Mumbai Court September 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.
Vijay K. Mehta and anr. Vs. Charu K. Mehta and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR366; 2009(1)BomCR179
Khanwilkar A.M., J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Counsel for the respondents waive notice for the concerned respondents. As short question is involved, petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent. During the course of hearing the Counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that he would fully support the argument of the petitioners and would pray for transposing respondent No. 2 as petitioner.3. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgement and order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Greater Mumbai Region, Mumbai dated 23rd July, 2008 below Exhibit-1 in Application No. 17 of 2007. The principal application being No. 17/06 has been filed by respondent No. 1 for initiating action under Section 41-D of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the named trustees including the petitioners. The Joint Charity Commi...
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs. State Bank of Patiala and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR726
Majmudar P.B., J.1. By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRAT') dated 11th January, 2008, in Appeal No. 108 of 2006, by which the DRAT has dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner by confirming the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Mumbai Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'), dated 2nd December, 2005, in Miscellaneous Application No. 36 of 2008, modifying the order passed on 30th March, 2005, in Original Application No. 335 of 2001.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a Banking Company and is registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent No. 1, State Bank of Patiala, is also a Banking Company which has advanced facilities to one Unikol Bottlers Limited (in liquidation) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'). Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, Industrial Development Bank of India and Industrial Finance Corporation of...
Ritz Private Ltd. Vs. Felix Furtado and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR391
Mhatre Nishita, J.1. The petition challenges the award of the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No. 202 of 1988 passed on 11.11.1996.2. The petitioner had employed respondent No. 1 as a telephone operator in its hotel since 1.7.1977. An application for leave was submitted by him on 6.10.1984. He requested that the leave be sanctioned for the period from 17.10.1984 to 15.11.1984. The leave was sanctioned immediately. However, he was informed the very next day, well before the leave period was to commence that the application made by him was disallowed and that the leave which had earlier been sanctioned had been revoked. A fresh application was made by the respondent No. 1 on 12.10.1984 contending that he was required to leave for his native place to visit his ailing grandmother. The period for which leave was sought was the same as the period in the earlier application. It appears that this second application for leave was answered by the petitioner on 16.10.1984, informing the responden...
Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ901; 2009(4)MhLj394
ORDERA.S. Oka, J.1. The submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the last date. The Petitioner-Bank by filing this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code of 1973') has challenged the order dated 14th March 2006 as well as order dated 28th December, 2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pandharpur.2. According to the case of the Petitioner, on an application made by the second Respondent, the Petitioner had granted loan in favour of the second Respondent for purchasing a two wheeler bearing registration No. MH13-AA-0174. According to the case of the Petitioner, the second Respondent executed an agreement dated 16th August, 2004 of loan-cum-hypothecation. A loan of Rs. 36,400/- was advanced by the Petitioner to the second Respondent. Apart from the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement, according to the Petitioner, the fi...
Sunderlal Laxman Mahyaanshi Vs. Appellate Authority Under the Payment ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-2008
Reported in: (2009)IILLJ367Bom
S.A. Bobde, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith.Ms Vasanti Kundar waives service for the respondents. Heard by consent.2. This petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority refusing to condone the delay of a period of about 30 days in filing the appeal.3. It is obvious from the application for condonation of delay and the order that the main reason advanced by the petitioner, viz., that he had given his papers to the advocate, but the advocate failed to prepare the appeal in time, has not been considered. The Appellate Authority has merely observed that there is no sufficient cause. The reason why the petitioner asked for condonation of delay and the Appellate Authority's views on the reason given by the petitioner ought to have been apparent from the order itself.4. Moreover, the Appellate Authority has committed a serious error in observing that the order of the Controlling Authority from which the appeal was filed was per incuriam and contrary to the judgment of the ...
Philips Fadrick D'souza and Ravindra @ Balu Pandurang Kambre Vs. the S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR3105; 2009CriLJ89
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Appellants were tried for the commission of offences under Section 364A read with Section 34, Section 385 read with Section 34, and Sections 387 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge, by a judgment dated 23rd February 2005 convicted the Appellants under Section 364A read with Section 34 and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/.The Appellants were convicted under Section 385 read with Section 34 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/. The Appellants have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 387 and 392 of the Penal Code.2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the victim, Tulshiram Gangaram Joshi, was conducting a Tea Stall at Aarey Road. It is alleged that on 3rd July 2000 at or about 4 p.m., a group of three or four persons entered the stall and after threatening Tulshiram with a Rampuri knife, abducted him in a taxi. Tulshiram was...
Ramrao S/O Satyanarayan Ramod Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR3084
B.R. Gavai, J.1. By way of present appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge Beed dated 19th August 2004 in Special Case No. 20/1999 thereby convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The accused is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13[1][d] r.w. 13[2] of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and sentenced to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is as under;Complainant Shaikh Nijam PW-2 had lodged a complaint with Anti Corruption Bureau Beed on 24th July 1998, stating therein that on 22nd July 1998 one complaint was lodged by...
Shri Mahendra D. JaIn Vs. the Income Tax Officer,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Bom)81
S.J. Kathawalla, J.1. In the present appeal, the appellant (assessee) has impugned before this Court the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated 27th July, 2000 pertaining to the Assessment Year 1992-93. The substantial question of law on which the appeal is admitted by this Court is as follows:Whether the deemed income under Section 69A can be set off against the loss due to the confiscation of the very same foreign marked gold bars on the basis of which addition is made.?2. The relevant facts arising in the present appeal are as under:i) Assessee is a goldsmith carrying on his business from room No. 7, 1st floor, Hendre Building, Sayani Road, Mumbai 400 025. The assessee possesses a certificate to carry on business as goldsmith issued under the Gold Control Act, 1968. Under the said certificate assessee is expressly prohibited from carrying on the business of buying and selling gold ornaments. The assessee, therefore, is admittedly in the business of making gold ornaments from t...
Nandkumar S/O B.H. Naidu and ors. Vs. Thanwardas S/O Hasanand Janyani ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)MhLj434
A.P. Lavande, J.1. Heard Mr. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Mr. N. Lalwani, Adv. holding for Adv. D.P. Lalwani, for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 states that he is unable to argue the matter since all the case papers have been taken from Mr. D.P. Lalwani and as such he has no instructions to make any submissions.2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 21-11-2000 passed by Additional Collector, Nagpur in R.C. Appeal No. 77/A-71(l)/99-2000 by which the appeal filed by the petitioners under Clause 21 of C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 ('the order' for short) and the order dated 11-12-1998 passed by the Rent Controller, Nagpur in Rev. Case No. 194/A-71(1 )/91-92 by which fair rent in respect of the suit premises was fixed @ Rs. 3/- per sq. ft.3. The petitioners are tenants of the respondents 1 to 4. The suit premises were let out to the petitioners in the year 1971 at the monthly rent of Rs. 175/-per month. Respondents 1 to ...
Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR149; 2008(6)MhLj463
1. This is a petition filed by third person against the order of public auction issued by Recovery Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, based upon a recovery certificate dated 8-4-2004 for attachment of the immovable property in respect of M/s Vidarbha Weavers Central Co-op. Society Ltd. i.e. respondent No. 3 herein. There is no dispute that these proceedings and order passed are arising out of the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act').2. The relevant Clause 29, Rule 18 of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 is as under-29. the order passed under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.3. In W.P. No. 812 of 2007, Ajabrao Choudhary v. The Principal, Kala Vanijya Mahavidyalaya and Ors. by order dated 27-8-2008 (since reported in : 2008(6)MhLj436 ), this Division Bench, while interpreting Clause (40) of Rule 18 in question has noted in para-4 as under-...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »