Mumbai Court August 2008 Judgments
Krishnaji Vaghu Thakur (Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs) Bhagir ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)MhLj683
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Decree passed by the Ilnd Additional District Judge, Raigad, Alibag dated 3rd January, 1994 in Civil Appeal No. 81 of 1989. By this Judgment, the Appellate Court allowed the Appeal preferred by the landlord and decreed the Suit for possession filed by the landlord on the ground that the petitioner/tenant had committed default within the meaning of Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').Present Petition raises limited controversy as to whether the conclusion reached by the Appellate Court on this aspect is appropriate. To appreciate the controversy, the reference can be made to the admitted facts. It is admitted position that suit notice was issued on 2nd October, 1985 demanding arrears of rent for the period between February, 1985 to September, 1985. It is asserted in the suit no...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. D.Y. Patil Educational Academy and Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Engin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR15; (2008)110BOMLR3006; 2009(1)MhLj192
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner No. 1 Academy prays that the Respondents in the Writ Petition be directed to include the name of Petitioner No. 2 Dr. D.Y. Patil College of Engineering in the list of eligible colleges for allotment of students for the academic year 2008-2009 for Engineering courses through Centralised Admission Process being monitored and implemented by the Director of Technical Education, Government of Maharashtra. As a necessary corollary to this relief, it is further prayed that Petitioner No. 2 college be permitted to give admissions to the students for an intake of 240 students for the present academic year in accordance with the letter of approval issued by the All India Council for Technical Education dated 31st July 2008.2. These reliefs are claimed on the premise that Petitioner No. 1 is an educational academy imparting education through its various institutions including Engineering college at...
Tag this Judgment!Cigeo Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. a Company Registered Under the Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Bom)362; 2008(6)MhLj608
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 24.02.1995 passed under Section 269UD(1) of the Income Tax Act (for short 'Act') and an order dated 24.02.1995 passed under Section 269UE of the Act by respondent No. 1, thereby ordered for preemptive purchase under Chapter XXC of the Act and further to deliver possession of property plot No. 19, sheet No. 20/A, ward No. 4, Abhyankar Road, Dhantoli, Nagpur-12.2. On 24.11.1994 an agreement of Development and sale of plot admeasuring 9708 sq. ft. entered between petitioner and respondent No. 3 for consideration of Rs. 40,00,000/-. Form No. 37-I was submitted by the petitioner and respondent No. 3 as per Rule 48-L of the Act. On 10.02.1995, notice under Section 269UD(1A) of the Act was issued to the petitioner and respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner and respondent No. 3 were asked to remain present for hearing on 21.02.1995. Notice dated 10.2.1995 was received by the petitioner at Nagpur. The petitioner submitted writt...
Tag this Judgment!Shaikh Maheboob S/O Sk. Moosa Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4729
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Challenge in this petition is to Judgment rendered by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 1990, whereby and whereunder conviction and sentence rendered by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed in S.C.C. No. 689/1989, for offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A), 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code alongwith Sections 116 and 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act (old) has been confirmed.2. Both the Courts below concurrently held the petitioner guilty for the above referred offences and sentenced him as shown below:_________________________________________________________Sr. Offence PunishmentNo. _________________________________________________________(i) For offence under- Sentence of six months RISection 279 of the IPC and fine of Rs. 1,000/-in default, R.I. for one month(ii) For offence under- Sentence of two years RISection 304(A) of the and fine of Rs. 2,500/-,IPC in default, R.I. for six months.(iii) For offence under- ...
Tag this Judgment!theor Developers Private Limited a Company Incorporated Under the Comp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR710; (2008)110BOMLR2873
V.M. Kanade, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging orders dated 21st June, 2006 and 26th July, 2006 passed by the Charity Commissioner in Application No. J-4/127/2005 and for a direction directing the respondent No. 1 to invite fresh bids upon such relaxed/modified terms and conditions as imposed by this Court. Brief facts in a nutshell are as under:2. The petitioner herein is carrying on business as a developer and builder. Respondent No. 1 is a public charitable trust registered under the provisions of Bombay Pualic Trusts Act and Respondent No. 2 also carries on business as builders and developers. By the impugned orders, respondent No. 4 Charitable Commissioner has sanctioned sale of respondent No. 1's lands in favour of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 3 is an Association of Residents of Durga Nagar Rahivasi Sangh which is a settlement or slum dwellers who have encroached upon the property belonging to respondent No. 1 trust.3. The trust is the owner of land bearing...
Tag this Judgment!National Organic Chemicals (Rcd) Limited and S.D. Ghate, General Manag ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR99; (2008)110BOMLR3019; [2008(119)FLR1037]; (2009)ILLJ835Bom; 2009(1)MhLj83
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. M/s National Organic Chemicals (RCD) Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') issued a show cause notice to Pandit Laduka Patil (hereinafter referred to as 'the employee') on 26th September 2005 stating the allegations of misconduct against him. To this, a reply was submitted. After considering the reply, the Company decided to hold a departmental enquiry against 'the employee' and consequently issued a charge sheet on 4th November 2005. The Enquiry Officer started the enquiry as per the Standing Orders of the Company. However, the employee moved an application before the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry in Marathi and also requested that the charge sheet and the Standing Order should be furnished to him in the same language. Upon such application, the Enquiry officer directed and explained to the employee that proceedings will be conducted in Marathi as per request, however, it will be recorded in English and it will be explained to him in Marat...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendraprasad Brijbhushan Choube Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR278
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. By this common judgment, we will dispose of these two public interest litigations. PIL (L) No. 84 of 2008 has been filed by one Rajendraprasad Brijbhushan Chaube, who states that he is Municipal Councillor of Ward No. 3, Mumbai, and also a member of Improvement and Law Committee of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. Being associated with the various organisations, the petitioner states that he is concerned with the protection and rehabilitation of residents and occupants of the area which is sought to be included in the forest and/or Sanjay Gandhi Rashtriya Udyan. It is claimed in the petition that the petitioner is filing the present Public Interest Litigation to protect about 5000 slum dwellers residing near Sanjay Gandhi Rashtriya Udyan and that they have been residing in their respective structures for quite some time and have made certain new structures. Public Interest Litigation being Writ Petition No. 305 of 1995 had been filed in this Court for re...
Tag this Judgment!National Plastics Industries Vs. the Income Tax Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2008
Reported in: [2009]309ITR191(Bom); [2009]177TAXMAN139(Bom)
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Aggrieved from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Assessee as well as Revenue Department had filed appeals being ITA 2000/M/1996 and ITA 2550/M/1996 in relation to the Assessment Year 19921993 respectively. Both these appeals were dismissed. The Assessee has questioned the correctness of the order impugned in the present appeal primarily on the ground that the Tribunal has erred in law in rejecting the book result of the appellant while invoking the provisions of Section 145 of the Income Tax Act and confirming the addition of Rs. 45,27,208/on account of alleged undisclosed gross profit. According to the Assessee, these questions of law arise for determination out of the finding of the Tribunal. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar and Orissa v. S.P. Jain : [1973]87ITR370(SC) that where the Appellate Tribunal had misunderstood the statutory language or has arrived at a finding on ...
Tag this Judgment!Nanavati Speciality Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Earlier Known as Nanavati Serv ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR802; (2008)110BOMLR2831
K.K. Tated, J.1. By this Writ Petition under Article 14, 19, 121, 226 and 200A of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are seeking orders, directions against the Respondents in view of the failure of duties and inaction on their part in fixing the revised lease rent and paying the revised lease rent to the Petitioners for the premises which are under the use, occupation, possession and enjoyment of the Respondents. It is the case of the Petitioners that they entered into a lease agreement which was valid for a period of 5 years from 1st May, 1991 to 30th April, 1996 with the Respondents. The said lease agreement provided for renewal of the lease period for a further period on the terms and conditions containing therein namely to submit the revision of the rent and request being made by the Respondents three months prior to the expiry of lease period. Accordingly on the request having been made by the Respondents for an extension of the lease for 5 years from 1st May, 1996 to 30th...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shruti Colorants Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR3251; 2008(133)ECC197; 2008(159)LC197(Bombay); 2009(233)ELT171(Bom); 2009[13]STR358
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. By this common order, we will dispose of the above seven Appeals preferred by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). All these Appeals are barred by time. The Appellant in all the present Appeals have taken out Notices of Motion for condonation of delay varying from 3 days to 79 days in filing the present Appeals. Thus, it is not necessary for us to deal in greater detail with the facts of each case and for the purposes of brevity, we would be referring to the facts of Central Excise Appeal (Lodging) No. 114 of 2008 to answer the question of law in the present Appeals.2. M/s Shruti Colorants Limited, the assessee, are carrying on the business of manufacture of Dye Intermediate falling under CSH 3204.19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The assessee was availing the facility of Cenvat Credit on inputs and capital goods used in or in relation to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »