Mumbai Court June 2008 Judgments

Shri Madhukar Krishna Dhusane Vs. Smt. Mandabai Hari Choudhari (Since ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR480; 2008(6)BomCR109; (2008)110BOMLR1992; 2008(5)MhLj470

V.M. Kanade, J.1. Petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment since the Petitioners in both these Petitions are challenging the judgment and order passed by the District Court in Civil Appeal No. 43 of 1996. For the sake of convenience the parties shall be hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff' and 'defendant'.2. Brief fact in a nutshell are as under:3. The plaintiff is a landlord of the premises which consists of one room situated in a Chawl known as Chaudhari Chawl, Thane being Room No. 11. The defendant is residing in the said room No. 1 1 since 1977. The said room shall be hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises'. A notice was sent by the plaintiff - landlord to the defendant which was received by the defendant on 26/02/1980 wherein it was alleged that the defendant was a licensee of the plaintiff and 4 by oral license the defendant was permitted to reside in the suit premises for 11 months from May, 1977 and the said license was terminated for reasons set out in the sa...

Shri LuthfuddIn S/O TamizoddIn Shaikh Vs. the Asiatic Oxygen and Acety ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR134; (2008)110BOMLR2027; [2008(118)FLR804]; (2008)IIILLJ997Bom; 2009(1)MhLj294

P.R. Borkar, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by a workman challenging the orders passed by an authority under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Maharashtra Act of 1971') and Judge, Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 317 of 1988 on 8.5.1990, as confirmed by the Industrial Court, Aurangabad in Revision (ULP) No. 79 of 1990 on 4.1.1994; whereby dismissal of the petitioner by the respondent was upheld.2. At the outset, certain undisputed facts in this case may be stated as follows.On 1.3.1983 the petitioner was appointed as a Turner-cum-Fitter in the respondent company and in about October, 1983 he was confirmed. There were about 50 workmen working in the respondent company. On 25.8.1987 the petitioner and other office holders of the Union presented charter of demands to the respondent. The petitioner was Secretary of the Union. On 28.4.1988 a chargesheet was served on the petitioner. One Mr...

Suman Balkrishna Zodage Vs. Alaka Suresh Zodge and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR483; 2008(5)BomCR699

S.S. Shinde, J.1. The present second appeal arises out of the final judgment and order passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune at Pune in Regular Civil Suit No. 2382 of 1983 and final Judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Pune at Pune in Civil Appeal No. 499 of 1997 on 6th March, 1999. The present Appellant is defendant No. 2 in Regular Civil Suit No. 2382 of 1983. The present Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are original plaintiffs in R.C.S. No. 2382/83. The Respondent No. 4 in the present appeal was Defendant No. 1 before the Jt.C.J.J.D., Pune at Pune. The present Respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are original Defendant Nos. 3 to 5.2. The present Respondent Nos. 1 to 3/original Plaintiffs filed R.C.S. No. 2382/83 for partition and separate possession of the Plaintiffs 1/4th share in the suit house and the suit flour mill. The said suit was contested by some of the Defendants by claiming that there was previous partition by metes and bounds.FACTUAL MATRIX3. On...

Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)17VST15(Bom)

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. The above two reference applications pertaining to assessment year 1994-95 have been filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax (for brevity, 'the Commissioner') under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for brevity, 'the Bombay Act') read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for brevity, 'the Central Act').2. During the period relevant to the assessment year 1994-95, the respondent was a registered dealer under the Bombay Act and the Central Act and had sold its customers certain items of iron and steel which were covered under Section 5 of the Central Act and consequently were not liable to tax under Section 75 of the Bombay Act.3. By way of above sales tax applications, the applicant wants this court to seek the statements of facts from the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal with regard to following two questions of law arising in the above sales tax applications:(a) ...

Banubi W/O Sheikh Ibrahim and ors. Vs. Sheikh Ahmad Sheikh Mahamood an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR624; 2008(6)MhLj288

Vasanti A. Naik, J.1. By this appeal, the appellants challenge the judgment passed by the District Judge, Buldhana, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 48 of 1994, on 26th December, 1995, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Buldhana, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992 on 14-2-1994.2. Few facts giving rise to the second appeal are stated thus-The appellants and the respondent No. 4 are the original plaintiffs. They are the daughters of one Sheikh Mahmud. Sheikh Mahmud died in the year 1948 leaving behind him his widow Khatijabi, the plaintiffs and his two sons Sheikh Ahmad and Sheikh Yusuf who are arrayed as the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to the suit. Khatijabi died in the year 1988. According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties were owned and possessed by their father Sheikh Mahmud and the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have inherited the suit properties and are in joint possession of the same. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that entries ...

Ramchandra S/O Maruti Bhoyar (Since Deceased) Through Manohar Jagannat ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR233; 2009(4)BomCR919; 2008(6)MhLj67

A.P. Bhangale, J.1. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 5th May, 1979 passed by the Extra Assistant Judge, Akola in Regular Civil Appeal No. 145 of 1976.2. The facts, in brief, which have led to the filing of present appeal are as under:Present respondents No. 1 and 2 viz. Ramesh and Vitthal both sons of Narayan Gawande filed Regular Civil Suit No. 70 of 1972 for declaration and for consequential reliefs and in the alternative for partition and separate possession. Suit was filed against present appellant and Narayan Bapuji Gawande and Pisabai w/o Narayan Gawande, since deceased and who were arrayed as respondents No. 3 and 4 herein. Parties shall hereinafter be referred as per their original status in suit.3. Earlier to that, defendant No. 3 Ramchandra Maroti Bhoyar had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 37 of 1966 against defendant No. 1 Narayan for specific performance of contract before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Murtizapur alleging that defen...

Rajendra Somaji Waghade Vs. Digamber Bahuddeshiya Apang Kalyan Shiksha ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR222; 2008(6)BomCR88

Chaudhari A.B., J.1. Heard Mr. Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Rule. Heard finally by consent of parties. A.G.P. waives notice for respondent No. 2. It is not necessary to issue notice to respondent No. 1.2. This petition is being disposed of in view of the decision of this Court in the case of (Rajkumar v. Shantaram) : 2008(6)BomCR81 . In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order condoning delay of two years in filing the Change Report before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Bhandara. The learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly brought to my notice the judgment in Rajkumar's case, supra, and submitted that it has been held in the said judgment that appeal lies under Section 70 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act against an order rejecting application for condonation of delay. The learned Counsel, however, vehemently argued that in case of acceptance application for condonation of delay or order condoning delay, appeal may not be maintainable and that is w...

Al-qahtani Pipe Coating Terminal Vs. Minerals Sales (P.) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008]34SCL89(Bom)

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. On 13-6-2008 an order was passed dismissing this Company Application. Here are the reasons for dismissing the same:The Company Application is instituted for the following relief:(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order and direct the Official Liquidator to pay to the Applicants a sum of USD 3.5 million (approximately Rs. 18,25,00,000) together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum or such other sum from 20-2-2003 or from such other date that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit as compensation/damages for the wrongful and illegal removal, misappropriation and/or theft of the Plant and Machinery belonging to the Applicants from the custody of the Official Liquidator at the factory site of Otoklin Plant and Equipments Ltd. at 4, Kandla Free Trade Zone, Gandhidham, Kutch, Gujarat.2. Thus, the prayer is that the Official Liquidator should pay the above sum with interest or such other sum determined by this Court either from 20-2-2003 or from such oth...

Minnow Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the assessee for the Assessment year 2003-04 is directed against the order of CIT(A). The grounds of appeal of the assessee are as under: 1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment of Rs. 19857604/- in the hands of the appellant, which is opposed to the facts and circumstances and his order is contrary to established law. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant had the right to receive interest at 18 % per annum on the capital contributed. 3. Such a right is based on unstated and unspecified accounting practices and legal principles and is not sustainable as all accounting practices and legal principles are contrary thereto. 4. The ld. Assessing Officer has assessed Rs. 19857604/-under the head "Profit from Business" under Section 28(v) rws 5(1)(c) - since no business was carried on, the application of Section 28(v) does not arise. 5. Both under the Partnership Act and under Clauses 7 & 8 of the partnership deed, the interest is a charge in...

Principal Judge, Family Court Vs. Nil

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2009Bom12; 2008(4)ALLMR461; 2008(4)BomCR539; (2008)110BOMLR2089; 2008(5)MhLj222

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.The Reference 1. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur confronted with the divergent views expressed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition No. 431 of 2006 (Smt. Savitri w/o. Sudesh Subba and Anr. v. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Nagpur) and (Sau. Sonali w/o. Manishkumar Chandak and Anr. v. Nil, in writ petition No. 6086 of 2007, [ : (2007)109BOMLR1698 ], in exercise of the limited jurisdiction vested in the court under Section 113 of the Civil Procedure Code, referred the matter for opinion and guidance of this Court vide his order dated 13th September, 2007 on the following questions:i) Whether the statutory waiting period of six months under Section 13B(2) of Hindu Marriage Act can be waived by the Trial Court or not may kindly be decided. ii) Necessary guidance or directions may kindly be issued as prayed.2. Before discussing the merits of the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, reference to basic facts would be...