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.
Mr. Mulla Abdul Karim Muzawar Through His Legal Representatives (Since ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2008
Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR3144
R.C. Chavan, J.1. This appeal by original plaintiff Nos. 2, 2(a),(d) and (e) is directed against the judgment of the learned IInd Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Panaji disposing of Regular Civil Appeal No. 112 of 2002. The appellants have taken exception to this judgment on various grounds and have formulated several substantial questions of law including question as to whether the judgment of the appellate Court satisfies the requirement laid down in Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari reported in : [2001]251ITR84(SC) and mandatory requirements of Order XLI, Rule 31 of C.P.C.2. Notice was issued to all respondents and all respondents have been served. However, only respondent No. 2, has appeared through Advocate Shri Chopdekar. Other respondents are not represented though duly served. I have heard both learned Counsel for the appellants and respondent No. 2.3. A second appeal is open only on a substantial questions of law. As observed by the Apex Court in Santosh Hazari v. Purusho...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mehta (P) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Bom)148
S.J. Kathawalla, J.1. The above appeal is filed by the appellant (Revenue) impugning the order dt. 14th Sept., 2000 passed by the Tribunal arising out of ITA No. 542/Mum/1997 for asst. yr. 1986-87. The substantial question of law on which the appeal is admitted by this Court is as follows:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) allowing the claim of the assessee for loss of Rs. 74,89,041 being guarantee written off, failing to appreciate that Saurashtra Cement & Chemical India Ltd. (SCCIL), Mehta (P) Ltd., Maharana Mills Ltd. and Agrima Project had common directors and were under the same management and the entire exercise was collusive and only to book losses?2. The relevant facts arising in the present appeal are as under:(i) M/s Agrima Projects Engineering & Consultancy Services Ltd. (Agrima) was 100 per cent subsidiary of the assessee company. By an order of this Court, Agrima was amalgamated wit...
Asit C Mehta Investment Intermediates Ltd. Vs. Central Depository Serv ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR835
Kumar Swatanter, C.J.1. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The applicant is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is carrying on the business of securities. The said company is also having the membership of National Stock Exchange, the Stock Exchange, Mumbai and Security Depository. The respondent Company - Central Depository Services (I) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to 'as CDSL') - again is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at Mumbai. In May 2005, the respondent company sent a copy of the complaint dated 30th April, 2004 of Vipin Abrol asking to provide copies of documents, etc. According to it, Vipin Abrol who was having family relations with Manish K. Sahgal and his family members had handed over various shares and signed documents, slips, etc. to Manish K. Sahgal for dealing on their behalf as his agent. He sol...
Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation Vs. Serofie Bernard Vaz
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR115; 2009(1)BomCR347
Chavan R.C., J.1. This appeal by the Employee's State Insurance Corporation is directed against Judgment of Employee's State Insurance Court, South Goa, in Employee's State Insurance Case No. 1-92, whereby the learned Judge set-aside appellant's order dated 14.2.92 under Section 45-A of the Employee's State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act').2. Facts which are relevant for deciding this appeal are as under. Respondent runs a Hotel & Bar which employed more than ten workers in 12 months period commencing from April 1990. Respondent was using power for a deep freezer and a bottle cooler to preserve raw materials and for cooling drinks.3. The learned Judge of Employee's State Insurance Court, relying on Judgment of this Court in (Ritz Hotel v. E.S.I.C. Pune) reported at 1995(1) C.I.R. 289 held that there was no nexus between preparation of food and the use of deep freezer/bottle cooler and that use of these gadgets on power is not for manufacturing or preparing food. He, ...
Gokulsing Jalamsing Patil and ors. Vs. Julalsingh Fattesing Patil and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR856; 2009(2)MhLj514
Deshmukh S.B., J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.2. This petition takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay dated 23.3.1990 in Tenancy Appeal No. A-143 of 1989.3. Petitioner Gokulsing was the opponent in Tenancy A-143 of 1989 decided by the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and in that proceeding present respondent No. 1 was the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 died and his legal heirs have been brought on record. Respondent No. 1 Julalsing had filed Tenancy Application No. 4 of 1988 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalgaon under Section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ('Act of 1948'). This Tenancy Application No. 4 of 1988 has been rejected by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalgaon by order dated 13.2.1989. At the outset, it has to be clarified that Julalsing had filed an application under Section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. In that app...
B.S. Hanchinal and ors. Vs. State of Goa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR258
Dharmadhikari S.C., J.1. Short question before us in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is whether the petitioners, who have put in 14 years of service before they were regularised w.e.f. 24.6.1997, that service has to be ignored or should be taken into consideration for granting them the benefit of the Time Bound Scale of pay envisaged by a scheme framed in that behalf.2. It is not in dispute before us that the Government of Goa had introduced a scheme and the same is entitled Revision of pay scale of school teachers. That scheme was initially formulated and introduced by the Central Government and it is undisputed before us that the Government of Goa adopted the same. The scheme states that revised pay scale will be admissible subject to compliance with the conditions stipulated in paragraph 3 of the scheme.3. Paragraph 3 of the scheme in so far as it is relevant for our purpose reads thus:3. The revised Pay Scales will be admissible subject to the followin...
Arihant Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manjula Vithaldas Kapadia and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR597
Khanwilkar A.M., J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Mr. Sawant waives notice for respondents. As short question is involved, petition is proceeded for final hearing by consent, forthwith.2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the Judgment and order passed by the Small Causes Court at Bombay dated 17th April, 2002 in Misc. Notice No. 65/2002 in Obstructionist Notice No. 12 of 2000 in R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 1329 and 4389 of 1981. The respondents-plaintiffs filed Suit for eviction against the tenant being R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 1329/4389 of 1981. The said suit was decreed in favour of the respondents. Consequent to decree becoming final, the respondents proceeded with execution there-after.3. During the execution of the said decree, obstruction was caused by third parties. As a result, the respondents took out Obstructionist Notice. During the pendency of the said Obstructionist Notice, the petition...
Anyaji Raghobaji Bundhade Vs. Vishweshwar Raghobaji Bundhade and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR820
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. The three matters arising between real brothers are to be decided together.2. Insofar as Second Appeal No. 89 of 2000 is concerned, respondent No. 1 Vishweshwar had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1578 of 1984 for permanent injunction seeking restraining orders against Maharashtra State Electricity Board from providing electric connection to present appellant Anyaji who according to plaintiff Vishweshwar (respondent No. 1 in the second appeal) was in illegal or unauthorised occupation of the suit premises. The suit was decreed on 4/12/ 1996 and regular civil appeal filed by present appellant was dismissed on 28/2/2000. Thereafter, this second appeal has been filed. During hearing it has been pointed out that now there is no provision which requires a person in occupation to get no objection of the owner of premises. It was also pointed out that appellant Anyaji has already secured the electric connection.3. In this circumstance it is apparent that grievance made b...
Vinay Poddar Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-2008
Reported in: 2009CriLJ896
A.S. Oka, J.1. The submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the last date. By this Criminal Application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Code'), the Applicant has taken an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 13th August 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.2. The Applicant before this Court has filed an application seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the said Code before the Sessions Court at Mumbai apprehending his arrest in connection with the F.I.R No. 103/2008. The said application for anticipatory bail is pending in the Sessions Court and interim protection has been granted in favour of the Applicant. The original Complainant at whose instance the F.I.R was registered, appeared before the Sessions Court through an Advocate. Miscellaneous Application No. 549/2008 was filed by the Applicant-accused. The prayer in the said application was for declara...
M. Arumugam S/O A. Muthusamy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR765; [2009(121)FLR1160]; 2008(6)MhLj415
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties.2. Both these petitions are directed against the judgment and order dated 22-10-2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby original application filed by respondent No. 6 in Writ Petition No. 259/2008 came to be allowed.3. We have considered the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties. The following facts are not in dispute:The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 259/2008 was appointed as Financial Adviser with respondent No. 2 vide order dated 12-9-1995 and his appointment was confirmed with effect from 13-10-1999. Vide order dated 22-9-2005, the petitioner was sent on deputation to respondent No. 5 Department for a period of three years with effect from 22-9-2005. The respondent No. 6 was sent on deputation to respondent No. 2 vide order dated 16-3-2006 for a period of three years. By order dated 30-11-2006, the respondent No. 5 repatriated the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »