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.
Arun Ganpatrao Kale and ors. Vs. Nagpur Improvement Trust
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)MhLj84
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Mr. Sambre, learned Government Pleader waives notice for respondent. All these petitions can be disposed by common judgment.2. The short question involved in these petitions is, whether the Authority was justified in cancelling the allotment of flats already made in favour of the respective petitioners who had applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 23rd March, 1999. One of the conditions which, according to the Authority has been breached in case of each of the petitioners, is that the annual income of the respective petitioner and his/her spouse exceed sum of Rs. 54,000/-. The eligibility of income criteria, however, has been stipulated in the terms and conditions for allotment as notified on 23rd March 1999, in particular under Clause 10 thereof. It is common ground that besides the Terms and Conditions notified by the Authority, there are no other rules or regulations w...
German Remedies Vs. R.D. Lotlikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR962]; (2009)IILLJ77Bom; 2008(6)MhLj596
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard.2. Admit. Taken up for hearing forthwith. Mr. Bhatt waives service for the respondent.3. Present Appeal arises from the order dated 28th June, 2007 passed in the Writ Petition No. 967 of 2007 by the learned Single Judge whereby the said Writ Petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. The said Petition was filed against the Judgment and Order dated 8th November, 2006 passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay in Revision Application (ULP) No. 167 of 2004. By the said order the Industrial Court had allowed the Revision Application filed by the respondent and set aside the Judgment and Order dated 29th September, 2004 passed by the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 130 of 1995, while holding that the respondent herein is the employee within the meaning of the said expression under Section 3 Sub-section (5) of MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 (hereinafter called as 'the said Act') and therefore the Labour Court should proceed to decide the complaint on merits....
Usgaon Vividh Karyakari Sahakari (Vikas) Seva Society Ltd. and anr. Vs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)MhLj759
S.A. Bobde, J.1. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.The petitioners have challenged the order dated 23-1-2008 passed by the respondent No. 3 Minister for Co-operation in revision directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies and The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies to call an Annual General Meeting of the petitioner No. 1 Society i.e. Usgaon Vividh Karyakari Sahakari (Vikas) Seva Society for the year 2005-2006 within a period of 30 days from the date of the issuance of the order. The original order was issued by the Assistant Registrar on 2-1-2007 directing the petitioners to convene an Annual General Body Meeting of the petitioner Society within 8 days.2. This order was purportedly made under Section 75(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act on the ground that the petitioners society had failed to inform the Registrar whether the Annual General Body Meeting of the Society for the year 2005-2006 was convened o...
Dawat Institute of Dawoodi Bohra Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: (2008)116TTJ(Mum.)673
1. This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A) on a solitary ground that the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the AO's order of not allowing statutory deduction at 25 per cent of the gross total income even though the same was a legitimate claim of accumulation of income, disregarding the previous orders of the CIT(A) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v.Programme For Community Organisation .2. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and the documents placed on record.3. The facts relating to the impugned issue borne out from the record are that the assessee is a religious and charitable trust for the benefit of Dawoodi Bohara community and its objects are religious and charitable in nature. The total income of the assessee is Rs. 35,60,82,101 which is comprised of income from 'house property' of Rs. 3,94,45,845, voluntarily contribution Rs. 31,60,13,264 and miscellaneous inco...
Devidas S/O Udhao Gaurkar and ors. Vs. Smt. Vithabai W/O Laxman Dhenga ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Bom183; 2008(5)ALLMR363; 2008(5)MhLj296
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This second appeal is at the instance of the defendants against whom a decree has been passed by the first appellate court. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff and defendants.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows-One Arjuna Ragho was a resident of village Padmapur. He had four sons by name Bholu, Zolu, Udhav and Madhav. His Second Appeal No. 127 of 1996, widow Laxmibai expired in the year 1968. Bholu, Zolu and Udhav are also dead. The plaintiff is the daughter of Zolu while the defendants are the heirs of Udhav and Madhav. Bholu died issueless. The pedigree of the family is as follows- Arjuna|----------------------------------------------------------Laxmibai Bholu (son) Zolu (son) Udhav Madhav(widow) (deceased) (deceased) (son) (son)expired | dead. |On 18.9.68. | -------------------------Vithabai Gayabai Ramdas(daughter) (wife) Namdeo (son)Plaintiff. Mala (daug.)----------------------------------------------------------Devidas ...
Smt. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandvilkar Vs. the City and Industrial Develop ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR358; 2008(5)BomCR417; (2008)110BOMLR1376; 2008(5)MhLj147
Roshan Dalvi, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith, as the affidavit of the Respondents is filed and the copies of documents relied upon by the Petitioner as well as the Respondents have been produced in Court.2. The Petitioner's date of birth is an issue in this Petition. It is contended by her that she was born on 2nd October 1950. It is contended by the Respondents that she was born on 2nd October 1948. The Petitioner has produced and the Respondents have considered the documentary evidence with regard to this date. The Respondents have passed order dated 26th December 2007 with regard to her date of birth which has been impugned in this Petition.3. The Petitioner joined the Respondents' service initially as a Clerk-cum-Typist on 18th January, 1971. She contends that she informed Respondent No.1 at the time of joining her service that she was born on 2nd October, 1950. She has filled up a form which is a part of her service record. That form shows her date of birth as 2nd October 1948 cor...
Krc Employees Union a Registered Trade Union Through Its President, Su ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR36; 2008(4)BomCR637; (2008)110BOMLR1451
Roshan Dalvi, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. The Respondents' affidavits in reply are filed.2. The Petitioners are the Trade Union consisting of the employees of Konkan Railway Corporation Limited (KR). They have filed this Petition against the KR and Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II (PFC) under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (PFA).3. The Petitioners have prayed for declaration that the KR employees and the KR are not covered by PFA and consequently certain amounts transferred to the PFC under the PFA are sought to be declared illegal. The Petitioners have prayed to get a refund of the amounts so transferred along with interest at 18% p.a thereon. The Petitioners have also applied for the writ of mandamus calling upon KR to maintain the provident fund amounts of its employees in the Provident Fund Trust managed by KR.4. Pursuant to an agreement dated 19.06.1990 KR came to be incorporated. The said agreement has been executed by and between ...
Konkan Railway Corporation Employees Union Through Its President and a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR1150]; (2008)IIILLJ127Bom
Roshan Dalvi, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. The respondents' affidavits in reply are filed.2. The petitioners are the Trade Union consisting of the employees of Konkan Railway Corporation Limited (Konkan Railway). They have filed this Petition against the Konkan Railway and Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II (PFC) under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Provident Fund Act).3. The petitioners have prayed for declaration that the Konkan Railway employees and the KR are not covered by Provident Fund Act and consequently certain amounts transferred to the PFC under the Provident Fund Act are sought to be declared illegal. The petitioners have prayed to get a refund of the amounts so transferred along with interest at 18% p.a thereon. The petitioners have also applied for the writ of mandamus calling upon Konkan Railway to maintain the provident fund amounts of its employees in the Provident Fund Trust managed by Konkan Railway.4. Pursuant to an ag...
Abdul Kayyum S/O Abdul Hamid Patel Vs. Puranalal Harinarayan Jaiswal a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MhLj596
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff, who was unsuccessful in both the courts below. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff and defendants.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:The plaintiff is a Sunni Musalman. Defendant No. 2 is the father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was born on 9-10-1967. The plaintiff's grand-father had gifted the suit property to the plaintiff on 5-9-1974. He delivered the possession to the plaintiff which was accepted by defendant No. 2. The house came to be recorded in the name of the plaintiff. When the property was gifted, the plaintiff was only seven years old. The plaintiff submits that defendant No. 2 - his father -sold the suit property to defendant No. 1 by registered sale-deed dated 12-2-1982. The said property was sold by defendant without any legal necessity and without obtaining the permission of the District Judge. The plaintiff submits that the sale in favour of defendant No. 1 is not bin...
Mahavir theatres Company and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR357; 2008(5)MhLj623
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Both these Second Appeals challenge common judgment delivered by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Amravati in Regular Civil Appeal Nos. 309/1984 and 334/1984 on 31-3-1992. Second Appeal No. 389/1992 has been filed against the judgment in Regular Civil Appeal No. 309/1984, while other Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment in other Regular Civil Appeal. The present appellants had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 260/1975 against the respondents for possession on the basis of title, and the said suit was decreed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati on 27-7-1984. Union of India and its Officers namely Income Tax Officer preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 334/1984 against that decree, while the original defendant No. 4 (a private person) preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 309/1984. Both the Second Appeals have been admitted on same questions of law by mentioning that questions No. 4, 5, 6 and 8 in memo of Second Appeal are the substantial qu...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »