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.
Small Gauges Ltd. and ors. Vs. V.P. Ramaiah, Regional Provident Fund C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR112; 2009(1)BomCR100; [2008(119)FLR605]; (2009)ILLJ485Bom; 2009(1)MhLj188
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The order challenged in this petition is dated 24.4.1995 and has been passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Pune. It has been held that there is functional integrality between the petitioners and therefore, all the units must be clubbed together in order to ascertain the liability of payment of provident fund. It has been found that all the petitioners are liable to contribute to the Provident Fund Scheme framed under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 w.e.f. 31.3.1982. An amount of Rs. 2,23,536.40 has been claimed from the three petitioners as dues payable for the months of April 1982 to February 1995.2. The petitioners have challenged this order primarily on the five grounds: (i) that the claim for Provident Fund contributions has been made belatedly; (ii) that there was no functional integrality between the three petitioners; (iii) that the documents on which reliance is placed by the Department in the enquiry condu...
Janglu Pandurang Mali Vs. Shahaji Narayanrao Mali and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR166; 2009(2)MhLj578
Karnik D.G., J.1. These two appeals relate to the same piece of land bearing Gut No. 99, admeasuring 1 Hector 94 R of village Chilwadi, Taluka and Dist. Osmanabad. Appellant and respondents in both the appeals are also the same persons. Hence, both these appeals are decided by this common judgment.2. The facts giving rise to the appeals are common and briefly stated below.The appellant is the owner of the suit land bearing Block No. 99 of village Chilwadi, Taluka and Dist. Osmanabad. By an agreement of sale dated 2nd August, 1976 the appellant agreed to sell to the respondents the suit land for a consideration of Rs. 6,000/- by accepting earnest amount of Rs. 5,000/-. The sale was to be executed after the permission under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (for short, the Act' 'Consolidation Act') was obtained. According to the respondents in pursuance of the said agreement of sale the appellant also handed over possession of the suit land to...
New Standard Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Steel Authority of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR112
Vazifdar S.J., J.1. The suit is filed to recover a sum of Rs. 44,65,613.61 together with interest on Rs. 36,99,287.87 at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of the suit till payment. The claim falls under two categories. Rs. 7,30,795.27 is claimed as being the balance price of the goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant under an agreement. Rs. 29,68,467.60 is claimed towards the escalation in price, also as per the suit agreement.2. M/s. Bokaro Steel Limited (BSL), under the Public Sector Iron & Steel Companies (Restructuring) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1978 and in particular, Section 4 thereof, stood dissolved and its undertaking stood transferred to and vested in the defendant. Section 23 of this Act provided that all contracts, deeds, bonds and other instruments of whatsoever nature, to which BSL was a party subsisting or having effect immediately before 1.5.1978, shall from that day be of full force and effect against or in favour of the defendant and ...
Shankargir Khemgir Gosavi and Pratapgir Keshavgir Gosavi Vs. Babu Chim ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR288; 2009(2)BomCR211
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. All these three appeals may be disposed off by the common judgment as they arise out of the common judgment delivered by 6th Additional District & Assistant Sessions Judge, Nashik in a group of five appeal against the decree for recovery of possession passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Pimpalgaon Baswant in a group of five suits.2. To state in brief, these appeals are filed by the original plaintiffs, who had filed five regular civil suits being civil suit Nos. 149, 150, 151, 152 and 153 of 1978 for possession of suit sites, which are parts of survey No. 437/A situated at Kasbe-Pimpalgaon Baswant in Taluka: Niphad, District: Nashik. The representative Suits were filed by the present appellants for and on behalf of Gosavi community of Pimpalgaon Baswant. According to them, there is a Devsthan, Math and Samadhi of Gosavi Community of Pimpalgaon Baswant on the land survey No. 437/A. Survey No. 437/A-1 is a part of same survey No. 437A. Devsthan, Math and Samadhi ...
Sicom Ltd. Vs. Parca Paper Industries Limited and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR7; 2008(5)BomCR524; (2008)110BOMLR2849; 2009(1)MhLj921
Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The Petitioner granted a loan of Rs. 4.37 crores to Respondent No. 1. Respondent Nos.2 to 7 guaranteed the repayment of the said loan under deeds of personal guarantee and corporate guarantees executed by them ExhibitsA to E, to the Petition. The Petitioner sought to enforce the guarantees. Since there were defaults in the repayment of loan, the Petitioner got the properties of Respondent No. 1 mortgaged to the Petitioner, sold for recovering the loan amount under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (SFCA).2. The Petitioner had ceded its first charge from the mortgaged property on Paripassu basis in favour of the Maharashtra State Financial Corporation, who had also granted another loan to Respondent No. 1.3. The Petitioner invoked the Deeds of guarantee executed by Respondents 2 to 7 by their notice dated 14th September, 2000, ExhibitE, to the Petition, calling upon the Respondents 2 to 7 to pay the Petitioner Rs. 7,44,06,464/. The Respondents fa...
Francis Castellino and Essar Shipping Limited Vs. R.C. Coastal Exports ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR120; 2008(5)BomCR519; (2008)110BOMLR2863
Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The Claimant obtained an Award against the Respondent. The Claimant has sought to execute the Award under its Execution Application dated 22.6.2006. The Claimant got the office premises and the movables along with the right, title and interest of the Respondent in the goodwill of the business together with the tenancy rights therein attached under Order 21 Rules 43 and 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The office premises is situate at Plot No. 606, Garden Resort, SionTrombay Road, Mumbai 400 017. The Applicant has taken out this Chamber Summons for raising the attachment.2. It is the case of the Applicant that he is the sole owner of the suit premises. He has created a tenancy right in one Garden Resort. That is a proprietary Concern of which he is the sole proprietor. He contends that, at the request of his son Agnello Castellino, who was a Director of the Respondent Company, he had given the Respondent Company a table space in his office premises in 1997. He furt...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Nestle India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2008
Reported in: 2009(234)ELT623(Bom)
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The application was moved by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Goa, on the basis of the observations made on 29.06.2001 in an Order of the Division Bench of this Court. The Order of the Division Bench directs that under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Appellate Tribunal should refer to the High Court the question of law as referred in Para 8 of the Order.2. In pursuance of the direction of this Court, the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for opinion of this Court:1. Whether the Show cause notice issued under Rule 57U of the Central Excise Rules 1944, requires to state any ground on which the denial of credit is founded ?2. Whether from the Show Cause Notice issued under Rule 57U of the Central Excise Rules 1944, read with the reply filed by the assessee on 23.8.95 could it be said that the Assistant Commissioner had travelled beyond the allegations in the said Show Cause Notice ?3. Whether the Show Cause Not...
Mrs. Angela D' Sa Vs. the Deputy Director of Panchayats,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR324
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Rule. Mr. Shirodkar waives service for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The presence of respondent No. 3 Panchayat is not necessary for this petition. Hence, service on respondent No. 3 is dispensed with. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.2. The petitioner appeared before the B.D.O. complaining that the subject Panchayat i.e. the Village Panchayat of Maina Curtorim, Salcete, Goa is not acting upon his complaint made with regard to a structure which was earmarked for residence, but subsequently put to use as a temple. The petitioner complained that such use causes nuisance as more particularly elaborated in his complaint.3. His grievance is that the Village Panchayat did not take any action. Aggrieved by such inaction, he preferred an appeal, being Appeal No. BDO/09/2006 which was placed before B.D.O. Salcete, Margao, Goa. By an order passed by him on 22.6.2006, he held that the appeal is incompetent and he has no jurisdiction in the matter.4. Aggrieved by this ...
Bhagwat Nathu Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR328
Rebello F.I., J.Rule. Heard forthwith.1. Petitioner has approached this Court praying that the application made by the petitioner for rental compensation dated 29/1/2008 be decided by respondent No. 3, who represents the acquiring body.2. We may mention some facts from this petition and refer to some additional facts from the other petitions which are fixed today but in respect of which we propose to pass separate orders based on the Judgment to be pronounced in this petition.3. The State of Maharashtra has issued Government Resolutions for payment of rental compensation where possession was taken from land owners by private negotiations before the Notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The first such resolution is of 1/12/1972. Para (6) of the said resolution provides for payment of rental compensation. It sets out, the rental compensation would be paid for the period from the date on which possession of the land is taken over till the date on which fu...
Noorjahan Sayed and ors. Vs. Rama Gauri and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR844
Dalvi Roshan, J.1. The plaintiffs in the above Suit obtained an Ex parte decree on 14th October, 2003 for specific performance of their agreement dated 2nd February, 1995 with the defendants. The plaintiffs sought to execute the decree by issue of a warrant of possession. During the course of taking possession the respondent obstructed the execution of the decree. Hence, this Chamber Summons has been taken out under Order XXI, Rule 97 of the C.P.C.2. It is the case of the respondent that one Mr. & Mrs. Desai sold the suit premises to Uday Shetty on 16th September, 1996. Uday Shetty sold the property to Chandrakant Khanolkar 27th December, 1999. Chandrakant Khanolkar sold the property to the respondent/obstructionist on 7th August, 2003. The respondent has shown that he has paid the consideration, hence, he is put in possession on 6th August, 2003.3. The very first transfer by the defendant is after the filing of the suit and much after the transaction of the defendant with the plaintif...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »