Mumbai Court July 2008 Judgments

Motor Industries Co. Ltd., Nashik Division Vs. Popat Murlidhar Patil a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR638; [2008(118)FLR990]; (2008)IIILLJ891Bom; 2008(6)MhLj144

P.B. Majmudar, J.1. By filing this petition, the petitioner company has challenged the order passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Nashik dated 31st March, 1997 passed in Revision Application (ULP) No. 361 of 1995. By the revisional order, the revisional Court set aside the order of the Labour Court dated 17th October, 1995 in Complaint (ULP) No. 58 of 1988. The revisional Court held that the petitioner company, who was the respondent before the revisional Court, had indulged in unfair labour practice under item 1 (a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The revisional Court also directed the petitioner company to reinstate the first respondent with continuity of service and full back wages. The revisional court also directed the petitioner company to pay cost of Rs. 500/to the first respondent.2. The present litigation has a chequered history. The first respondent was appointed as an Operator in the year 1975. In the year 1977, he was placed in G5 grad...

Manguesh Meghasyam Kuwelkar and anr. Vs. Yeshwant Meghasyam Kuwelkar a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR249; 2008(6)MhLj224

N.A. Britto, J.1. Heard Shri Mulgaonkar, the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellants and Shri M.B. Da Costa, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondents.2. Admit on the following substantial question of law:Whether in view of the uncontroverted evidence that Sumatibai was owning only the suit plot allotted to her in the inventory proceedings of her husband Meghasyam at the time of her death and when she executed the Will dated 16-03-1995, the finding reached by the Courts below that Sumatibai owned properties than the suit plot bequeathed on defendants No. 1 to 3, was not perverse finding?3. This is plaintiffs' second appeal arising from RCS No. 32/2000/C. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the said civil suit.4. The plaintiff No. 1 is the eldest son and defendant No. 1 is the younger son of Meghasyam and Sumatibai Kuwelkar. The plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 have three sisters, all married. After the death of ...

Murlidhar Pandharinath Shirsath and anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)MhLj274

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This appeal arises from the award passed in Land Acquisition Reference No. 86 of 1984 by the learned Joint District Judge at Nasik thereby enhanced the compensation for the appellant's land acquired from Rs. 6,500/- per hectare to Rs. 15,000/- per hectare. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under : On or about 30-1-1983 the State Government issued the notification under Section 4 for acquisition of land for requirement of Sinnar Taluka Industrial Area and the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short) was issued on 12-5-1983. Under the said notification land admeasuring 16H and 32R in Gat No. 922 of village Musalgaon was sought to be acquired from ownership of the appellants. The land acquisition officer passed his award on 7-6-1983 and fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 6,500/- per hectare for jirayat land and Rs. 200/- per hectare for Potkharaba land. The appellants not being satisfied by the said compensat...

Jashan Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. ITA No. 790/Mum/06 is an appeal by the assessee white ITA No.644/Mum/06 is an appeal by the revenue. Both these appeals are directed against the order dated 21/11/2005 of learned CIT (A)-IV, Mumbai relating to A.Y. 2002-03.2. First, we shall take up for consideration the appeal by the assessee. Ground No. 3, 4 & 5 raised by the assessee is with regard to computation of deduction Under Section 80HHC after reducing deduction Under Section 80IA of the Act in view of the provisions of Section 801A(9) of the Act.8. The Assessing Officer determined the amount of deduction allowable to the assessee Under Section 80HHC at Rs. 86,11,472/-. The assessee was also entitled to claim deduction Under Section 80IA of the Act and this was determined by the Assessing Officer at a sum of Rs. 32,03,747/-. While computing total income, the assessing Officer reduced from the figure of deduction allowable Under Section 80HHC as determined by him the deduction that was allowed to the assessee Under Se...

Lata @ Bhagyashree W/O Arunkumar Vs. Madhukar S/O Rajaram Ganjare (Die ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR302; 2008(6)BomCR445; (2008)110BOMLR2275

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Challenge in this second appeal is to Judgment rendered by learned Second Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Nanded, in an appeal (R.C.A. No. 132 of 2000) confirming Judgment and decree rendered by learned Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Nanded in a suit for partition and perpetual injunction (Spl.C.S. No. 375 of 1997). 2. Subject matter of the dispute is a residential house, (which will be referred hereinafter as 'the suit house') bearing C.T.S. No. 2931 as described in claim clause. The suit house is situated in Chikhalwadi area at Nanded. One Rajaram Ganjare owned the suit house. He died somewhere in 1991, leaving behind him a son, a daughter and a widow. Deceased defendant - Madhukar was his son, deceased plaintiff No. 2 -Subhadrabai was the widow and plaintiff No. 1 - Lata, who is appellant herein, is the only married daughter left by said Rajaram Ganjare. The plaintiff's marriage was performed somewhere in 1975-76. She resides with her husband at Mangrulpeer (Distr...

Sandip Industries Vs. Superpack, a Division of Bajaj Steel Industries ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR665; 2008(6)MhLj313

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. These are the appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act whereby a challenge is made to a common order passed by the Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3559/07 and 3563/07 dated 3.4.2008, that resulted into confirmation of the order passed by the Arbitrator whereby an application under Section 16(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Arbitration Act' for short) has been rejected by holding that there exists an arbitration Clause in the agreement and the matter need not be referred to the Civil Court for any such decision; the appointment of the Arbitrator is as per agreement and lastly, the Arbitrator has jurisdiction to decide the present dispute between the parties.1. The appellant, therefore, preferred Writ Petition No 3559/07. On identical circumstances, there is another Writ Petition No. 3563/07 filed by the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 213/08. As the issues involved are common and as the impugned judgment passed by t...

Nakubai Valu Dhokane since deceased through heirs and LR's Shakuntalab ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR1; 2008(6)MhLj105

S.S. Shinde, J.1. The present second appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the final judgment and order delivered by the Additional District Judge, Nashik in Civil Appeal No. 326 of 1995 who allowed the appeal of the respondent arising out of the judgment and order passed by the IXth Joint Civil Judge, Nasik dismissing the suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 900 of 1981 filed by the respondent.2. The present appellant is the original defendant and the respondent is the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 900 of 1981. For the sake of convenience, I am referring the parties as plaintiff and defendant.Factual Matrix3. The facts giving rise to this second appeal are as under:The original plaintiff filed a civil suit for specific performance of a contract dated 19th January, 1966. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property is an agriculture land of village Samangaon of Gat No. 177 admeasuring 1 Hectare 99 R. The suit land is owned by the defendant. The defendant agree...

Regency Hotels Private Limited Vs. Cherish Investments Private Limited ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR721; 2008(4)ARBLR301(Bom); 2008(5)BomCR49

Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. The challenge in these petitions is to the award of a sole arbitrator dated 18th May, 2006, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The third respondent is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with a total paid up share capital of Rs. 24.5 lacs divided into 24,500 equity shares each of Rs. 100/. At the material time the petitioners and the fourth and fifth respondents were the shareholders of the company with a share holding respectively of 45% and 10%. The company, it is stated, was entitled to ownership and development rights over land admeasuring 4036.4 square meters, bearing C.T.S. 230 and 231, situated at Sahar, Mumbai.2. On 28th April, 1996 an agreement for the sale and transfer of shares was entered into between the petitioners and the fourth and fifth respondents on one hand and the first respondent on the other, by which the former agreed to sell to the latter 12,250 equity shares of the company for a total conside...

Bholeshankar Awas Gruha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Vs. Omprakash ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR584; 2008(5)MhLj952

A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, learned Counsel for the respondents raised preliminary issue about the maintainability of the appeal and since the issue was contested, the following question of law is framed:Whether appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(r) against an order rejecting an application under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable additionally with the help of Section 104(1)(h) of the Code of Civil Procedure?3. Learned Counsel for the respondents argued that such appeal was maintainable prior to the coming into force of Bombay High Court Amendment effective from 5-9-1983 but after the said amendment specifically appeal against order under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure has been deleted and therefore appeal is not maintainable. Referring to Section 104(1)(h) of the Code of Civil Procedure, he argued that the same would also not appl...

Ramsing Sakharam Girase and ors. Vs. Kalusing @ Kaysing Jairam Bhil Na ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR665

Borde R.M., J.1. This petition is moved by non-trible transferee raising exception to the judgment and order passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Bombay in Revision Application No. 1/92 decided on 15-6-1992 thereby confirming the order passed by Tahsildar, Nandurbar on 10-1-1992 ordering restoration of possession of lands to respondents herein/trible transferor in view of provisions of Section 3 of Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Restoration Act).2. Some undisputed facts are thus:Agricultural land which is subject-matter of dispute bears gat No. 71/1 admeasuring 7 H and 88 R situate at village Bhayane Tq. Nandurbar, Dist. Dhule. The land originally belongs to respondents who belong to tribal community. Said land was sold in public auction held on 30-5-1969 for recovery of loan dues. Petitioner/non-trible transferee is the person who has purchased the property in public auction held on 30-5-1969 by offering highest bid ...