Mumbai Court August 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.
Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Bank of Maharashtra Karmachari Sangh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR534]; (2009)ILLJ579Bom
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioner Bank has taken exception to the Award dated December 7, 1995 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 in Reference (IDA) No. CGIT-2/31 of 1991. By this award, the Tribunal has allowed the reference and has held that the action of the petitioner Bank in promoting the juniors of C.B. Bahaddarpurkar (hereinafter referred to as the workman) is not justified. The petitioner bank has been directed to pay special allowance to the workman from August 1, 1984 to November, 1991 within two months from the date of the award. Costs of Rs. 300/- has also been awarded.2. A settlement was arrived at between the petitioner bank and the union representing the employees of the bank in various cases on July 8,1978. It was with respect to filling in the posts of Special Assistants. Clause 9 of the settlement provides that, the groupwise seniority list should be prepared of all candidates as on December 31, of each year. The settlement of 1978 was then r...
Uday Janardhan Kulkarni Vs. Geo-chem Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2008
Reported in: (2009)ILLJ869Bom
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Labour Court directing the parties to lead evidence on the preliminary issue as to whether the petitioner is a 'workman' as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court has observed that other issues would be considered, only if the preliminary issue is answered in favour of the petitioner. The learned advocate for the petitioner takes strong objection to the procedure adopted by the Labour Court and relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajiv B. Gundewar v. Crompton Greaves Ltd. 2000 III LLJ (Supp) 774 (Bom), as also on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration : (1983)IILLJ425SC . He draws my attention to the judgment of the Gujrath High Court in the case of Sarabhai M. Chemicals Ltd. v. Rajnikant V. Shah 2008 II CLR 472, and of this Court in the case of Bata India Ltd. v. K.S. Shinde in Writ Petition No. 4834 of 2008. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Amol Narendra Dalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-2008
Reported in: [2009]318ITR429(Bom)
S.J. Kathawalla, J.1. The above appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law.Whether the amount received by a cable operator for not competing with the purchaser in future is taxable?2. The relevant facts in the matter are briefly set out hereunder:(a) One Amol Narendra Dalai was carrying on his sole proprietary business of cable T.V. operations and was running cable T.V. network in Borivli (West) and in other areas of Mumbai suburbs since January, 1989, in the name of M/s. Home Video Services. The assessee sold/transferred his business as a going concern to M/s. Aasia Industrial Technologies Pvt. Ltd., a company of the Hinduja group, vide agreement dated November 25, 1994, for a consideration of Rs. 12,50,000 (first agreement). On the same day, i.e., on November 25, 1994, the assessee entered into another agreement with M/s. Aasia Industrial Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (the purchasers) whereunder the assessee agreed not to carry on any business or activity in future in ...
Shri Mohan S/O. Gopalrao Mate Vs. Principal Secretary, Urban Developme ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR41; 2009(1)BomCR275; (2008)110BOMLR2696
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule made returnable forthwith by the consent of Mr.C.V.Kale, Counsel for Petitioner, Mr.S.V.Akolkar, Adv. for Intervenor and Mrs.Dangre, Additional Government Pleader for Respondents. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is Ex-MLA and a social worker. The impugned Government Resolutions have adversely affected large number of Housing Schemes and it will also affect large number of individual flat owners in 3 several such Schemes. It is next to impossible to acquire land in the vicinity and to construct and hand over 5 % built up area in today's rate and sell it to Government nominees at Rs. 400/- per square feet of the built-up area, which is the Government pre-determined rate for Government quota flats. The instant petition aims at protecting large number of people, which includes buyers of the apartments, from the undue hardship that may ensue due to implementation of the impugned Govern...
Motilal Prabhulalji Vyas Vs. Jayantilal Tulsidas Thanawala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR765
Bhatia J.H., J.1. This Appeal is preferred by the original defendant against the judgment and Decree passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai, in Summary Suit No. 944 of 1992 in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.2. To state in brief, it is case of the plaintiff that on 25.1.1988, he had advanced an amount of Rs. 37,000/- to the defendant, had agreed to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 21% per annum. Accordingly, the defendant had executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. However, the defendant failed to make repayment of the amount, but he paid an amount of Rs. 5,000/- on 15.5.1989 and thereafter he issued two cheques of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 6,000/- on 3.3.1990 and 21.5.1990 respectively. Both these cheques were dishonoured and in respect of the same the plaintiff has taken action against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After adjustment of the said amount of Rs. 14,000/ -, the defendant was liable to pay balance amount of ...
In Re: Arbitral Award Dated 25th June, 2007 Passed by the Sole Arbitra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR775
Vazifdar S.J., J.1. The petitioners in both the petitions seek to set aside the award made by the sole arbitrator dated 25.6.2007. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 are brothers. The first respondent in the first petition is the petitioner in the second petition and the petitioner in the first petition is the first respondent in the second petition. Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in both the petitions are the same.As both the petitions challenge the same award on virtually the same grounds, I will dispose of both the petitions by this common order and judgment. I will however for convenience refer to the parties as they are arrayed in Arbitration Petition No. 364 of 2007.2. The petitioner, respondents and certain others carried on the profession of Chartered Accountants in partnership as per the terms and conditions contained in a Deed of Partnership dated 24th April, 2000. The Clauses in the partnership Deed relevant for the present petition are as under:2. Any partner shall be at liberty t...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. State of Maharashtra and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR220
Chandiwal K.U., J.1. The petitioner (M.C.G.M. for short) have chal, validity of the award dated 30th August 2001 invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to call and withdraw the award passed by the respondents 1, 2 and 3.2. The matter has chequered history of litigation and several agrelenged the legalityements between M.C.G.M. and the respondents 4 to 10 and 12 to 14. The present controversy can be condensed as the main grievance of the petitioner M.C.G.M. is to the S.L.A.O. (respondent No. 3) following procedure of Ready Reckoner for valuation and assessment of the land under acquisition instead of collecting sale instances.3. Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 contemplate powers to the local authority to appear and adduce the evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. However, no such local authority is entitled to demand a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.4. By virtue of agreement between the M.C.G.M. and Yas...
Ashok Sharma and Associates Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Sr. Divisional Comm ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR603
Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Advocate for the respondents waives service.2. The petitioners by the present petition seek to quash and set aside the decision of the respondent No. 1 rejecting the offer of the petitioners in response to the tender for sole/bulk rights for commercial publicity over the suburban section of Mumbai Division, as also the decision to forfeit the earnest money deposited by the petitioners and for further direction to accept the licence fees from the petitioners only in respect of the area which is actually available for marketing on pro rata basis with reference to the entire area which is the subject-matter of the tender. 3. In or about November, 2007 the respondent No. 1 invited bids for awarding sole/bulk rights for commercial publicity over the entire suburban section of Mumbai Division between Churchgate and Dahanu Road Stations. At that time various advertising sites at various stations were already the subjec...
Mukund Ramchandra Kolapkar Vs. Kisan Tryambak Gaikwad and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR709
Deshmukh S.B., J.1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dixit for appellant and learned Advocate Mr. Shinde who appears for the respondents.2. This Second Appeal is filed by the original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 129 of 2003. The parties, hereinafter, are referred to their status in Regular Civil Suit No. 129 of 2003. Plaintiffs Regular Civil Suit No. 129 of 2003 has been decreed by the trial Court and defendant, his servants, agents, or anybody claiming through him are permanently restrained from causing the obstructions to the peaceful possession of the suit property. This judgment and decree was passed by the trial Court on 5/4/2004. It was assailed by the defendant by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2004. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant vide its judgment and decree passed on 14/6/2005. It is this judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court is challenged by the defendant/appellant in this Second App...
Nandlal Vs. Principal Secretary, Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR254
Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard. By the present petition the petitioner is seeking to challenge the special report of the Legislative Privilege Committee dated 26-3-2008 and further to quash and set aside the sentence of simple imprisonment which was imposed upon the petitioner upon the recommendations of the Legislative Privilege Committee.2. On or about 7-3-2006 one of the Members of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, namely, Sri Janardan Chandurkar moved a privilege motion under Rule 273 of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Rules against the petitioner alleging that the order issued by the petitioner in his capacity as the Commissioner, State Election Commission amounted to breach of privilege of the Legislative Assembly. A show cause notice dated 27-3-2006 came to be issued to the petitioner to which the office of the petitioner, under the reply dated 26-6-2006, sought to explain that the order of the Commissioner dated 7-3-2006 did not amount to breach of privilege. A furthe...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »