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.
Sampatrao R. Arvelli and anr. Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ457
ORDERA.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of parties.2. In all these matters, a common Question of Law is agitated. Therefore, though the applicants are involved in various offences, the issue, in question, arising from orders of different Courts is one and the same. Hence, on hearing together, applications are decided by this common order.3. By impugned orders, the permission for Narco Analysis, Brain Mapping and other analogous tests has been granted. The said permission is under challenge.4. Reliance is placed on copy of proceedings of record of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Venkateswara Rao v. State of A.P. (Coram S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju, JJ.) dated 20th November, 2006, and copy of order dated 29th February, 2008 passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2429/07 (R.M. Savani v. State of Mah.) (Coram : Bilal Nazki & S.A. Bodbe, JJ.).5. Purpose of reliance is that a broader question as to whether in absence of c...
Anna Dhuraji Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR316; 2009(2)MhLj621
Karnik D.G., J.1. Heard.2. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 28-3-1990 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner conditionally granting application for extension of time fixed under his previous order under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short the Act).3. The respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra and respondent No. 3 is the Joint Charity Commissioner who are formal parties. Respondent No. 2 who is the contesting party is a Trust registered under the Act and is represented by its trustee.4. On 30-9-1980, the respondent No. 2 Trust made an application under Section 36(1)(a) of the Act for permission to sell three properties of the Trust namely, Survey No. 119 admeasuring 4 acres 14 gunthas, Survey No. 120 admeasuring 6 acres 30 gunthas and Survey No. 121 admeasuring 22 acres 9 gunthas situate at Somthana, Taluka Badnapur, district Jalna. By an order dated 15-2-1982, the...
icici Bank Ltd. Vs. Sundaram Multi Pap Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-2008
Reported in: [2010]153CompCas424(Bom)
S.A. Bobde, J.1. This is a petition for winding up of the respondent-company for alleged non-payment of a sum of Rs. 2,94,60,698 with further interest at the rate of 18 per cent, per annum.2. The petitioner-bank claims the aforesaid amount as due under a credit arrangement letter (CAL) and an internal swaps and derivative association master agreement dated October 18, 2007, together with its schedule collectively referred to as 'ISDA Agreement'. Apparently, the company entered into the aforesaid agreement with the petitioner with a view to protect itself from the losses arising out of adverse fluctuations in the rate of exchange in import export transactions. Broadly, the salient features of the two agreements are as follows:The company would enter into derivative transactions. If as a result it makes any gains, the petitioner-bank would credit the amount to their account. If there are losses, the petitioner would debit their account. The derivative limits were to be Rs. 15.2 million. ...
Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Through Its General Manager Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR848; 2009(236)ELT464(Bom)
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against order dated 12.06.2007 whereby, the order on petitioner's application for condonation of delay as was rejected by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, is maintained.3. The appellant, who has filed the appeal against the impugned order dated 29.11.2005 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Nagpur to the extent that it has been held that the appellant is liable to pay Additional Excise Duty (Goods of Special Importance) as there was no exemption available to the respondent from payment of the said AED. The appeal was filed under Section 35(B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (For short 'Act'). The relevant clauses are as under:35B Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal,-(1) -----(2) -----(3) Every appeal under this section shall be filed within three months from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communica...
Rajaram Kashinath Charoskar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ97
A.A. Kumbhakoni, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned APP waives service of the rule. By consent of parties, taken for final disposal at the admission stage itself, since very short issue is involved in the matter.2. This writ petition is received by this Court though the jail. The petitioner by this writ petition invokes the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for claiming set off, as contemplated by Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for the sake brevity). At present the petitioner is lodged in Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik.3. As the petition was received through jail, we requested Mr. Nitin Pradhan, the learned Counsel who was present in the Court to assist as amicus. As usual, he readily accepted our invitation and has rendered his valuable assistance to us for which we hereby record our deep appreciation. We have also heard the learned APP for the State.4. Undisputed fa...
Prakash S/O Timaji Dhanjode Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Bom)249; [2009]312ITR40(Bom)
Anoop V. Mohta, J.We are disposing of these two matters as both relate to the same parties and involving the same property in question.1. The facts are that an assessee Mr. Timaji Sakharam Dhanjode (the deceased/assessee) who died on 09.05.1991 owned agricultural lands at Mouja Dighori, Patwai Halka No. 34, which fell within 8 Kms. Range of the Municipal corporation limit. He sold the said lands in two lots. The particulars of such sale are as follows:(i) 2 acres of land were sold on 04.08.1982 for Rs. 40,000/-.(ii) 16.58 acres of land were sold on 31.08.1982 for Rs. 2,90,000/-.2. The Income Tax Officer, First Survey Circle issued a notice under Section 139(2) of the Income Tax Act (For short IT Act) calling upon the assessee to file his return of income. In response to the same, he filed his return of income declaring nil income. It was contended by him that the land in question was used for agricultural purposes and, therefore, outside the purview of the definition of the terms 'Capi...
Raju S/O Namdeo Pacharne Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Its Secr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR672; 2009(1)BomCR826
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was earlier appointed as Instructor by respondent No. 3 in the Industrial Training Institute named Sant Gadgebaba I.T.I. Pathardi, from 01-09-1990. It his further case that thereafter he was made permanent in the year 1996. The College closed down from the academic year 2001-2002. As a result of which the services of the petitioner were terminated by an order 19-07-2001.3. Respondent No. 3 Institution also runs Babuji Avhad Mahavidyalaya, at Ahmednagar. The said institution advertised for two posts, one post for Junior Clerk and another post of Library Attendant sometimes on 28-03-2007. Respondent No. 5 came to be selected to the post of Library Attendant and has been appointed.4. By the present petition, it is the contention of the petitioner that he ought to have been absorbed by respondent No. 3 in the post of Library Attendant as he was qualified. The qualification for appointment to the post of Li...
Shaikh Abdul Aziz YasIn (Since Deceased Through His Lrs. Rehanutullah ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR105; 2009(1)MhLj935
P.R. Borkar, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by original defendant No. 5 in suit bearing R.C.S. No. 3 of 1971 pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pathardi, who claimed to be tenant of lands Survey No. 143, 144/1 and 144/2 of village Pathardi. Since tenancy was claimed by the present petitioner, the matter was referred to the Tenancy Authority and this petition is challenging dismissal of revision application by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune by its order dated 19.03.1990 in Case No. MRT/AH/II/11/86(TNC.B.69/86).2. The original suit was for partition and separate possession. After reference of tenancy issue, the Tahsildar, Pathardi in Court reference No. 8 of 1975 by his order dated 30.04.1976 held that present petitioner was not tenant. Said finding was further confirmed by the Assistant Collector, Rahuri, Division Ahmednagar in Tenancy Appeal No. 13 of 1976.3. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued that the Maharashtra Revenue Tr...
Smt. Sunita Karbotkar, Vs. Shri Satish Rajaram Nachinolkar and His Wif ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2008
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR398
R.C. Chavan, J.1. This appeal takes exception to an order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji in Special Civil Suit No. 26/2007/B whereby the learned Civil Judge restrained the appellants/defendants from carrying out any construction in the suit property till further orders.2. The facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:There is no dispute that the respondents/plaintiffs are the owners of the property. The appellants claim to be the legal representatives of the person who claimed to be the mundkar of the suit property. It is not in dispute that the said person Arjun Karbotkar had been allowed by the plaintiffs to occupy one house as caretaker of the property which comprised of four houses. Arjun Karbotkar filed an application for registration as mundkar in respect of the property. The application was however, dismissed by the Mamlatdar (according to the learned Counsel for the appellants, in default). The appellants was sought to re-constru...
italab (Goa) Pvt. Ltd., a Duly Registered Private Limited Company Unde ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR335
R.C. Chavan, J.1. This appeal by an establishment is directed against an Order passed by the learned Judge, E.S.I. Court, South Goa, rejecting its application under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, (hereinafter referred to as the E.S.I. Act), for a declaration that provisions of E.S.I. Act do not apply to it.2. The facts which led to filing of this appeal are as under:On 07.03.1989, respondent directed appellant to submit particulars in prescribed format. On 28.03.1989, appellant informed respondent that provisions of E.S.I. Act did not apply to appellant-Company. Appellant supplied requisite information on 23.08.1989. Respondent informed appellant that it was covered under the E.S.I. Act 1948 w.e.f. 02.07.1977 in terms of Notification by Government of Goa under Section 1(5) of the Act. On 27.10.1989, the Corporation demanded contribution from July 1977 to September 1989 amounting to Rs. 4,49,148.00 with interest @ 6% per annum. In November 1989, appellant challenged th...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »