Mumbai Court June 2008 Judgments

Mukesh S/O Kanhaiyyalal Gupta Vs. Neha W/O Mukesh Gupta

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR433; 2008(5)MhLj412

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard by consent.2. By impugned order, wife's application for interim maintenance pending Hindu Marriage Petition is allowed, directing the husband to pay alimony @ Rs. 10,000-00 per month and Rs. 8000-00 towards litigation expenses.3. Learned Advocate Mr. Tamaskar for the petitioner emphasized the point that it is the duty of the trial Court to record a finding on the aspect of income of the husband before arriving at the figure of the maintenance the wife would be entitled.4. It is crucial to refer to the pleadings.5. In the application for interim alimony, the petitioner-wife has made certain averments relating to the financial status of the respondent, which can be referred to as below:(a) In Paragraph 6 of the application:that the respondent has accounts in various Banks and distributorships. As disclosed to the petitioner-wife by the respondent, his annual income is Rs. 10,00,000-00 to Rs. 12,00,000-00 per annum.(b) In ...

Mahindra Dipchand JaIn Vs. Ashok Sardarmal Parekh and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR635; 2008CriLJ3825

ORDERNishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioner in both the matters is a partner of M/s. Deep Enterprises. Respondent No. 1 was also one of the partners of the firm besides one Smt. Asha Suresh Parekh who was the 3rd partner. The petitioner and the Respondent No. 1 jointly purchased the property bearing Tikka No. 5, CTS No. 178 situated at Kharkar Ali, Thane on 10-4-1994. They executed a registered sale deed with the vendor i.e. Respondent No. 2 herein. Thereafter the petitioner, Respondent No. 1 and Asha Suresh Parekh formed a partnership firm i.e. Deep Enterprises which is in existence even today. Respondent No. 2 executed a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner on 2-6-1999. This power of attorney authorised the petitioner to appear for Respondent No. 2 before the Thane Municipal Corporation and other Government and Revenue Authorities for development of the property. It appears that despite the sale deed executed in 1995, the property records continued to be in the name of Responde...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.RJB/M-III/209-210/2003 dated 23.04.03 and the respondents have also filed Cross Objection.2. Heard ld. JDR and perused the submission made by him. None appeared on behalf of the respondents despite notice. Since the issue involved lies in narrow compass we taken up the appeal for disposal in the absence of any representation from the respondent.3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the duty liability on the Spent Nickel Catalyst's which arises during the course of manufacturing of final products. The respondents have been claiming the same as not excisable. We find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) while arriving at the conclusion had rejected the Department's appeal and allowed the appeal of the respondents by holding as under: In other words, what the Supreme Court said was that if the intention of the legislation is to levy duty on waste and scrap, then it can do so and such an entry will find mention in ...

Deepesh Raiker Son of Late Anand Raiker Vs. State

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR1671

N.A. Britto, J.1. This appeal is by the accused(i.e. accused no. 1) in Sessions Case No. 16/2004 who has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. for life imprisonment and R.I. of 7 years, respectively, and, in addition to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- on each count. 2. The accused got civilly married to the deceased Ms. Supriya Lotlikar on 24-11-2003. The deceased was working as a Laboratory Technician in the Pathology Laboratory of Dr. Raikar/PW5 and as the evidence shows she was a girl of good character and jovial in nature. The accused owns a jewellery shop. Theirs was an arranged marriage and a formal engagement as well as religious marriage were yet to take place for which no dates were fixed. It is common knowledge that until celebration of religious rites, civilly married couples do not reside together. On 12-12-2003 the accused along with his mother and a friend by name Amol Lotlikar visited the deceased on the occasion of her birthday and thereafter visited h...

Prakash Nayi @ Sen S/O Hari Ram Sen Vs. State of Goa (Through Learned ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR1789

N.A. Britto, J.1. This appeal is filed by the accused who has been convicted to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 302 I.P.C. by Judgment/Order dated 25-7-2006 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Margao. 2. As the story of the prosecution goes, Damodar General Stores belongs to Ramkumar Sen/PW6 who is of about 80 years of age. The accused is the grandson of the brother of the said Ramkumar Sen/PW6. The said stores are situated near St. Sebastian Church(formerly known as Pandava Chapel). Ramkumar Sen/PW6 had lost his wife and there was no one to look after him and had decided to dispose of his business as well as the said stores/shop, when Pramila, the deceased, approached him through his friend and started working for him for preparing food and other miscellaneous works and she gradually prevailed upon the said Ramkumar Sen/PW6 not to dispose of the shop and he was impressed by her, and as she had lost her parents at a young age and had no relatives, he decide...

The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Limited Through Its Chief Offic ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)BomCR719

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. All ten writ petitions, together with four surviving civil applications therein, are being considered together, for disposal. Common factor in all these matters, is Godavari Dudhna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. at and post office Dev Nandra, Taluka Pathri, District Parbhani (henceforth, referred to as 'the sick factory'). The sick factory has come to grinding halt, so far as its business of production of sugar is concerned. After interim order of liquidation under Section 102 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 ('MCS Act' for brevity's sake) dated 14.3.2002, finally, liquidation of the said sick factory, which is a specified cooperative society under Section 73-G of the MCS Act; is ordered on 15.5.2002. During the period the sick factory is under liquidation, there had been oscillation of decisions by the authorities under the MCS Act, regarding fate of the sick factory, whether to run it by granting lease or to effect sale of the same for satisfying...

Shri Vijay Balu Wayande Vs. Martand Keshav Dabhade, Keru Keshav Dabhad ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR783; (2008)110BOMLR2021; 2008(5)MhLj21

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. This is a Second Appeal filed by Original defendant No. 2 against the original plaintiffs- respondents, in whose favour by order dated 30th April, 1985, the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur (for short, 'Executing Court') in Final Decree Application has passed the following order. The application is granted. The Suit property be partitioned through the Court Commissioner according to the directions given in the decree and 3/4th portion of the same be handed over to the plaintiffs-applicants by demolishing the construction, if necessary.No order as to costs. 2. The same has been confirmed by the Additional District Judge, Kolhapur by order dated 25th October,1988 and therefore, the present Second Appeal. 3. By an order dated 30th November, 1988 this High Court has framed the following question of law. Whether the principle of equity should have been applied having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case?4. The factual background in the matter as...

Shantabai Bhimrao Dawane (Since Deceased Through Her L.Rs. Suresh Bhim ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR525; (2008)110BOMLR1906

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. This Second Appeal is filed by the Legal Heirs of Original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 against original plaintiff Nos.1 to 3- respondents, in whose favour by order dated 30th April, 1985, the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur (for short, 'Executing Court') in Final Decree Application has passed the following order. The application is granted. The Suit property be partitioned through the Court Commissioner according to the directions given in the decree and 3/4th portion of the same be handed over to the plaintiffs-applicants by demolishing the construction, if necessary.No order as to costs. 2. The same has been confirmed by the Additional District Judge, Kolhapur by order dated 20th October,1988 and therefore, the present Second Appeal. 3. By an order dated 30th November, 1988 the Court has framed the following question of law. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the principle of equity should have been applied? 4. The factual background in th...

Sarigam Containers Pvt. Ltd. and Videocon International Limited Vs. Ma ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR112; (2008)110BOMLR1885; 2008BusLR662(Bom); [2009]90SCL321(Bom)

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. By way of present application, applicant M/s Videocon International Limited has approached this Court seeking a direction against the Official Liquidator to forthwith remove the seals put by him on the office premises being room no. 33 on the third floor in the building known as Ajaydeep situated at 240, Perin Nariman Street, Fort, Mumbai(hereinafter referred to as the said premises) and permit the applicant to enter the same and use the said premises as tenant thereof.2. Briefly stated, the said premises were owned and possessed by M/s Magatul Industries Limited (Company in Liquidation hereinafter referred to as the Company). The petitioner M/s Sarigam Containers Private Limited, one of the creditors of the said Company in Liquidation had issued statutory notice on 26th July 1996. As the demand remained unfulfilled, the petitioner proceeded to file Company Petition No. 14 of 1997 praying for winding up of the Company, on or about 25th October 1996/28th November 1...

The State of Maharashtra Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR493; 2008(5)BomCR708; (2008)110BOMLR1966; 2008(4)MhLj897

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. By a common judgment dated 14th October, 1994, the learned District Judge, RaigadAlibag at Alibag disposed of number of Land Acquisition References made to the court by the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and some petitions filed by the claimants under Section 28A of the Act. While dealing with these references and petitions, the learned reference court enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants for acquisition of their respective lands to Rs. 35/ per sq. mtr. for the land near to Highway while the lands situated beyond 1000 metres from Highway were awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 25/ per sq.metre. The State Government felt aggrieved by the enhanced compensation awarded by the court to the claimants and have preferred 44 appeals and one crossobjection in claimant's appeal against the said judgment. The claimants felt that they were entitled to even higher compensation and therefore...