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.
Aryan Kamal Wadhwa Vs. Biharilal Wadha (Huf) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Bom80
ORDERRoshan Dalvi, J.1. This Suit has been filed by a minor through his next friend, his mother, against his legal guardian his father and other members of the HUF to which he belongs for partition of the HUF properties by metes and bounds and by delivery of the Plaintiffs share to him.2. The existence of the HUF, the coparceners of the HUF as well as the minor's position in the HUF as a coparcener are admitted. In fact the Court's attention is drawn to the other minor coparceners in the HUF, other than the coparceners shown in the Plaint. They are the two daughters of Defendant No. 4. The HUF, therefore, consists of the Plaintiff, his grand-father, Defendant No. 2, his father. Defendant No. 3, his uncle, Defendant No. 4 and his cousins who are not Defendants in the Suit, they, having been born in 1993 and 1996 and being yet unmarried, are female coparceners in the HUF.3. Defendant No. 2 acquired various properties and established the HUF. The properties are shown and assessed as HUF p...
Sau. Chandrakalabai W/O Giridharrao Khangar and Sau. Shankuntala W/O G ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR243; (2008)110BOMLR3305; 2008(6)MhLj376
A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By the present writ petition, petitioner has put to challenge order dated 25.4.2008, made by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati, confirming order dated 17.3.2008, made by the Additional Collector, Amravati, who held that the election of the petitioners to the posts of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch respectively was illegal and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were declared elected in the irrespective places. 3. The election to the post of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch of village panchayat Shingori was scheduled to be held on 3.12.2007 and the nomination forms were required to be submitted by respective candidates between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on that day. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submitted their respective nomination forms for the posts of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch at 11:15 a.m., while the petitioners submitted their nomination forms at 1:40 p.m. During scrutiny, objection was raised by respondent Nos. 4 an...
Ramprasad Chandulal Brahman by L.Rs. and ors. Vs. Syed HussaIn Syed No ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR886
Kingaonkar V.R., J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgement rendered by learned District Judge, Jalna, in an appeal (R.C.A. No. 75/1981), confirming decree rendered by learned Civil Judge (J.D.), in Suit (R.C.S. No. 67/1975).2. Deceased respondent No. 1 Syed Hussain was original plaintiff. Deceased appellant No. 1 was original defendant No. 1 and appellant No. 2 was original defendant No. 2, in the context of Suit (R.C.S. No. 67/ 1975). The Suit was for possession of agricultural fields bearing Gat No. 85, 86 and 87 which originally bore field Survey No. 41/2. The Suit was partly decreed to the extent of decree for recession of the contract of sale. The Suit was, however, dismissed to the extent of relief for recovery of possession. The first Appellate Court confirmed dismissal of the Suit for recovery of possession and also decree in respect of recession of the contract.3. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs case before the trial Court was that he is owner of the field which originally ...
Geeta Marine Services Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ910; 2009(2)MhLj410
ORDERAbhay S. Oka, J.1. I have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. With a view to appreciate the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case in brief.2. Criminal Writ Petition No. 331 of 2008 has been filed for challenging the order dated 27th December, 2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by which an application made by the petitioner under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) has been rejected. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent under Section 138 of the said Act. The application was made by the petitioner contending that in view of Sub-section (2) of Section 145 of the said Act, the 2nd respondent will have to appear before the Court and his examination-in-chief will have to be recorded with regard to the facts stated in the affidavit in lieu of exa...
Shri Shantilal Nagarwal, Ex. Mcelar Second Class Vs. Union of India (U ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR3069
R.C. Chavan, J.1. This petition is directed against Order dated 19.12.2002 by the Chief of Naval Staff upon a judicial review of trial of petitioner by Court martial whereby punishment of 'dismissal with disgrace' imposed upon the petitioner was reduced by the Chief of Naval Staff to dismissal simplicitor.2. Facts which are relevant for deciding this petition are as under:It is not in dispute that since joining the Indian Navy on 26th June 1978, the petitioner had an unblemished service record and received timely promotions. Since 16.02.1999, petitioner was posted at the Naval Air Squadron at Dabolim Airport, Goa. He was serving in April 2001 as the Master Chief in charge of Air Store/Naval Store. On 04.04.2001, requisition for a spare part of a Naval Aircraft was placed. Proper spare could be secured only on 06.04.2001.3. Petitioner was not on duty on 06.04.01. At 7.30 p.m., he received a message that he had to report immediately to Lt. Commander A. Muthu. On reaching the office of Lt...
Sultan KamruddIn Dharani Vs. the Union of India (Uoi),
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR3273; 2008(231)ELT217(Bom)
1. The Petitioner has invoked the power of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code of 1973") for challenging that part of the order dated 15th April 2006 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, by which the Petitioner was directed to deposit the passport with the Customs Department and by which the petitioner was directed not to leave India without : 2 :the permission of the Court in writing. The question which is raised for consideration in this Petition is whether a Court under the said Code of 1973 while granting bail in a bailable offence can impose a condition of surrender of passport and further condition that the accused shall not travel abroad without permission of the Court.2. The case of the Petitioner is that the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence arrested the Petitioner under section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bencomar Hotels (Goa) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2008
Reported in: (2009)222CTR(Bom)606
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. The appeal under Section 260A can be termed as Second Appeal as envisaged under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908.The appeal raises the following substantial question of law:(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (ITAT) was justified in allowing the benefit of carry forward losses and depreciation relating to earlier years, even though the running of hotel was handed over by the Court to the Court Receiver ?(B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that there was no mistake apparent on the record, where in fact, the Assessing Officer sought to rectify the said mistake based on the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT (A)], Belgaum on 29.10.1993, declining to grant benefit to the Assessee for the Assessment ...
Deccan Bottling and Distilling Industries Private Limited Through Its ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR862; (2008)110BOMLR3175; 2009(2)MhLj302; LC2008(3)286
ORDERNaresh H. Patil, J.1. This Appeal from Order was extensively heard at the admission stage. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the appeal is being disposed of finally.The appellant - defendant challenges the order dated 11-5-2007 passed by the District Judge-3 Aurangabad under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure below Exhibit 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1 of 2007, which reads thus:1. The application at Exhibit 5 is allowed. 2. The defendant itself through its proprietors, partners, servants, agents or through any other persons is restrained by way of temporary injunction from infringing the plaintiffs right in its artistic label at Annexure B by re-producing the same in material form or by printing, publishing or using the impugned trade mark label at Annexure C or by any such work, which is an imitation of plaintiffs artistic label at Annexure B.3. The defendant, its proprietors, partners and servants are temporary restrained by or...
Shri Badrinarayan Bansilal Somani Vs. Shri Vinodkumar K. Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR656; 2008(6)BomCR273; (2008)110BOMLR3284
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.5.2003 rendered by the learned Joint civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, in Special Civil Suit No. 347 of 1988 instituted by the respondent-plaintiff. The suit was for recovery of an amount of Rs. 12,64,000/-against the appellant-defendant along with interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum. By the impugned judgment, the defendant is directed to pay to the plaintiff Rs. 12 lacs together with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till realization of the entire amount and also directed to pay Rs. 20,931.50 towards interest for the period from 3.12.1997 to 23.8.1998, that is, the period prior to institution of the suit.2. Basic facts of the suit are not in dispute. As a matter of fact, Mr. Anturkar, learned Counsel for the appellant-defendant, submitted that he has instructions to confine challenge in the appeal only to the rate of interest, awarded by the trial Court ...
Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd., a Company Incorporated Under the Provisions of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR3151
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Heard Mr. Pochkhanawala, learned Senior Advocate for the applicants and Mr. V.B. Nadkarni, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents.2. The prayer in the present application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is to appoint an Arbitrator.3. The application presented on 18.4.2007 states that the respondent advertised by a public notice that it intends to invite bids for establishing a liquid storage and handling terminal. The parties interested were required to send their offers. The applicants approached and requested for supply of a Tender Form which was forwarded to it.4. The applicants filled up the tender document alongwith an undertaking that it was agreeable to comply with the terms and conditions in the tender document. The applicants rely upon Section 4(6) and Section 5(17) of the terms and conditions.5. By letter dated 12/01/1999 the respondent approved the tender/bid and allotted the land admeasuring 20,000 sq. mtrs. in the MPT ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »