Mumbai Court June 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.
Raj Krishanlal Marwah and anr. Vs. Govind H. Rohira and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR449; 2008(5)BomCR775
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The plaintiffs have sought a decree directing the defendants to vacate the suit premises and to hand over the same to them. The plaintiffs have also sought a decree for arrears of rent and mesne profits.2. Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 expired and their heirs have been brought on record. I will refer to the original Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as the lessees. Defendant No. 4 is the Hind Saurashtra Service Industries Co-Operative Society Ltd.3. The Plaintiffs claimed to be the owners and lessees of different portions of the suit land. Their title as such has not been denied. By a registered indenture of lease dated 19.2.1965 the plaintiffs leased / subleased the suit land to the original defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for a term of 98 years commencing from 1.2.1965 for the consideration and on the terms and conditions contained therein. The relevant clauses of the lease deed read as under:2. The Lessees shall as and when required by the Lessors deposit with the Lessors a sum of...
Dilip Amrutrao Taral and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3824
ORDERNishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the JMFC, Daund on 23-2-1999 whereby a charge was framed against them for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 323 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The main contention raised by the petitioners in this petition is that the complaint was barred by limitation and, therefore, no process could have been issued against them. The facts giving rise to the present complaint are as follows: Petitioner No 1 married Respondent No. 2 in Kolhapur on 14-6-1990. It appears that Respondent No. 2 left Petitioner No. 1's home on 26-4-1991. A divorce petition was filed by Petitioner No. 1 before the Family Court, Bandra being MJ Petition No. A-728 of 1992. A decree of divorce was granted on 28-9-1992, ex parte. Till today, there is no challenge to that decree. Four years later, i.e. on 9-12-1996, Respondent No. 2 filed a private complaint being RCC No. 218 of 1996 in the Court of JMFC, Daund alleging that the p...
Aashabai Vilas Wagh and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR825; 2008(5)BomCR676
Patil Naresh H., J.1. Heard.2. Leave to delete respondent No. 6.3. Rule. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties rule made returnable forth with and the matter is taken up for hearing.4. The petitioners challenge order dated 9th May 2008 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad dissolving the Gram Panchayat Babra, Taluko Phulambri, District Aurangabad by exerciging powers under Section 145(1-A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958.5. The admitted position is that out of total 11 members 5 members had resigned. Out of the remaining members, one member was elected as member of Panchayat Samiti and another was elected to a seat of the Zilla Parishad. In the case of third member, he was disqualified on the allegation that after the cut off date he was blessed with third child. It is informed that against the disqualification order an appeal was preferred wherein order of status quo was already passed. Undisputedly on the date of the impugned order the strength of t...
Everready Investments Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Suresh Enterprises and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR318
Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Admit. The learned Advocates for the respondents waive service. By consent, heard forthwith.2. Since the common question of law and facts arise in all these three appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.3. All these appeals arise from the orders dated 4th August, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of the powers under Section 34 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the said Act') in relation to the award passed by the learned arbitrator on 21st October, 2003.4. The challenge to the impugned orders is on the ground that the grounds on which the petitions were filed were not available under Section 34 of the said Act and that therefore, the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the petitions and setting aside the award passed by the learned Arbitrator.5. According to the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, the award was sought to be challenged on the ground that the arbitra...
Pune Readymix Concrete Industries Ltd. Vs. Satav Constructions Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4738; 2008(6)MhLj696
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the judgment and order passed on 12-7-2000 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Revision Application No. 77 of 1997 whereby the complaint in case No. 2385 of 1996 is quashed.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:A work order was issued in favour of the petitioner by respondent No. 1 for supply of concrete to its site and Hinjawadi on 10-4-1996. Respondent No. 1 issued a cheque of Rs. 5 lacs on 10-6-1996 for the outstanding amount payable in favour of the petitioner. On 18-6-1996, this cheque was returned to the petitioner by the bank with the endorsement 'payment stopped by the drawer'. A notice was issued by the petitioner through its advocate on 27-6-1996 to respondent No. 1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act demanding payment of the amount for which the dishonoured cheque had been drawn. No acknowledgement was received by the petitioner for 8 or 10 days. Th...
Virendra Kumar Jhamb Vs. N.K. Vohra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-2008
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Bom)88; [2009]176TAXMAN11(Bom)
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging certain notices issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax and Wealth-tax dated 9-2-1990 and 13-3-1990 under Section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 and Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 respectively, for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1986-87 i.e., for a period of seven years seeking to revise the earlier assessment orders. When the aforesaid seven notices dated 9-2-1990 and 13-3-1990 issued under the aforesaid provisions of the Income-tax and Wealth-tax were challenged by this petitioner and the same was pending in this Court, the respondent No. 1 proceeded further and passed a revised assessment order with regard to all the aforesaid seven assessment years by seven different orders of the same dated 13-3-1990 revising the aforesaid assessment.2. The brief facts are, the petitioner-assessee in the instant case, is doing various types of construction work for the State of Maharashtra, i.e., through P.W.D. or...
Dnyandeo S/o. Ganpati Sonvane Vs. the Executive Engineer, Sarvajanik B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR652; [2008(118)FLR813]; (2008)IIILLJ541Bom; 2009(2)MhLj132
P.R. Borkar, J.1. The petitioner is challenging rejection of Reference bearing IDA No. 2 of 1993 by the Judge, Labour Court, Latur on 28.04.1994.2. Brief facts relevant for the matter are that the petitioner stated that he was employed as daily wager by respondent No. 1 in November, 1978. He was working on daily wages. Respondent No. 1 continued him by giving technical breaks from time to time till October, 1985. He was continuously working for more than 240 days in a year and for more than five years. Thereafter, without following any procedure and without giving any notice, the services of the petitioner were terminated orally from November, 1985. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Aurangabad for conciliation and thereafter, the reference was filed in the Labour Court. 3. The Labour Court has held that the petitioner has failed to prove that he had completed 240 days of work in a year and as such he is not entitled to benefit of under Section 25-A of th...
Mrs. Oluwole Mutiat Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Narcotic Control ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR2127
V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. The appellant-original accused has impugned the judgment and order dated 7.8.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, (NDPS) for Greater Bombay, in Special Case No. 36 of 2003. By the said judgment and order, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 8(c) punishable under Section 21(c), for the offence under Section 8(c) punishable under Section 23 read with Section 28, and for the offence punishable under Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act'). Under each head, the appellant has been sentenced to RI for ten years and fine of Rs. 1 lakh in default RI for three months. The learned Sessions Judge directed that all the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.2. It is the prosecution case that on 8.3.2003 the complainant NCB Department received information that the accused would be leaving from Mumbai to Lagos by Ethiopian Airline flight No.ET...
Brajesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Novarties India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR93
Dharmadhikari S.C., J.1. This petition was admitted on 27th June 2005 and the hearing was expedited. Accordingly, it was placed for hearing and final disposal before me.2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the judgment/award dated 23rd November, 2004 delivered by Member Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai in Complaint (I.T.) No. 2 of 1996. The complaint was filed by the petitioner in the Industrial Tribunal invoking jurisdiction of the said Tribunal under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act for short).3. The petitioner is original complainant and the predecessor of the respondent before this Court, M/s. Sandoz (India) Ltd. was the original respondent/opponent.4. In the complaint, the petitioner alleged that he is an employee of the company since 1983. He is working as Medical Representative at Agra. He was working at that location for several years.5. In para 2 of the complaint, it is stated that the petitione...
Ramdas Hanumant Palankar Vs. N.D. Vernekar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ455
ORDERV.K. Tahilramani, J.1. The applicant-complainant has preferred this application for leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 20-1-2007 passed by the learned 6th Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Thane in Summary Case No. 3737 of 2004. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted the Respondent No. 1-accused of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The case of the complainant is that in October, 2003 the accused requested the complainant for loan of Rs. 2 lakhs. The complainant paid the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs in cash. Thereafter, the accused issued a cheque in respect of the said loan. The said cheque was dishonoured. Hence, complaint came to be filed.3. I have heard the learned advocate for the applicant-complainant. I have perused the impugned judgment and order as well as the evidence.4. The defence of the accused is that he had never obtained loan of Rs. 2 lakhs in October, 2003 but the loan was taken by Mr. Devanand f...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »