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.
Shrikant S/O Uttamrao Bhutekar, Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through I ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR3360; 2009(2)MhLj673
F.I. Rebello, J. 1. The petitioners have filed present petition contending that they are the owners of the land admeasuring 1 H. 82 R. and 81 R. from Survey No. 117 situated at Osmanabad city. In terms of development plan for Osmanabad city, this land has been reserved for play ground. Respondent No. 3 is the Municipal Council for whom the land is reserved for development of play ground. By the present petition, the petitioners are praying that the land admeasuring 1 H. 82 R. and 81 R. from Survey No. 117 situated at Osmanabad city, be deleted from the revised development scheme of Osmanabad city, as notified in notification dated 20-04-1985 and that reservation insofar as the petitioners land is concerned be cancelled.It is the case of the petitioners that on several occasions they have brought to the notice of the respondents that the land which is reserved be used for the purpose for which it reserved and if the respondents are not in a position to acquire the land then to de-reserv...
Central Group and ors. Vs. Shri Narayan Gangaram Patil Through United ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR788; 2008(6)BomCR567; (2008)110BOMLR3354; [2008(119)FLR911]; (2009)ILLJ851Bom
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This intra court appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 9/6/2004 thereby rejecting Writ Petition No. 1041 of 2004. The writ petition was filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution so as to challenge the award dated 18/11/2002 passed by the Fourth Labour Court at Thane in Application (IDA) No. 208 of 1999 filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the I.D. Act).2. The respondent-workman had approached the Labour Court on or about 23/4/1999 by filing Application (IDA) No. 208 of 1999 and claimed the recovery of legal dues, namely, (a) overtime for the year 1990 to 1998, for four hours extra duty on every day, (b) 21 days leave pay for every year of service from 1990 to 1998 and (c) bonus at the rate of 8.33% for the period from 1990 to 1998. It appears around the same time the workman also filed Complaint (ULP) No. 231 of 1999 challenging the termination of service with effect from 25/2/199...
Hirabai Baburao Shidankar and Vitthal Baburao Shidankar Vs. Rayat Shik ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR350; (2008)110BOMLR3422
R.M. Borde, J.1. Heard Shri P.M. Shah, learned Senior Counsel holding for S/Shri S.P. Shah and D.B. Rode, advocates for petitioners, Shri R.N. Dhorde, learned Counsel for Respondents No. 1 & 2 and Mrs. B.R. Khekale, learned A.G.P. for Respondent No. 3.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties.2. Petitioners, who are tenants in respect of disputed lands, are praying for quashing and setting aside impugned order dated 15.11.1958, passed by District Deputy Collector, Parner Division, Ahmednagar, thereby granting exemption certificate in favour of Respondent No. 1-Trust, as contemplated by provisions of Section 88B(1)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (herein after referred to as Act of 1948).3. Respondent No. 1 is a public Trust registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. Respondent No. 1 is working in the field of education and runs many schools and colleges including one educational institution at Shri...
Kushal S/O Bapurao Pawar Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the Assi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR28; 2008(6)MhLj914
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Noticing difference of opinion on the construction of Section 73-C(3) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the learned Division Bench has placed this matter before the Honble the Chief Justice for reference to a larger Bench for consideration of the following questions.(1) Whether, Section 73-C of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, carves out restrictive right to vote for borrower or non-borrower members or all the members should have a right for electing all the seats of the managing committee ?(2) Whether, separate bye-law can validly be framed for creating restrictive right of voting ?2. Before we turn to the arguments, we may refer to the judgments based on which the learned Division Bench felt it necessary to refer the dispute for consideration by the Full Bench. The issue arose from construction of the provisions of Section 73-C(3) of the Act. The relevant sub-section reads as under:73-C (3) In th...
Equbalbegum W/O Sk. Ahmed and ors. Vs. Abdul Rahim Fateh Mohammad and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR804; 2009(1)BomCR612; 2009(2)MhLj547
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment rendered by learned Second Additional District Judge, Beed, in an appeal (RCA No. 415/1984) whereby and where under dismissal of decree in a Civil Suit (RCS No. 144/1979) came to be reversed.2. Appellants herein are original defendant Nos. 1 to 7 and 9 to 15. Respondent No. 1 Abdul Rahim is the original plaintiff. Respondent No. 2 Banobi is original defendant No. 16, deceased respondent No. 3 Vajirbi is original defendant No. 18, respondent No. 4 Fatemabi is original defendant No. 17 and respondent No. 5 Shaikh Bale is original defendant No. 19 in the context of suit bearing RCS No. 144/1979.3. The suit was for partition in respect of three house properties bearing M.C. Nos. 1422, 1425 and 1426, situated at Lohargalli, Beed and as described in the plaint. The following pedigree table is mostly uncontroverted, expect the controversy pertaining to branch inherited by Chandbi, through whom the plaintiff claims right of successi...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bo ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2008
Reported in: [2009]177TAXMAN9(Bom)
S.J. Kathawalla, J.1. The above appeal is filed by the Revenue impugning the order dated 24th August, 2001 passed by ITAT, Mumbai Bench in I.T.A. No. 2536/Mum/1999 filed by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 1995-96. 2. The above appeal was admitted by this Court on 11th August, 2004 on the following substantial question of law. 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in upsetting the order passed by the CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?'3. The relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal are set out hereunder. i) The assessee is engaged in the business of exporting garments as well as sales in the domestic market.ii) For the Assessment Year 1995-96 the assessee filed return of income on 30th November, 1995 declaring the total income at Rs. 3,51,020/- The return of income was processed under Section 143(1)(a) on 18th October, 1996. Notice under Section 143(2) was issued to the assessee on 7th August, 1996.iii)...
Damu S/O Ganu Mali, Vs. Ambadas S/O Lahanu Mali and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR834; 2008(6)BomCR257; 2009(2)MhLj616
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment rendered by learned Joint Judge, Aurangabad in Regular Civil Appeal No. 56/1981 whereby and whereunder partition decree, granted in suit (RCS No. 42/1976) came to be reversed and the suit was dismissed. 2. Appellants are the original plaintiffs. They represent branch of deceased Genu alias Ganu Mali. They claimed 1/3rd share in 4 agricultural fields. The said fields are:Sr. No. S. No. Admeasuring Called as a) 30 23 Acres 34 Gunthas 'Chahur' b) 31 03 Acres 26 Gunthas 'Lahana Chahur' c) 34 26 Acres 35 Gunthas 'Moti Padhra' d) 43 09 Acres 22 Gunthas 'Mala'All the four agricultural fields are situated at village Kaundar, under Paithan tahsil (Dist-Aurangabad). They are referred herein after as 'the suit fields'.3. There is no dispute about the fact that originally the suit fields were held by deceased Kamlaji. Said Kamlaji had 4 sons. The following pedigree table would clarify internal relations between the partiesKamlaji (Decea...
Canara Bank Vs. Metal and Metals Industries and Pankaj Rajkumar Sureka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR154
ORDERRoshan Dalvi, J.1. These Chamber Summonses are taken out by the family members of the judgment-debtor in the above Suit in which a decree has been passed on 9.1.1995 by the Delhi High Court. Pursuant to the decree, the movable and immovable properties being the residential flat of Defendant No. 4 and the articles contained therein have been attached. 2. The wife of Defendant No. 4 claims title to the residential flat. She has produced the initial document of the title-holder of the suit flat being the Articles of Agreement dated 26.5.1979 under which one Haribhai Estates Private Limited transferred the attached flat to one Bihariji Finance & Traders Ltd. The share certificate came to be transferred to the name of Bihariji Finance & Traders Ltd. in January 1988. 3. The Sale Deed under which the wife of Defendant No. 4 claims title is dated 24.8.1990. It is not by the said transferee, but of one Bihariji Ispat Udyog Limited in her favour. The title of the predecessor-in-title of the...
Antonio Sequeira Coutinho Pereira Vs. Prakash Fadte and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR815
Dharmadhikari S.C., J.1. This contempt petition is by the original petitioner in Writ Petition No. 393/00. Although, the Order passed by this Court directs that the writ petition and the contempt petition be heard together, both sides agreed that the hearing of the writ petition be deferred and the contempt petition be taken up for disposal. We have proceeded to hear the parties only on the issue of contempt as urged in the contempt petition. By consent, the writ petition is posted for hearing and final disposal after two weeks.2. In the contempt petition as well, both sides agreed before us that the issue of maintainability raised by respondent No. 2 be decided and an Order be made on the said preliminary objection raised by respondent No. 2. In the event, the Court holds that the contempt petition is maintainable, then the parties would address the Court on the issue of contempt.3. We have proceeded on the above agreed4. The contempt petition sets out that the petitioner had filed Wr...
Rama Nana Zinzurke Vs. Pralhad Damodhar Kulkarni and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR375
Borde R.M., J.1. This is an appeal by original defendant No. 2 raising exception to the judgment and decree passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Beed on 18-3-1989 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 116/80.2. Suit was instituted by plaintiff being Regular Civil Suit No. 105/75 claiming decree of possession in respect of agricultural land founded upon exercise of preferential right of purchase by him in respect of disputed property. According to plaintiff, he is entitled to exercise his right to purchase the property for consideration of Rs. 10,000/-which according to him is the real consideration amount offered by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1. It is the case of plaintiff that originally one Laxmibai Kulkarni was the owner of land survey No. 6/2 of Village Dhamangaon and had alienated the same in. favour of plaintiff and defendants jointly for consideration of Rs. 9,500/- on 29-10-1965. According to plaintiff, he is holding the property jointly with defendant No. 1. I...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »