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.
Chinda Manji Koli (Since Deceased) Through Lrs. (Bhatu Chinda Koli, Na ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR110; 2008(5)BomCR42; (2008)110BOMLR2053; 2008(6)MhLj632
P.R. Borkar, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the original defendant who was dis-satisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nandurbar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 119 of 1990 decided on 30.08.1997 whereby he set aside the order of dismissal of suit passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Taloda in Regular Civil Suit No. 21 of 1993 decided on 06.01.1986 and held that plaintiff/respondent is entitled to partition and separate possession of one half share in the suit property.2. Some of the facts giving rise to this appeal are not disputed at this stage. It is not disputed that one Mohan was the common ancestor of original plaintiff Manga and original defendant Chindha. Mohan had two sons - Ganpat and Manji. Name of son of Ganpat is Daga. Plaintiff Manga is son of Daga, whereas Chindha is son of Manji. Thus, defendant Chindha was second degree uncle of plaintiff Manga.3. It is case of the plaintiff/respondent that the suit-land be...
Shri Yashwant Dagdu More Vs. Mayuresh Builders and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR214; 2008(5)BomCR45; (2008)110BOMLR2358; 2009(1)MhLj326
R.M. Savant, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. This Petition takes exception to the order dated 12.9.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Dhule by which order, the Application exhibit 116, filed by the Respondents herein came to be partly allowed and resultantly the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Dhule, in Regular Civil Suit No. 337 of 1994, from 7.2.1998, till 18.7.2003 were declared to be null and void. 2. Such of the facts which are necessary to be cited are stated thus:The Petitioner is the Original Plaintiff who had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 337 of 1994, seeking vacant and peaceful possession of shop bearing No. 2 in City Survey No. 1307 situated at lane No. 4 Dhule and also for injunction against the Defendants from creating any third party interest in the Suit property. The Petitioner also claimed mesne profits and in the alternative damages. The suit was valued for jurisdiction at Rs...
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Essar Shipping Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR440
Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Admit. The learned Advocate for the respondent waives service. By consent, heard forthwith.2. This appeal arises from the order dated 30-11-2006 passed in Arbitration Petition No. 421 of 2006. The said petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter called as 'the said Act', was filed by the appellant challenging the award dated 26-6-2006 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.3. The impugned order along with the award of the Arbital Tribunal is sought to be challenged on two grounds; namely, that the learned arbitrator as well as the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the claim was put forth within the period of limitation ignoring the fact that the cause of action in the matter had arisen as long back as in February, 1995 and the arbitration proceedings were sought to be commenced beyond the period of three years from the said date. The second ground of challenge is that the findings arrived at by the Arbital Tribunal in...
Vile Parle Mahila Sangh Vs. Rajaram Sitaram Rahate and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2008
Reported in: (2008)IIILLJ956Bom
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent waives service. By consent of Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. These proceedings arise out of an order passed by the Labour Court in an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The first respondent was initially employed as a Peon by the petitioner on a temporary basis with effect from February 1, 1993. The petitioner conducts a school in the English ana Marathi media of instruction. The first respondent had instituted a complaint of unfair labour practices under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, inter alia seeking the benefit of permanency in service. By an order dated March 19, 2003, the Industrial Court allowed the complaint and issued a declaration that the petitioner had engaged in an unfair labour practice under Items 6 and 9 ...
Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay Vs. General Secretary, BEST Worker ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR479
Dharmadhikari S.C., J.1. Rule. Mr. Nagle waives service for respondents. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, through its General Manager, Bombay Electric and Supply and Transport Undertaking (B.E.S.T.), challenges the order dated 30th December 2002 delivered by the Dy. Commissioner of Labour and Settlement Officer, which has been confirmed by the President Industrial Court on 16th August 2007.3. The petitioner is engaged in the supply of electricity so also conduct and maintenance of Public Transport Service in Greater Mumbai. The undertaking of the petitioner is registered as such under Section 11 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. (B.I.R. Act for short). The respondent is Trade Union registered under the Trade Union's Act. It is represented and approved Union for the Transport Industry of the petitioner.4. The petitioner states that Standin...
LupIn Laboratories Ltd. and ors. Vs. J.P. Gaikwad and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR293]; (2009)ILLJ14Bom
P.R. Borkar, J.1. These two writ petitions are challenging the orders passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Aurangabad in Reference (I.D.A.) No. 207/1989 decided on November 16,1995 whereby the learned Presiding Officer directed the first party (i) i.e. the Manager, Lupin Laboratories Limited, MIDC, Chikalthana (hereinafter referred to as' Lupin Laboratories Ltd.') to reinstate the second party i.e. Jayashri Popat Gaikwad (hereinafter referred to as 'Jayashri Gaikwad') within a period of one month from the date of publication of the award and directed party No. 1 (ii), the Director, Indtek Consultant, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as Indtek Consultant) to pay party No. 2 Jayashri Gaikwad full back wages with continuity of service till the date of award within a month, in addition to pay her Rs. 500/- towards special compensation.2. The two writ petitions are filed because Lupin Laboratories Ltd. was directed to reinstate Jayashri Gaikwad and Indtek Consultant was directe...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shaikh Hasssan Hotels
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-2008
Reported in: [2009]178TAXMAN313(Bom)
1. The only point urged on behalf of the revenue by Mr. Rivonkar is that the ITAT has wrongly deleted the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. According to the learned Counsel, it was incumbent on the ITAT to maintain the penalty in view of Section 271 of the Income-tax Act, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:Explanation 1.--Where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under this Act,--(a) such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner to be false, or(b) such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him, then, the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the p...
Cogent Ventures (India) Ltd. (Formerly Known as Bhupendra Capital and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR157; 2008(4)ARBLR61(Bom); 2008(5)BomCR278
V.M. Kanade, J.1. The appellant M/s Cogent Ventures (India) Ltd, formerly known as M/s. Bhupendra Capital and Finance Ltd., is challenging the order dated 02/04/2008 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). 2. Brief facts in a nutshell are as under:3. The respondent No. 1 is M/s Shree Ram Infrastructure Ltd. which was formerly known as M/s. Shree Ram Mills Ltd. A reference was made against it by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as 'BIFR'). Though a proposal was made and sanctioned by the BIFR for rehabilitation scheme for revival of respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 1 was unable to implement the rehabilitation scheme and, therefore, BIFR came to the conclusion that there was no alternative but to wind up the respondent No. 1. 4. Against the said order passed by the BIFR, respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the appellate authority i.e...
Baliram Vitthal Deokate Vs. Nabhiladas Narayan Bhagat and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR143; 2008(5)BomCR83
1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. The principal question that arises in the present proceeding is: whether the appellant stood disqualified to contest the election of Panchayat Samiti due to the third child born on 20th August, 2002, after the cut off date i.e. 12th September, 2001, having regard to the mandate of Section 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961.3. It is not in dispute that the disqualification on account of number of children became applicable in respect of child born after 12th September, 2001. Section 16 of the Act deals with the matters on account of which the incumbent incurs disqualification. In so far as the case in hand is concerned, the relevant provision is Section 16(1)(n) of the Act.4. Section 16 of the Act reads thus:16. Disqualifications: (1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a Councillor:(a) ...(b) ...(c) ...(d) ...(e) ...(f) ...(g) ...(h) ...
Sanjali Sanjay Kadu and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR306
Kumbhakoni A.A., J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.2. In view of the fact that the question involved in the present petition needs to be answered urgently, as the same pertains to redevelopment of old buildings belonging to the respondents, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Corporation'), which is sought to be undertaken by applying the provisions of Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the 'DCR' for the sake of brevity) applicable to the area of the said Corporation, by consent of parties, we have heard all the parties at length for final disposal at the admission stage itself.3. In Island City of Bombay 133 constructions were put up very many years ago by Bombay Improvement Trust to provide housing to the thousands of workers and their families migrating to the City of Bombay at that time, as a consequence of rapid industrialisation. These structures are known as 'BIT Chawls'. These BIT ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »