maharashtra. The Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 contested the ward elections for Kolhapur Municipal Corporation which took place in the year 2005. Respondent No. 3 has lost the election.2. The Respondent No. 3 filed a complaint on 4th November, 2005 challenging the Petitioners caste claim. The said complaint was filed before the Scrutiny Committee, Pune. The Caste Scrutiny Committee, Pune issued notice to the Petitioner. The vigilance squad did the necessary inquiry in the matter as directed by the said Committee.3. The Petitioner submitted as many as 12 documents before the Committee as mentioned here in below:1. Caste Certificate dated 11.7.2005 as belonging to Kunabi Re...
Manohar Mahadeorao Pagrut Vs. Sunanda Ramdas Tharkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR718; 2008(3)BomCR4
Joshi A.H., J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. Plaintiff filed a suit for removal of encroachment based on measurements done by her.2. In order to prove the measurements, the plaintiff examined the cadastral surveyor Shri Vivek Purushottam Bihade, who had conducted the survey. Examination of this witness had become necessary because the measurement relied upon by the plaintiff was not admitted by the defendant. In the cross-examination, this witness has given crucial admissions, namely there was no permanent measurement mark [stone or pole etc.] on the Eastern-side. He gave similar admission as regards a measurement mark on the North side boundary of Survey No. 83, as well as on the side of the road. He has found permanent marks on other sides.3. The defendant's objection is that in view of this very fact, fresh Commissioner needs to be appointed for measuring both the lands.4. The evidence of cadastral surveyor was over on 7th December, 2005. Appli...
Bhalchandra S/O Jageshwar Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR714; 2008(3)MhLj919
R.C. Chavan, J.1. The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus for quashing and setting aside the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Qualifications and Appointment of Nominated Councillors) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), notified on 21st February, 2007 as well as amended Rule 5 of the Rules, notified on 21st April, 2007 as ultra-vires the provisions of City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NMC Act').2. The elections to the Municipal Corporation, Nagpur were held in the year 2007. A meeting of the Corporation was scheduled on 5th March, 2007. The petitioner was desirous of getting co-opted as a Member of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation under Section 9(1)(b) of the N.M.C. Act. Under a programme, which was finalized by the Corporation, nomination forms were to be submitted on 27th February, 2007. However, upon promulgation of rules, by notification dated 21st February, 2007, the entire proramme had to be scrapped. Under Rule 5 of the Rul...
Dilip S/O Madanlal JaIn Vs. Smt. Pritam Kaur Wd/O Late Dr. M.S. Madan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR575; 2008(5)MhLj48
A.H. Joshi, J.1. The respondent-landlord is present by caveat.2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.3. Learned Advocate Mr. Shelat waives service for the respondent.4. The landlord sought eviction on the ground of bona fide personal requirement, and the suit has been decreed.5. The tenant preferred the appeal, which has been dismissed by order dated 31-12-2003.6. The tenant is before this Court filing the present petition. The tenant's contention as seen from the petition are as follows:(1) The landlady filed her affidavit of oral evidence but did not prove the same in her evidence. It was mandatory to prove the signature and contents of affidavit and if that is not proved her affidavit is not evidence and has to be ignored as laid down in the case of FDC Ltd. v. Federation of Medical Representatives reported in : AIR2003Bom371 .(2) The Landlady has deposed in her affidavit about need of the suit shop block in possession of the tenant for her two sons who are Doctors and are lucra...
Pune Municipal Transport Vs. Babulal A. Dhotre and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR44; 2009(1)BomCR383; [2008(119)FLR57]; 2008(5)MhLj158
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The first respondent was working as a driver with the Pune Municipal Transport Undertaking. On 3rd November, 1986 he was on duty in the morning shift and was assigned to a bus plying on Route No.61 from the City Post to Pune Station. While the bus was being taken in the reverse gear, and was being driven by the first respondent it dashed against a pedestrian, Smt. Sagunabai Shamrao Jagdhane. The pedestrian died as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident. The first respondent was charge-sheeted in a disciplinary proceeding for misconduct falling under Standing Orders 25(g) and 25(y). Under Standing Order 25(g) misconduct consists of a habitual neglect of work or gross or habitual negligence. Under Standing Order 25(y) misconduct consists of a wilful insubordination or disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order of a superior. A disciplinary enquiry was held during the course of which the first respondent participated. Ultimately, upon the conclusion...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.D. Investment and Trading Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2008
Reported in: [2008]306ITR31(Bom)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondent. In the above appeal, the Revenue is seeking to raise the following substantial questions of law:4(a). Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in holding that the notional interest should not be charged in spite of the fact that the borrowed funds were utilized for non-business purposes?(b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in holding that cash deposited in the bank account is explained and, therefore, it should not be treated as unexplained cash credit and should not be added to the income of the respondent?2. The relevant assessment year is 1997-98.3. We have perused the order of the Tribunal. The finding recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph No. 7 is that the assessee is in the business of financing is not disputed by the Revenue. The dispute of the Revenue is against the non-charging of interest on some o...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhansali Engineering Polymars Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-2008
Reported in: [2008]306ITR194(Bom)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondent. By this appeal, the appellant-Revenue is seeking to raise the following substantial questions of law:(1) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in setting aside the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in its order dated November 13, 2002, disallowing a deduction under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 19,85,969 out of total deduction amounting to Rs. 26,23,020 claimed by the assessee in the present facts and circumstances of the case in question?(2) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding the interest income of Rs. 95,97,864 recovered from delayed payments from the sundry debtors to whom the industrial unit of the assessee had sold the goods could be treated as interest income derived from the industrial undertaking of the assessee in the light of the provisions of Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the findi...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›