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.
AtharoddIn S/O MujroddIn Kazi Vs. Rajendra S/O Ramchandra Indrale,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR769; 2008(4)BomCR507; 2008(6)MhLj322
J.N. Patel, J.1. This petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission.2. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The short question which arise for determination is whether the Election Tribunal constituted under Section 21 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short, 'Act of 1965') has jurisdiction to entertain the election petition, by condoning the delay. 4. The petitioner has impugned the order passed by the Election Tribunal which is the Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Latur under Section 21 of the Act of 1965, condoning the delay in filing the petition on the ground that no such power vests with the Election Tribunal. It is the case of the petitioner that he contested the election of Municipal Council, Latur and was declared as elected and the results were published in official Gazette on 27-11-2006, whereas the respondent, who is the original petitioner before th...
Sangram S/O. Pandharinath Jaibhai Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR71; 2009(2)BomCR399; (2008)110BOMLR2444; 2008(6)MhLj737
P.R. Borkar, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed by an employee who was previously working with the respondents as a Conductor and whose dismissal after domestic enquiry was upheld by the Member, Industrial Court, Jalna in Revision Petition No. 55 of 1994 decided on 15.11.1994. The learned Member, Industrial Court thereby reversed the judgment and order passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Aurangabad in Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 191 of 1988 decided on 21.07.1990.2. Some of the facts giving rise to this petition are admitted and so may be stated at the outset. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor with respondents in about 1979. He continued to work till 12.12.1986. On 12.12.1986 the petitioner was on duty as a Conductor on Latur - Kinwat bus. At about 19=00 Hrs. at Dabhada Phata in between Nanded and Latur, the bus was checked by the Checking Squad. It was found that four passengers in two groups, who were travelling from Nanded to Kinwat were having tickets of Rs. 17=50 per passenger. H...
Shri Francis Xavier Lobo Son of John Lobo, Vs. Augustine Pereira and
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR314
N.A. Britto, J.1. This is Defendants' Second Appeal arising from R.C.S. No. 138/96/A. 2. Heard learned Counsel and Senior Counsel on behalf of the Appellants and Respondents, respectively. 3. Admit on the following substantial questions of law: Whether the first Appellate Court committed illegality to grant prayer for recovery of possession inspite of recording a plea of finding that the Respondent had no right into the suit property and the Appellants were in possession thereof? 4. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the said Civil Suit. The Plaintiff claiming to be the son of Mr. Diogo Pereira and Mrs. Serafina filed the Civil Suit, inter alia, claiming for a declaration that the Inventory Proceedings bearing No. 140/91 were null and void; for eviction of the Defendants from the house situated in survey No. 16/20 and for injunction to restrain the Defendants from interfering with Plaintiff's possession of the suit property and alt...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dodsal Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Bom)430; [2009]312ITR112(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Admit on the following two questions:(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is correct in deleting the penalty levied under Section 158BFA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in the 1st proviso to Section 158BFA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is correct in interpreting the condition stipulated in the 1st proviso to Section 158BFA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as directory and not mandatory?2. C.I.T. by its order dated 15.10.2003 allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee and cancelled the penalty under Section 158BFA(2) of the Income Tax Act. While considering the deletion of penalty, C.I.T. considered, the explanation given by the assessee that tax had been paid on the undisclosed income before the completion of the assessment. V...
Hutoxi M. Panthaki Vs. Kersi J. Divecha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR96
Dalvi Roshan, J.1. The parties are wife and husband. They have 2 children, sons named Jehan and Sheroy. They shall be referred to as mother and father.2. They applied for divorce by mutual consent in the above suit on 20th February, 2005. They filed consent terms. In the consent terms the mother gave up her claim to alimony or maintenance. She also gave up custody of both the children. The father was to have custody of both the children. The mother was to have access on second and fourth week ends and half school vacations.3. The parties were married in 1992. Children were born in 1992 and 1998. The mother left the matrimonial home in 2004. They filed the divorce petition in 2006. The mother remarried in 2007.4. At the time of the filing of the consent terms Jehan was 13 years and Sheroy was 7 years old. Jehan was studying in Standard VIII and Sheroy was studying in Standard IV.5. The mother did not take access to the children in the school vacations in 2006.6. It is her contention tha...
Zargar Nazir Ahmed Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)MhLj381
R.M. Savant, J.1. Rule, with consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.2. This petition takes exception to the order/direction dated 24-4-2007 by which order/direction, the Collector, Latur has directed the respondent No. 2 to enter the property in question in the property tax register as per the registered deed and the parties were advised to approach the Civil Court for partition. The issue that has arisen for consideration is whether the Collector has the power and jurisdiction to issue the said order/direction under the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and s Act, 1965.Such of the facts which are necessary to be stated for an adjudication of the above petition are stated thus-The petitioner and the respondent No. 3 jointly purchased the land situated at plot No. 2 in Survey No. 290 Nanded Bidar road, taluka Udgir, district Latur.3. It is the case of the petitioner that a partition took place between the petitioner and the respondent...
Annaji Raut Shikshan Sanstha and anr. Vs. Secretary, Department of Edu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR389; 2008(6)MhLj538
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners pray for quashing and setting aside the permission granted to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to start a new Secondary School at Village Sindi. Although the relief claimed in terms of prayer Clause is very wide, the petitioners through Counsel have confined the challenge to the order dated 30th September, 1991 (Annexure-VIII) only to the extent of permitting respondent No. 1 to start a new Secondary School at Sindi.2. The principal grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners have already opened a Secondary School at Umri (Sindi, Tahsil Narkhed, District Nagpur) in the year 1987 up to Class VIII only. The same was later on, on account of natural growth, expanded up to Class-X and presently even Standards XI and XII (Junior College) course is being imparted from the said School. The grievance of the petitioners is that although the petitioners/School was existing at Umreri (Tahsil Sindi), t...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nirmalabai W/O Rajaram Gosavi and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ1963; 2008(5)ALLMR598; 2008(6)MhLj587
Abhay S. Oka, J.1. When the Civil Application No. 7265 of 2008 came up before this Court, considering the controversy involved, the first appeal itself was taken up for final disposal.2. As the record of the case is called for in this case, the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1923) is unable to proceed with the claim petition filed by the 1st to 4th respondents under Section 22 of the said Act.3. The 1st to 4th respondents have filed a claim petition under Section 22 of the said Act of 1923 alleging that the deceased Rajaram suffered an employment injury which turned out to be a fatal injury. The case is that the injury was caused to the deceased Rajaram in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The appellant is the insurer of the 6th respondent herein.4. The impugned judgment and order has been passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation on an application made by the ...
Shripati S/O. Santu Mane Vs. Goroba S/O. Nivarti Ghutukade and Chandra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Bom6; 2008(4)ALLMR882; 2008(4)BomCR515; (2008)110BOMLR2248; 2008(6)MhLj707
P.R. Borkar, J.1. The appellant is the original defendant and he filed this appeal being aggrieved by the decree passed by the Joint District Judge, Osmanabad in Regular Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1999 dated 02.02.1999 whereby the learned Judge set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad in Regular Civil Suit No. 313 of 1984 decided on 02.01.1991 and directed the present appellant to hand over possession of the suit-land to respondent No. 1 Goroba on payment of Rs. 9000/- within three months from the date of decree and in-case he fails to hand over possession, Goroba is entitled to get possession through Court. There is also direction for mesne profit.2. Briefly stated facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated as below:. Appellant - Shripati Santu Mane is brother of respondent No. 2 - Chandrabhagabai. Respondent No. 1 Goroba is son of respondent No. 2 - Chandrabhagabai. Survey No. 65/9 admeasuring 3 Acres 10 Gunthas situated at village...
Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit Vs. Gulab Krushnaji Pi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)BomCR509
Joshi A.H., J.1. Heard learned Advocates for both the sides.2. Appeal is admitted and is called out for final hearing in the light of order passed by this Court on 27th June, 2008 recording that case would be heard finally for considering remand.3. Appeal proceeds on admitted facts, namely:[a] There is a relationship of creditor and debtor between complainant and accused.[b] Debt is within limitation.[c] Cheque was issued by the accused towards repayment of dues.[d] Cheque has been dishonoured and notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is served and complaint is filed within limitation.[e] Notice was not replied by the accused.[fj Defence and controversy as to whether accused is not a member or nominal member of the complainant was raised for the first time in the cross-examination and then in oral arguments.[g] The complainant had no opportunity to know the defence so as to prepare to meet it.4. It is seen from the judgment that all findings, except on the points r...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »