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.
Rajesh @ Raju Narayan AmIn Poojari and Rafik ModdIn Shaikh Vs. the Sta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ3810
D.G. Karnik, J.1. By this application under Section 167(2) and Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants seek bail in connection with the crime registered under C.R. No. 281 of 2006 at Wagle Police Station, District Thane for the alleged offences punishable under Section 395, 397 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(ii), 2 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999 (for short 'the MCOC Act'). 2. The applicants along with another had previously filed application Nos. 719, 803 and 807 of 2007 for bail before the Sessions Judge and the Special Court constituted under Section 5 of the MCOC Act. All the bail applications were rejected by the Special Court by a common order dated 13th September 2007. The applicants have therefore approached this Court for bail.3. The only ground on which the bail was prayed before the Special Court was that the charge sheet/challan was not filed before the Special Court within the stipulated period of 180 ...
Narayan N. More and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra Through the Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR76; 2008(5)BomCR315; (2008)110BOMLR2259; 2008(6)MhLj472
A.A. Kumbhakoni, J.1. Whether, in view of facts and circumstances of this case, a workman can be turned way from the entrance itself leading to the temple of justice, on the spacious ground that, he is not accompanied by the very same Recognized Union against the office bearers of which such a worker has a serious grievance to make in the court of law This being a very short question involved in this matter, by consent of all the parties we have heard this matter for final disposal at the admission stage itself. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides at some length. 2. The 3rd respondent is a company which is having its Industrial unit that works continuously 24 x 7, situate at Vikhroli (East), Mumbai 400 079. The employees i.e. the workmen work in shifts in the continuous industrial process that goes on at the establishment of the respondent No. 3. It has come on record that at the relevant time there were more than 323 workmen working at the aforesaid factory of the 3...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and ors. Vs. Malen C. Perira a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)MhLj176
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waive service. By consent of Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal.The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai has instituted proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in order to challenge the judgment of the Industrial Court in a complaint of unfair labour practices under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.2. The First Respondent was the complainant in a complaint of unfair labour practices instituted before the Industrial Court. The relief that was sought by the First Respondent was a direction to the Municipal Corporation to promote her as a Matron at the KEM Hospital with effect from 1st January 2004 when the post had fallen vacant.3. In pursuance of the duty cast upon the Municipal Corporation under Section 61(gg) of the Mumbai Municipal Corpora...
Shrimantibai Ramu Nargude and anr. Vs. Bhimrao Appa Nargude and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR265; 2008(6)MhLj807
R.S. Mohite, J.1. This is a second appeal filed by the original plaintiffs in R.C.S. No. 199 of 1975 filed in the Court of Civil Judge, J. D. Jaisingpur. The appeal impugns a judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 118 of 1986.2. The plaintiffs' suit was for partition and separate possession of four agricultural lands bearing Gat Nos. 129, 159, 200 and 201. The Gat Nos. 129, 200 and 201 are situated in Village Yadrav, Taluka Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur and the Gat No. 158 is situated at Village Shirdon, Dist. Kolhapur. The partition was also sought in respect of the three house properties bearing Gram Panchayat House Nos. 274, 66 and 515. The house properties No. 274 and 66 were situated at Village Yadrav whereas house No. 515 was situated at Village Shridhon.3. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the suit lands belonged to the father in law of the plaintiff No. 1 Annappa Nargude who expired on 8-2-1976. Annappa Nargude had two children by name...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Shankar Krisanrao Khade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ73
A.P. Lavande, J.1. Confirmation Case No. 1/2007 and Criminal Appeal No. 512/2007 are being disposed of by common Judgment since they arise out of the Judgment and order dated 3-11-2007 passed by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Sessions Trial No. 165/2006.2. The Appellant is accused No. 1 and his wife Sau. Mala Shankar Khade is accused No. 2 in Sessions Trial No. 165/ 2006. By the impugned judgment and order the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:302 I.P.C. Sentenced to death.376 I.P.C. Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.366 A I.P.C. 7 years rigorous imprisonmentand to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.363 read with Rigorous imprisonment forSection 34 I.P.C. 5 years and to pay a fine ofRs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.3. The accused No. 2 has been convicted for the offence punishable under S...
The State of Maharashtra and ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. Shri Vithu Kalya Govar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR856; 2008(5)BomCR323; 2008(6)MhLj239
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. All the above mentioned appeals have been preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment and award of the reference court and are barred by time. The State has filed applications for condonation of delay on somewhat similar explanation in all these cases. Thus, it would be appropriate to dispose of all these applications and the appeals by by a common judgment. The relevant facts giving rise to the present appeals are (reference is made to the facts of First Appeal Stamp No. 11231 of 2008 and First Appeal Stamp No. 22703 of 2008 an under. The State Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on 3rd February, 1970. In furtherance to this notification, declaration under Section 6 was published in the official gazette on 11.1.1973. The State Government took possession of the lands in the year 1984. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Special Land Acquisition Officer made...
Emkay Exports a Partnership Firm and Mrs. Kanchan S. Chaudhary, Partne ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR388; 2008(4)BomCR522; 2008(4)MhLj843
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Perplexed due to alleged divergent views expressed by two Division Benches of this Court viz. Bombay Enamel Works v. Purshottam : AIR1975Bom128 and D. Shanalal v. Bank of Maharashtra : AIR1989Bom150 , on the question whether appellants are entitled to challenge the order passed by Court granting conditional leave to defend under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code while assailing the final decree passed in summary suit on the ground of non-compliance of conditional order, another Division Bench referred the question to larger Bench. While answering the reference, we do not find any conflict of views in the two Division Bench judgments and find that propriety, legality or correctness of an interlocutory order granting conditional leave or refusing leave to defend the Suit could be challenged by the aggrieved party in an appeal preferred against the final decree provided that the party had not unsuccessfully challenged that order during the pendency of proceeding...
R.K. Kottary Vs. Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR829
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Mumbai Electric and Transport Undertaking, established under the provisions of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is engaged in distribution of power within the city of Mumbai as well as in urban transport within the territory of Greater Mumbai. The Petitioner was employed in the Undertaking and joined his service on 11th October 1984. According to the Petitioner, he had spotless service record and because of good performance he was given promotion from time to time and was working as temporary Deputy Engineer in Electric Supply Division of the said Undertaking at the relevant point of time. Several employees of the Undertaking had been contesting election of Panchayat Samiti, Zilla Parishad, Municipality including Legislative Assembly and other elections. As per the Rules applicable to the employees of the Undertaking, they were required to take previous permission of the Competent Authority for contesting such an ele...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Manojkumar Beriwal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2008
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Bom)407; [2009]316ITR218(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Having heard the parties, the appeal is admitted on question (b) as framed in para 4 of the appeal memo which is as under:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in holding that for the purposes of Section 249(4) of the Act, the deposit of tax, which is a condition precedent, does not include interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act?The learned Tribunal while considering the issue relied upon decisions of the Tribunal and arrived at the conclusion that the word 'tax' under Section 249(4) includes only tax and not interest. On behalf of the Revenue, the learned Counsel submits that tax would include interest and admittedly if both the components are considered the assessee had not deposited the entire amount and consequently Tribunal ought not to have entertained the appeal.2. Section 249(4) is the provision whereby the remedy of the party is taken away, if there is non-compliance with that provision. It is well set...
Sundarsons and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR841; 2008(5)BomCR85; 2008(6)MhLj332
Kanade V.M., J.All these petitions can be disposed off by a common judgment, since, the petitioners are challenging the circular dated 19th May, 2007 issued by the Collector, Mumbai respondent No. 2.By this petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking an appropriate writ, order and direction for quashing the impugned circular dated 19th May, 2007 issued by respondent No. 2 and consequential order passed pursuant to the said circular by respondent No. 3, Mumbai Sub-District and for a further direction, directing the respondent No. 3 to register their agreement brought for registration by them, by complying with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1996.Brief facts in nutshell are as under:1. For the sake of convenience the facts in respect of Writ Petition No. 1569 of 2007 are mentioned herein. The petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm and the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are the partners of the petitioner No. 1 petitioner No. 6 is a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »