Mumbai Court June 2008 Judgments

Kiran Wd/O Chunnilal Talreja and anr. Vs. Ramchandra S/O Devidas Talre ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR344; 2008(5)MhLj958

A.P. Lavande, J.1. Heard Mr. Purohit, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Kilor, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1.2. Rule. Heard forthwith.Mr. Kilor, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of respondent No. 1.3. By this petition, the petitioners, who are original plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No. 204/2000 pending before the 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, takes exception to the order dated 19-9-2007 by which the plaintiffs have been directed to pay requisite Court fees within a period of 15 days with further direction that in case Court fees are not paid, within the stipulated time, the suit would be dismissed.4. The facts leading to filing of the present petition, briefly, are as under:The plaintiff No. 2 is the daughter of plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiffs filed the above suit for partition and separate possession of the property originally belonging to the father of Chunnilal, the husband of petitioner No. 1. The suit was filed on 25-2-2000. The suit wa...

Chico Ursula D'Souza Vs. Goa Plast Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)MhLj353

N.A. Britto, J.1. These revisions are filed by the accused who has been convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('Act' for short) and whose convictions and sentences have been upheld by the learned Session Judges.2. Since the facts involved are almost common, by consent of Counsel they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The cases from which these revisions arise, pertain to the cheques of different dates given by the accused, with letter dated 20-7-1992. The accused was the Managing Director of the complainant which is a registered company. The details of the said cheques are as follows:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cheque Date Amount Criminal Revision No. Case No.No. before JMFC---------------------------------------------------------------------------------0160171 10-1-1993 40,000/- Decided by S.C. 149/2003 : 2004CriLJ664 0160172 10-4-1993 40,000/- Crir No. 9/2008 150/19930160173 ...

Megh Ratan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Rushabh Rikhav Enterp ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR361

Karnik D.G., J.1. Heard for ad interim relief.2. By this motion, the plaintiffs seek several reliefs such as-(a) a mandatory order of injunction, directing the defendant No. 1 to convey the suit land bearing Survey Nos. 256 and 257 and C.T.S. No. 5244 to 5256 of village Ghatkopar-Kirol, Tal. Kurla, Dist. Mumbai (for short the suit land'); (b) the order of injunction, restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from acting upon the conveyance dated 21st of June, 2006 and/or development agreement dated 8th June, 2004; (c) direction to the defendant No. 4 Municipal Corporation to revoke and cancel the plans sanctioned including one sanctioned on 10th of April, 2007 and to cancel and revoke the permission granting TDR to be used by the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 etc., and injunction to the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 from carrying on any illegal construction; (d) restraining the defendants from removing existing underground water tank and pump room, meant to be used as a common area and facility by t...

Xavier D'Souza and Anr. Vs. Luis D'Souza and Anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR250

Britto N.A., J.1. Heard Mr. D. Pangam, learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellants and Mr. S.D. Padiyar, learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondents.2. Admit. By consent heard forthwith.3. This is plaintiffs' appeal against rejection of plaint by Order dated 1-12-2007 of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji.4. Briefly stated, the Plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 are brothers. Plaintiff No. 2 and defendant No. 2 are their respective spouses. The Plaintiff No. 1 is a businessman as can be seen from the cause title and works abroad whilst the defendant No. 1 is a lawyer by profession. Plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 shall be hereinafter referred to as plaintiff and defendant, respectively.5. There is no dispute that a sale deed was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant on one side, and Mr. Tito Menezes and his wife on the other side, and this sale deed pertained to property surveyed under Nos. 59/7 and 60/0 of Village Talaulim. This sale deed was executed ...

Gafrya S/O theda Barela Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR2235

Santosh Bora, J.1. This appeal, filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the appellant, challenges the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No. 57/2005 dated 23rd June, 2006, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and imposing fine for causing murder of one Khajan.2. Background facts, which are not in dispute, may be stated as under :Mathanpadav is an hamlet situated in the range of Satpuda maountain. It may be a smallest village in the country as only eight families reside in the village at the relevant time. The villagers used to earn their livelihood by cultivating the forest land and extracting gum from the trees. There are no facilities like road, school, primary health centre, electricity etc. Even the Police Patil ...

Gowardhandas S/O Laxmandas Deceased Through His L.R. Vijaykumar S/O Go ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR95; 2008(5)BomCR78; (2008)110BOMLR2241; 2008(6)MhLj571

P.R. Borkar, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad in Case No. 1978/ICH/R-2483, dated 30.3.1993, whereby the Additional Commissioner exercised powers under Section 43 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 of suo motu revision and set aside the order of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Gangapur passed in Ceiling Case No. 75/CLNG/23 and remitted the case back for declaration that the holder was surplus for an area of 32 acres 14 gunthas instead of 27 acres 2 gunthas. Further direction was given to the Tribunal to de-limit additional area of 5 acres 12 gunthas for distribution after hearing the holder. 2. Facts giving rise to this case may briefly be stated as below.Gowardhandas Laxmandas and Vishakhabai Gowardhandas were husband and wife. They filed 2 separate returns under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referr...

Shri Arvind G. Chaudhari Sub-divisional Officer Irrigation, Sub-divisi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR89; 2008(5)BomCR106; (2008)110BOMLR2224; [2008(118)FLR850]; (2008)IIILLJ477Bom; 2008(6)MhLj746

P.R. Borkar, J.1. By this Writ Petition the original respondents are challenging the order passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Jalgaon in U.L.P. No. 52 of 1995 on 07.10.1998 whereby directions are given to the petitioners not to indulge in unfair labour practice and to reinstate respondent No. 1 in service with continuity of service within a month from the date of receipt of the order. However, the prayer of respondent No. 1 for back wages was rejected.2. Briefly stated, present respondent No. 1 approached the Labour Court stating that he had been in employment of the petitioners since 15.07.1979 as a Muster Assistant till 30.04.1984 continuously. However, thereafter, the petitioners started giving him breaks. He was again appointed on 26.02.1985 and again the petitioners in order to deprive him benefits of permanent employee with mala fide intention showed technical breaks and terminated his service w.e.f. 04.12.1986. His last drawn wages were Rs. 300/- per month. He had completed more...

Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. Vs. B. Jeejeebhoy Vakharia an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)MhLj803

A.P. Deshpande, J.1. By this Chamber Summons the plaintiff is seeking amendment of the plaint. The proposed amendment is very unusual inasmuch as what is prayed is deletion of the name of the defendant No. 4 and simultaneously a prayer is also made to permit addition of defendant No. 4 in the suit. The obvious purpose for seeking the said amendment which relate to deletion of defendant No. 4 in the first instance and then addition thereafter is aimed at circumventing the provisions of Section 164 of the Co-operative Societies Act which postulates a notice prior to the institution of the suit.2. The defendant No. 4 is a society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. Without issuing a notice as contemplated by Section 164, the suit came to be filed. In para 62 of the plaint, there is a categorical assertion made that notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is not necessary, so far as the defendant No. 4 is concerned. Thus it is obvious ...

Mohd. Kamar Abdul Ansari Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008CriLJ4736

V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. The appellant-original accused No. 1 has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 24-3-2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 1273 of 1997. By the said Judgment and Order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 450 read with Sections 34, and 393, 394 read with Section 398 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence under Section 450 r/w 34 the learned Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant to suffer R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default R.I. for one month. For the offence under Sections 393, 394 r/w 398 the learned Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant to suffer R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default R.I. for one month. The learned Sessions Judge directed the substantive sen Icnce ol imprisonment to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under:The complainant P.W. No. 1 Bhakre was residing in Flat No. 10, Chandan Apartment, Opp.Kamani Enginee...

Mahindra Holdings and Finance Vs. Dcit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. In the light of majority view, it is held that provisions of Section 67A of the I.T. Act can be invoked for computing total income of the assessee, as the word in the parenthesis in Section 67A of the I.T. Act qualifies the expression "association of persons or body of individuals" and not the member of such AOP or BOI. Accordingly, the assessee succeeds in this ground No. 3 in ITA No. 5319 of 2004....