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.
Padmasing S/O Kondu Chanda, Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Its S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR2392
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of the parties.2. Petitioners have approached this Court to challenge the appointment of respondent No. 6 to the post of Head Master in respondent No. 5 - school. The schools run by respondent No. 5 are recognised and aided schools. The petitioners as also respondent No. 6 are trained teachers. The petitioners are at Sr. Nos. 2,3,5 & 9 of the seniority list in category 'C' maintained by the school. Respondent No. 6 stands at Sr. No. 11 of the same seniority seniority list. According to petitioners, therefore, respondent No. 6 is junior to them. A vacancy arose in the post of Head Master in 2005 on account of retirement of Shri Kautik Mitharam Mahajan. Respondents instead of following the order of seniority, appointed respondent No. 6 as Head Master vide order dated 13.1.2006 on the basis of the letter given by respondent No. 4 on 29.12.2005. The appointment of respondent No. 6 was approved by the Education Officer by order dated 12.2....
Sham S/O Sadashiv Wagh Vs. Muley Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2008
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR795; 2008(6)MhLj703
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. These are applications filed by three (3) Directors of a Private Company for quashing of proceedings initiated by way of complaint filed by respondent No. 1 and registered as SCC No. 3396/2006 (Muley Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Galaxi Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.) for commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. They are challenging issuance of process and the proceedings initiated against them.Respondent No. 1 filed a private complaint case in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad which is registered as SCC No. 3396/2006. The applicants are said to be Directors of M/s Galaxi Laboratories Private Limited i.e. accused No. 1 Company. The averments in the complaint would show that the Managing Director who is accused No. 2 Shrikant, issued the cheque in question dated 31st March, 2006. The cheque bounced. The respondent No. 1 issued demand notices. The demand notices were served. Subsequently, since no payment was made with...
Naveen Rego Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4733
Ranjana Desai, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties taken up for hearing forthwith.This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by one Mr. Navin Rego who is the representative of International Justice Mission, a human rights organization which makes efforts to rescue minor girls who are commercially exploited or trafficked for the purposes of sex.2. It appears that on 8th February, 2008 a raid was conducted at Dhoom Bar and Restaurant at Bhiwandi under the provisions of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 (P.I.T.A. for short) by Bhiwandi Town Police and Shantinagar Police Station. According to the petitioner, the evidence includes illegal prostitution activities documents on Video CD, statements of the complainant, bogus customer, respectable and independent panchas and victims. On the same day Bhiwandi Town police prepared a panchanama and handed it over to Shantinagar Police Station. The grievance of the petitioner appears to ...
Loksons (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-2008
Reported in: [2010]187TAXMAN55(Bom)
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By this reference, the Tribunal, Bombay has referred the following substantial question of law:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the disallowance of the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of exchange loss of Rs. 65,54,930 incurred on remittance of advance received for supply of goods holding that the sum was paid by the assessee was not on account of commercial expediency and was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business?2. The above question of law pertains to assessment year 1989-90. The brief facts are, that the assessee is a private limited company carrying on a business of trading and also export of goods and for the assessment year 1989-90, the assessee had filed a return of income showing net loss of Rs. 56.03,630. However, the assessing officer had determined the net taxable income of the assessee at Rs. 8,06,729 and while passing the aforesaid assessment order dat...
P.B. Phadke, Carrying on Business in the Name and Style of T. Vikram E ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR1001]; (2008)IIILLJ750Bom; 2008(6)MhLj41
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the award passed by the Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Pune dated 24th October, 1996 in Reference (IDA) No. 54 of 1989. By the aforesaid award, the Labour Court has allowed the reference of the respondentworkman and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent on his original post with continuity of service and full back wages.2. Initially for six months the respondent was appointed as a Helper. Thereafter his services were discontinued. The respondent workman raised an industrial dispute on the ground that the services of the respondent have been terminated illegally with effect from 3rd August, 1989 and that he should be reinstated in service with full back wages. The said dispute was referred to the Presiding Officer, First labour Court, Pune, and the same was numbered as Reference (IDA) No. 54 of 1989. It is the case of the respondent that he was appointed as a Fabricator Wireman since 11t...
Pavankumar Bhurmalji Ostwal and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)MhLj691
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the order rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code in a criminal complaint case filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Nandurbar.Heard learned advocates for the parties.2. It is not necessary to consider the merits of the matter. For, so far, no process has been issued in the matter and there is only order under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code calling upon the police to file report. There is irregularity pointed out by learned advocate, but at this stage, the same need not be gone into. For, the applicants are yet to come in the picture. No process is issued against them. They cannot be branded as 'accused'. The application is premature. The persons who are in the embryonic stage and have not yet roped in as accused, have no locus standi to challenge that order. The applicants will be e...
Kesri K. Deboo Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-2008
Reported in: [2009]313ITR186(Bom)
1. The present appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated September 8, 2004, vide which the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. Impugning the order of the Tribunal, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant while relying upon the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated March 10, 2003, submits that the following question of law arises for consideration:Whether the Income tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 35 lakhs merely relying on the statement recorded under Section 132(4) which was subsequently retracted?2. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the order of the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration of the court. The circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes is primarily an advise given where it was advis...
Vijay K. Mehta and Dr. Amritlal C. Shah Vs. Charu K. Mehta and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR321; (2008)110BOMLR2344
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. These two writ petitions are filed by the trustees of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust ('Trust' for short), which is duly registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 ('B.P.T. Act for short). Since both the petitions challenge the decision of the Joint Charity Commissioner ('Jt. C.C.' for short) dated 3-6-2008, both the petitions are heard together finally at the stage of admission and disposed of by this common judgment.2. The impugned order dated 3-6-2008 is an interim order passed by the Jt. C.C. in an application filed by a permanent trustee of the Trust under Section 41D of the B.P.T. Act. The said application was filed seeking removal of nine trustees of the Trust inter alia on the ground that the said trustees during the period from 2001 to 2006 had siphoned off the Trust funds running into several crores of rupees and further they have committed act of malfeasance, misfeasance, breach of Trust, gross negligence etc. which are detrimental to the in...
Mr. H.N. Rai and ors. Vs. Shri Ajay Mohan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR893
A.A. Sayed, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent.2. The controversy in this petition is whether in cross-examination while confronting the witness with his signature appearing on a document, can the adverse party show the signature on the document by covering up the remaining portion of the document by any means.3. This question arose during the cross-examination of the Respondent No. 1 in a suit, being S.C. suit No. 4969 of 2006 at Bombay City Civil Court at Greater Bombay. The learned Trial Judge by order dated 23.04.2008, did not permit the Counsel for the petitioners to cover up rest of the matter whilst calling upon the respondent No. 1 to identify the signature part on the document, which order is impugned in this petition.4. The suit is filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who are the original plaintiffs against the petitioners and other respondents, who are the original defendants inter alia for a declaration that the petitioners and other resp...
Saga Department Stores Limited a Company Duly Incorporated Under the C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR565; 2008(6)BomCR59; (2008)110BOMLR2370
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. A simple but question of some legal importance falls for consideration in the present Appeal. What is the scope of judicial discretion of a Court trying a Suit on the Original Side of this Court with reference to Rules 89 to 91 and 265 of the High Court, Original Side, Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') read with Order VIII Rules 1 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 It is a settled canon of civil jurisprudence that wide discretion is vested with the Court and with the aid of its inherent powers Court can pass orders which may be necessary to achieve the ends of justice. The rules of procedural law are not to scuttle the rights of the parties at the threshold of the proceedings unless an indefeasible right is vested in the other side and it will cause great injustice or prejudice to that party. Exercise of such judicial discretion has to be in consonance with the settled principles of law, amongst which, it is also a settled principle o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »