Mumbai Court April 2008 Judgments

Chief Officer, Panvel Municipal Council Vs. State of Maharashtra and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR556; 2008(4)BomCR630; 2008(5)MhLj468

1. Rule. Respondents waive service.2. This Writ petition is directed against an Order below Exhibit-15 in Election Petition No. 5 of 2006. This Application was filed by the Original Opponent Nos. 2 and 3 praying for deletion from the petition. 3. That Application was opposed by the First Respondent-Original petitioner and by the impugned Order dated 19.06.2007, the said Application was rejected. 4. Since the service is complete and all respondents are appearing through Advocates, with their consent the Rule is made returnable forthwith. 5. The request in the Application was that the Elections are concluded, the results are declared and the aggrieved candidate has preferred the Election Petition. In such circumstances and when the elections are held under the supervision and control of the State Election Commission, then, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court which has been consistently followed, the Officers who have conducted the Election and those in the employment o...

Maharashtra Shivaji Education Society (Shikshan Sanstha) Vs. Joint Cha ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)MhLj443

A.H. Joshi, J.1. This is a petition by a Public Trust.2. Rule has been issued, and the petition was waiting for final hearing.3. The petitioner claims that it runs Educational Institution such as High School at Sihora, Tah. Tumsar, District Bhandara.4. An enquiry under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, was initiated by the respondent No. 3, represented by one Shri Salve its Secretary.5. Subject matter of said enquiry can be grasped from contents of para 2 of the writ petition, which reads as follows:2. That, one Shri Salve instituted proceeding for Change Report under Section 22 of the Act in respect of the immovable property viz. Survey No. 691, admeasuring 1 Hr. 70 Rs situated at Mouza Sihora, Tahsil Tumsar, District Bhandara, which was purchased by the petitioner and the building was constructed on the said plot of land in which the petitioner is running the High School known as 'Maharashtra High School, Sihora'.(Quoted from page 2 of Writ Petition Paper Book)6. According ...

Nirad Amilal Mehta Vs. Genelec Limited and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR499; [2008]146CompCas481(Bom)

Karnik D.G., J.1. Heard. By consent, the motion is heard finally at the stage of admission itself.2. By this motion the plaintiff who is a shareholder of the defendant No. 1 company, seeks relief of injunction restraining the defendant No. 5, who is the purchaser of the company's property under a deed of conveyance dated 13th December, 2007 from selling, alienating, creating third party rights, developing or carrying out any construction or parting with the possession the property purchased by it (hereinafter referred as 'suit property') till the disposal of the suit. Though a relief for appointment of Receiver is also claimed in the motion, the same is not pressed.3. The facts giving rise to the dispute are that defendant No. 1 is a company incorporated registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are its directors. The defendant No. 5 is the purchaser of the suit property which formerly belonged to the defendant No. 1 company. The defendant Nos. 6 and 7 are...

Humayun Dhanrajgir and ors. Vs. Ezra Aboody

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR862

Daga V.C., J.1. Both chamber summonses are directed against the order passed by the Court Receiver dated 30th November 1980 fixing monthly royalty at the rate of Rs. 3,70,000/- in respect of the premises being Flat No. 34/34-A in Block-F, Dhanraj Mahal, situated at C.S.M. Road, Appollo Bunder, Mumbai 400 039 (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property'), around which the entire dispute revolves.FACTUAL MATRIX2. The factual matrix reveals that on 1st March, 2002, inter alia; two agreements were entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant of which one was leave and licence agreement. By the said agreement, the defendant was permitted to occupy the suit property/flat as a licensee for three years. By the other agreement of the same date, an option to purchase the said suit property/ flat was given to the defendant. The said agreement, inter alia; provides the time by which the option to purchase could be exercised by the defendant. The defendant claims to have exercised the s...

Capricorn Transways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This application is directed against the waiver of pre-deposit of the amount of the Service Tax of Rs. 40,99,449/- and equivalent amount of penalty under the provision of Section 76 and also under Section 78 of the Act.2. The issue involved in this case is regarding the taxability of the service of applicant for the period September 2004 to September 2006 under the category of "Tour Operator". The adjudicating authority has came to the conclusion that the applicant is covered by the definition of the tour operator as amended from 10.9.2004.3. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant assailed the order on two counts. It is his submission that the show cause notice dt. 21.1.2007 does not invoke the amended definition. It is his submission that the entire tenor the show cause notice indicates that the said allegations are based on the un-amended definition of 'tour operators'. It is his submission that the applicant herein is not engaged in the business of planning, schedu...

indusind Bank Ltd., (Formerly Known as Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd.) Thr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR2880

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Rule. By consent of learned Counsel for the parties, rule made returnable forthwith and matter is taken up for final disposal. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the Respondent.2. Both matters can be considered and disposed of, by common order, because the issue involved in both the matters, is common.3. The Petitioner has approached this court, feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, ('CJM' for short) on 4.3.2008 in Criminal M.A. Nos. 231 and 232 of 2008. Suffice it to say that the petitioner-bank had approached the CJM with applications under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('NPA Act' for brevity's sake). The applications are rejected by learned CJM with common line of reasons and we quote the observations:.Therefore, by this application, Petitioner has prayed for assistance in taking possession of s...

Parwatibai Ramaji Kale Vs. Lrs. of Deceased Respondent No. 1 (Kisan Vi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR165

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By these Second Appeals, Parwatibai - wife of Ramaji Kale, who was plaintiff in one suit and defendant No. 4 in another suit has challenged the reversing judgments delivered by lower appellate Court in appeal filed by original Respondent No. 1 -Vithoba. Two civil suits i.e. Regular Civil Suit No. 47 of 1981 and Regular Civil Suit No. 49 of 1981 have been decided together by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Washim on 31.3.1988. Regular Civil Suit No. 49 of 1981 was filed by Vithoba against Ramaji, his wife Parwatibai (present appellant) and others for declaration and permanent injunction on the basis of sale deed (Exh. 76) executed on 3.11.1980 by Ramaji in his favour. He sought recovery of possession also in that suit. Regular Civil Suit No. 47 of 1981 was filed by Parwatibai against Vithoba and Ramaji for declaration that registered Sale Deed dated 3.11.1980 executed by Ramaji in favour of Vithoba was illegal and not binding on her. The trial Court framed various...

Amit Kumar Jaiprakash Singh Vs. Mahesh Mahadev Dabholkar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)BomCR619

Tahilramani V.K., J.1. The Applicant-original Complainant has preferred this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.9.2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai in C.C. No. 3121/SS of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted the Respondents-accused of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.2. I have heard the learned Advocate for the applicants. I have perused the evidence which has been annexed by the applicants as well as the impugned judgment and order.3. The amount of cheque in question is Rs. 70,000/-. In the present case, the evidence of the complainant was led. He was cross-examined. Thereafter, the arguments of both sides were heard by the learned Magistrate. During the arguments, the learned Counsel for the accused raised a defence that as the original documents were not on record, the complainant has not proved his case and hence, accused should be acqu...

White Towers Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. Vs. S.K. Builders and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR838; 2008(6)BomCR371; 2008(4)MhLj894

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Admit. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective respondents waive service. By consent, heard forthwith.2. This appeal arises from the order dated 3-5-2007 passed in Notice of Motion No. 3665 of 2006 in Suit No. 132 of 2007. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge granted ad-interim relief in the nature of prayer Clause c(ii) thereby restrained the defendant No. 5 and any person claiming through the respondents, from constructing any building other than 7 floors in 'E' Wing while rejecting the other reliefs which were asked for in the notice of motion.3. The main grievance of the appellants relate to the plot of land forming part of the plot wherein the societies building is situated and claims to have been amalgamated with the adjoining plot and wherein the new layout thereof has been approved for the developments therein by the competent authorities sans the consent of the appellants in relation to the portion of their plot so amal...

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Prakash Tulshiram Par ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR373; 2009(1)BomCR359; 2008(4)MhLj940

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The respondent was employed as a bus conductor in the Narayangaon Depot of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. A charge-sheet was issued to him in which it is alleged that on 26th December, 1993, while he was assigned duties on a bus plying from Mumbai to Manchar, the bus was checked en route when it was found that the respondent had collected an amount of Rs. 40/- from two illiterate passengers who were travelling from Mumbai to Khopoli to whom tickets were not issued. Moreover, an amount of Rs. 45/- was found in excess in the money bag of the respondent. After the disciplinary enquiry was held, an order was passed on 16th August, 1994 by which the respondent was terminated from service.2. A departmental first appeal was filed by the respondent. The Divisional Controller noted in the course of his order that the defence of the respondent was that he had collected money, but had not issued tickets inadvertently without any evil motive. The responden...