Mumbai Court July 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.
Onyx Musicabsolute.Com Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR26; 2008(6)BomCR418
D.G. Karnik, J.1. These matters were heard on 27th April 2008 and the order was reserved. In the meanwhile, the plaintiffs/petitioners moved the vacation Bench by filing Arbitration Petition Nos. 239 and 240 of 2008 and the papers of these matters were called by the Vacation Bench and the papers are now returned after passing some ad-interim orders. Those arbitration petitions are however not placed on Board. After reopening of the courts I have heard the counsel again. By consent, the matters are heard finally.2. The plaintiffs in the suit are the petitioners and the defendants in the suit are the respondents in the arbitration petition Nos. 169 and 170 of 2008. Hence, for the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as the plaintiffs and the defendants. 3. In the suits as well as in the arbitration petitions, the plaintiffs seek an order of injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and servants from selling, re-selling, sub-licencing, distributing, exploiting, promot...
Hiralal Son of Fattechand Gandhe and Nandkumar Son of Hiralal Gandhe V ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR592; 2008(5)BomCR40; 2008(6)MhLj431
A.P. Bhangale, J.1. By this appeal, appellants/original defendants have challenged the appellate judgment and order dated 17th August 1993 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 88 of 1990 whereby the 2nd Additional District Judge, Yavatmal set aside the judgment and decree dated 18th August 1980 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kelapur in Regular Civil Suit No. 46 of 1986 and thereby partly decreed the suit of original plaintiff (present respondent).2. Dispute is in a narrow compass. Plaintiff sold 4 quintals of cotton for Rs. 2200/- to the defendants on 17th April 1983. Then on 24th April 1983 he sold to the defendants 92 kg of Til for Rs. 595/- and 7.05 qtl of tur for Rs. 3535/- to the defendants. Defendants' Diwanji issued receipts. On 24th April 1983 plaintiff supplied fodder of Rs. 1100/- and cement worth Rs. 225/- to the defendants. Since defendants failed to pay the price of goods, plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs. 7645/-against defendants. The defendants denied s...
Ashruba Haribhau Dombe Vs. Ramkishan Yashwantrao Dombe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR64; 2008(6)MhLj611
Borde R.M., J.1. This is an appeal by original defendant challenging the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below.2. Plaintiff-respondent herein instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 181 of 89 claiming redemption of mortgage and recovery of possession as well as reconveyance of the document. Plaintiff is the original owner of the property Bearing Suit Nos. 19/2 and 19/11, now consolidated in G. No. 407, admeasuring 25 ares and 32 ares respectively situate at village Kanad. Plaintiff was in need of Rs. 5000/-. As such, he approached the defendant for advancement of amount. Defendant agreed to advance the amount, however, on execution of a conditional registered sale-deed by the plaintiff in his favour. Plaintiff, as such, executed a conditional sale deed and it was agreed that after completion of five years, plaintiff would pay Rs. 5000/- to the defendant and defendant would reconvey the property in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that he had paid an amount of Rs. 3175/...
Jagdish D. Mehta Vs. Suneel Anant Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR56
Bhosale D.B., J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The following questions of some importance have been raised in these proceedings: when a caveator-defendant dies, whether it is for the plaintiff/petitioner to bring on record the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased-caveator as defendants in a suit?; and if the plaintiff fails to do so whether the suit and the petition, both abate? And; if it is held to be not mandatory for the plaintiff to do so whether the suit only would stand dismissed as abated or infructuous and in that eventuality the petition for probate would be liable to be allowed as uncontcsted 3. The factual matrix, sans unnecessary details, is as follows:The plaintiff filed a petition for probate of the last Will and testament dated 2nd June, 1988 of Dr. Anant Rajaram Deshpande. He died at Bombay on or about 16.8.1988. The plaintiff is the sole executor named in the Will. The defendant- Suneel Anant Deshpande was the son of Dr. Anant Deshpande. After ...
Jayant Gopalrao Pachade Vs. Motilal Kuber Kanoje and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR725; 2008(5)MhLj710
A.P. Bhangale, J.1. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 23rd October, 1991 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Akola in Regular Civil Appeal No. 306 of 1988 whereby the 1st Appellate Court allowed the appeal setting aside judgment and decree dated 30-6-1988 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 90 of 1986 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Murtizapur.2. The facts which appear from record may be briefly stated as under.Present appellant-original plaintiff filed suit on 9th July, 1986 with a prayer to set aside alienation made by plaintiff's father Gopal (original defendant No. 2) in favour of present respondent No. 1 Motilal Kuber Kanoje (original defendant No. 1). According to plaintiff, he was born on 15th August, 1965. There was partition of ancestral property on 22-6-1967 and he was allotted 22 acres of land. Income from the share in property allotted to him was sufficient and his guardian-father purchased suit land for a sum of Rs. 6000/...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Koodathil Kallyatan Ambujakshan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Bom)80; [2009]309ITR113(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Revenue has preferred this appeal on the following questions:(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amount received by the assessee under 'Optional Early Retirement Scheme of RBI' is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10C) of the IT Act?(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal, Mumbai, was justified in interpreting Rule 2BA in favour of assessee against the established norms of interpretation of the rules?(c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing relief to the assessee under Section 89(1) of the Act in respect of sum received under the VRS over and above a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 which is not prescribed under Section 89(1) of the IT Act nor under any of the prescribed categories as per Rule 21A of IT Rules, 1962?(d) Whether on the facts and in the ci...
Ravindra Vithal Prabhu and anr. Vs. Umesh Martappa Prabhu and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR590; 2008(4)ARBLR150(Bom)
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The appellants are challenging the judgment and order passed by the District Judge, Kolhapur who, by his judgment and order dated 15.03.2008 was pleased to allow the application filed by the Kolhapur Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. below, Exhibit 78, for rejecting the application filed by the appellants below, Exhibit 70, and dismiss the application filed by the appellants herein below, Exhibit 70, for temporary injunction restraining the bank from taking any steps in pursuance of its notice dated 18.03.2005.3. Brief facts in a nutshell are as under:The appellants and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were partners in the partnership firm in the name and style of M/s. Ayodhya Hotel. They were also carrying on business of giving on rent multipurpose hall in the name of Akshata Mangal Karyalaya and a hotel in the name of Yatri Niwas by virtue of partnership deed dated 27.03.1989. There was a dispu...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Saralabai D/O Shantilal JaIn and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ2402; 2008(6)MhLj324
R.S. Mohite, J.1. Since both these appeals impugn the same judgment and order dated 28th February,1985 passed by the learned Ex-officio Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigad- A in Accident Claim Case No. 93 of 1982, both are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. First Appeal No. 508 of 1985 is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited which had insured the vehicle, whereas First Appeal No. 563 of 1985 is filed by the original claimants.3. By the impugned judgment and order, the Tribunal has directed the original Opponent Nos. 1 to 3 i.e. driver, owner and the Insurance Company to pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs. 2,55,000/-. It has held that out of this amount, the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. is liable to pay only Rs. 1,50,000/-. The opponents were directed to pay costs of the application and also interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum to the claimants, from the date of decision, if the amount is not paid within one month. The Tribun...
Shahaji Alloys Steel Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Sicom Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR11; 2008(6)BomCR280
Bora Santosh, J.1. Heard Mr. Sanjay V. Gangapurwala, Advocate for the petitioners and Shri Shrikant Adwant, for respondent No. 1.2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.3. By this petition, petitioners seek to challenge the legality and propriety of the order dt. 4/1/2007, passed by the learned District Judge - III, Aurangabad, below Exh. 33 in Miscellaneous Application Requiring Judicial Enquiry No. 303/2002.4. Facts in brief, giving rise to this petition, are as under:The petitioner No. 1 - M/s Shahaji Alloy Steel Pvt. Ltd., a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, availed loan of rupees one crore from respondent No. 1 S1COM Ltd., which is a deemed Financial Corporation.As there was default in repayment of the loan, respondent No. 1 initiated proceedings under Section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, for enforcing the liability against the original debtor and guarantors (petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and respondent Nos. 2 and ...
Suman V. JaIn (Dr.) Vs. Marwadi Sammelan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR808
Majmudar P.B., J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 8-8-2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 1611 of 2004 (Suman V. Jain v. Marwadi Sammelan) 2006 B.C.I. 156 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the present appellant by upholding the order of the College Tribunal dated 30-4-2004 by which the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant.2. The appellant herein was discharging the duty of a Principal in B.M. Ruia Girls and G.D. Birla Girls College, run by the respondent No. 1-Trust. The said college is affiliated to the respondent No. 2-University. The appellant was appointed as the Principal of the said College on 1-7-1992. Her appointment was subsequently approved by the University on permanent basis. It is the case of the appellant that the management of the respondent No. 1-Trust was changed in December, 1998 and one Mr. Biani was appointed as the convener of the management and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »