Mumbai Court July 2008 Judgments

The State of Maharashtra Through Pi Vs. Uttam Nandram Somwanshi

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR2452

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. The State feeling aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur in Sessions Case No. 70 of 2003, has filed this appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Respondent-accused was tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 504 of Indian penal Code and was acquitted at the conclusion of the trial, on 27.9.2005. Hence, the appeal.2. The prosecution story can be narrated thus;The incident in question took place on 30.7.2003 at about 2.30 a.m. This was on the night between 29th and 30th July 2003, after midnight hours. The place of incident is at Shrirampur and in front of the house of the accused. The victim of the incident Vatchalabai was the wife of the accused. The prosecution story mainly unfolds from the deposition of PW-1 Ashok and PW-4 Vaishali, who are the children of the accused and the deceased. They were aged 20 and 22 years respectively, at the time of recording their evidence...

M.J. International Vs. Nakshatra Finlease Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR562

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. By this Chamber Summons the Plaintiff has sought the leave of the Court to amend the plaint.2. The suit is filed to recover the balance of the amounts allegedly lent and advanced by the Plaintiff to Defendant No. 1. It is alleged that the amounts were lent by the Plaintiff to Defendant No. 1 at the instance and on the misrepresentation of one Ramkrishna Raheja, since deceased and Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 who are his widow and son and Director of Defendant No. 1. Defendant Nos. 4 to 7 are impleaded on the basis that the shares of Ramkrishna Raheja are held benami by them. Thus Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are also sued in their capacity inter-alia as heirs of the late Ramkrishna Raheja to the extent of his estate coming to their hands. Defendant Nos. 4 to 7 are sued as benamidars of the said Ramkrishna Raheja qua the said shares.3. Needless to say I express no opinion on the merits of the claim especially against Defendant Nos. 2 to 7.4. In paragraph 5 of the plaint it is in...

Khairunnissa Begum W/O Aslamkhan Vs. Aslamkhan S/O Akbar Ali Khan

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR2500

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. Applicant impugns order dated 17.1.1997 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 196 of 1995. She seeks quashing of the said order whereby and whereunder maintenance order rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Misc.Application No. 258 of 1993 in her favour was set aside.3. Indisputably, applicant was married to respondent on 27.10.1991. Their marriage was performed in accordance with customs and tenets of Mohammedan law. Out of the marriage, the applicant gave birth to a minor daughter, viz., Akbari, who was original applicant No. 2 before the learned Judicial Magistrate. She filed proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance allowance of Rs. 500/- p.m. for herself and Rs. 300/- p.m. for her minor daughter.4. The applicant alleged that she was ill-treated by the respondent in the matrimonial home. He used to make unlawf...

Agarwal Traders and anr. Vs. Ankush M. Bhabal and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)IIILLJ928Bom; 2009(1)MhLj425

S.A. Bobde, J.1. This petition by the employer is directed against the Order of the Industrial Court, Mumbai, dated June 6, 2006 holding the petitioners guilty of Unfair Labour Practices under Item 6 of Schedule II and Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The Industrial Court has further directed the petitioners to pay the wages of the complainants till subsistence of contract of employment after deducting the payment already made/deposited.2. The petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm engaged in the business of job work of calendaring and packaging of cloth. In 1986, the land upon which the factory of the petitioners was situated was acquired by the BEST Undertaking for construction of Depot. This acquisition was challenged by the Union Sarva Shramik Sangh by Writ Petition No. 1106/1993. This petition was dismissed on June 15, 1993.3. On July 12, 1993 a Notice of intended lock-out with effect from July 26, 1993 was put up on the notice board. Before the lock-out took ef...

Amit Band Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009CriLJ887

K.J. Rohee, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. The petitioner, who is a Lawyer by profession, seeks a direction to the jail authorities not to insist for Vakalatnama of prisoner, whenever an Advocate intends to take interview of the prisoner.3. According to the petitioner, whenever an Advocate intends to take interview of the prisoner, the jail authorities insist that the application by the lawyer should be accompanied by Vakalatnama signed by the prisoner. In the additional reply filed on behalf of the jail authorities the said action of the jail authorities is tried to be justified on the ground that Vakalatnama is the proof of the Advocate being bona fide legal adviser of the prisoner. Hence, it is necessary to insist for Vakalatnama of the prisoner whenever the prisoner's lawyer intends to meet the prisoner.4. In respect of the present controversy, the Maharashtra Prisons (Facilities to Prisoners) Rules, 1962 are relevant. These Rules are compri...

R.B.K. Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the 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 the CIT(A). 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the loss claimed by the appellant of F&O transaction as a business loss into a speculation loss. The CIT(A) further erred in holding that amendment of Section 43(5) is not retrospective and hence the benefit of the amendment cannot be given to the appellant.3. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue in the ground of appeal of the assessee is covered in its favour with the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. SSKI Investors Services (P) Ltd. and Bangalore Tribunal in the case of C. Bharath Kumar v. DCIT (2005) 4 SOT 593 (Bang.), wherein held that dealings in derivative is a separate kind of transaction which docs not involve any purchase and sale of shares and therefore loss thereof cannot be treated as speculation loss. The learned DR submitted that in this case the settlement of the transaction wa...

Shri Shyamsundar Babu Naik Dessai Vs. Shri Baban Anant Naik S/O Anant ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR2524; 2009(1)MhLj157

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the appellate judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao whereby the learned Sessions Judged allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the respondent herein by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Canacona.2. The appellant entered into an agreement of sale to sell 30625 sq.mtrs. property at the rate of Rs. 90/- per sq.mtr. for total consideration of Rs. 27,56,250/- to the respondent/original accused. There is no dispute that on 10.11.1995 an agreement to this effect was executed by the parties. Apart from appellant, there are other owners of the property who have signed the agreement simultaneously. The appellant had executed a power of attorney in favour of the respondent on the same day. Under the agreement, the respondent had paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- at the time of the execution of the agreement and was to pay a further sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- within a...

Shri Dinesh Kantilal Panchal, Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR703; 2008(5)BomCR668; (2008)110BOMLR2560; 2008(6)MhLj819

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition the Petitioners challenge the order dated 3-2-2003 passed by the Respondent No. 1/State of Maharashtra. By the order dated 3-2-2003 the Government of Maharashtra has held that the action of the Bombay Municipal Corporation of exempting 21 structures owned by the Respondent No. 5- Co.operative Housing Society from payment of cess under the Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Act, 1976 is not proper and that cess is leviable on 21 structures owned by the Respondent No. 5-society.2. The brief facts relevant for deciding this petition are that there were several structures standing on C.S. No. 375, Mazgaon Division, Mumbai. One Shri Dhankumar Thakurdas Jhaveri was the owner of the said property. The occupants of those structures in the year 1976 formed a Co.operative Housing Society called 'Tarabaug Aikyavardhak Co.operative Housing Society Ltd.-the Respondent No. 5.' The owner of the property executed a deed of conveyance dated 7th July, 1977 in fav...

Jyoti W/O Sanjay Walke @ Rukhama D/O Adelu Mane and Rajesh S/O Sudam R ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR674; 2008(6)MhLj650

Naresh H. Patil, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Leave to delete respondent No. 6.3. Rule, made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing.4. The elections to the Village Panchayat Loha, Taluka Hadgaon were declared. The petitioners filed their nomination papers for the seats reserved for the backward class of citizens along with the caste certificates issued by the competent authorities showing that they belong to Nomadic Tribes. The Village Panchayat consists of 9 members. Along with the petitioners seven other persons filed their nomination papers. As there was no other contestants, it is stated that the 7 persons who had filed their nomination papers were to be declared elected unopposed. Both the petitioners filed their nomination papers for two seats reserved for the backward class of citizens. Therefore, along with the other 7 persons both the petitioners would be declared elected unopposed.5. Th...

Principal, Vidarbha Ayurved Mahavidyalaya and Hospital and anr. Vs. Ka ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR848; [2008(119)FLR651]; (2009)ILLJ361Bom; 2008(5)MhLj850

A.P. Lavande, J.1. Heard Mr. R.K. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Harkare, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. D.B. Patel, learned A.G.P. for the respondent No. 2 in all the petitions.2. Rule in all the petitions. By consent heard forthwith.3. These petitions are disposed of by common Judgment since the question of law as well as facts involved in all the petitions are almost similar.4. By these petitions, the petitioners challenge the order dated 4-4-2007 passed by the Respondent No. 2 by which the petitioners have been directed to pay interest on the amount of gratuity payable to the respondent No. 1 in each of these petitions. The details of the interest payable by the petitioners have been mentioned in the operative part of the impugned order.5. Briefly, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petitions are as follows:Respondent No. 1 in each of these petitions filed applications claiming gratuity from the petitioners after superannuation. The re...