Mumbai Court January 2009 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.
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Lahanu Manjit Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR441
Chandiwal K.U., J.1. Heard the Counsels. The judgment and Award dated 19-4-2005 in MACP No. 57/2001 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon is under challenge by the Insurance Company.2. The facts in case, which are broadly accepted are, on 17-11-2000 at around 6-00 am while deceased Dnyaneshwar aged 20 years was standing in front of hotel. A Truck No. HR-38-C 1871 insured with the appellant/insurance company came in high speed and turtled. In the said event, the deceased Dnyaneshwar was crushed and succumbed instantly.3. Deceased Dnyaneshwar was only son of claimant and a earning member, having monthly income of Rs. 3,500/-4. By the orders respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs. 3,15,000/- including no-fault liability amount, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 8-9-2001 till realisation of entire amount.5. The learned Counsel urged and even referred in memo of appeal that the Claimant No. 1 was 65 years and ...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Capital Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2009
Reported in: (2009)225CTR(Bom)275; [2009]181TAXMAN242(Bom)
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. By this order, we will dispose of the above referred 11 Notice of Motions taken out by the Commissioner of Income Tax , Mumbai for condonation of delay in filing Interest Tax Appeal No. 10/2007 and Income Tax Appeals being Income Tax Appeals (Lodging) Nos. 2807/2008, 9/2008, 3216/2008, 3215/2008, 3212/2008, 2913/2008, 3217/2008, 2880/2008, 2879/2008 and 2875/2008. In all these cases, the delay in filing the Appeals is between 411 days to 883 days.2. In Notices of Motion Nos. 3926/2008, 3928/2008, 3931/2008, 3932/2008, 3933/2008, 3936/2008 and 3937 of 2008, in support of the respective Notices of Motion, identical affidavits have been filed giving the alleged reasons for condonation of delay. Similarly, in Notices of Motion Nos. 4051/2008, 4054/2008 and 4056/2008, identical affidavits have been filed, of course they are somewhat different than the ones filed in the 7 cases referred to by us above. In Notice of Motion No. 3319/2008, where there is a delay of 815 d...
United Phosphorus Ltd., Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR973
R. Kingaonkar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Aurangabad on their application for discharge in Summary Criminal Case No. 3074/1998 and pray for quashing of the said Criminal proceedings.2. Indisputably, on 13.6.1997,the Insecticide Inspector - Mr. Vasant Vyapari, visited shop of the petitioners. The petitioners are dealing in business of manufacturing and selling of insecticides. The Insecticide Inspector collected samples of the insecticide called 'Phorate 10%' bearing batch No. S-486. He served a notice on the petitioners to the effect that the samples were drawn for the purpose of analysis in order to ascertain the quality of the same. The required procedure was followed and one of the sample was sent to the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Aurangabad. The laboratory gave report dated 13.6.1997 to the effect that the sample of insecticide was substandard and misbranded. A copy of the report was sent to the pe...
Paint Employees Union Vs. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. Formerly Known as ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR839; 2009BusLR248(Bom); [2009(121)FLR294]; (2009)IIILLJ543Bom; 2009(2)MhLj722
Ranjana Desai, J.1. The appellant is the original respondent and the respondent is the original petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1332 of 2007. The said writ petition was filed by the respondent challenging order dated 24/4/03 passed by the Commissioner of Labour, Maharashtra State insofar as it dealt with review of earlier order dated 27/3/03. It is necessary to begin with the facts of the case.2. The respondent is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 ('the respondent company' for convenience). It has various manufacturing units in different parts of the country. It had a manufacturing unit at Lower Parel. The appellant is a registered trade union and has been representing the employees of the Lower Parel unit of the respondent company since 1945. It is a recognized union under Chapter II of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ('MRTU & PULP Act' for short). For convenience, we shall refer to the appellant as 'the ...
Stirling Shipping, a Partnership Firm and Shri Jagdish Y. Chowgule, Pa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR507; 2009(4)MhLj448
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. This appeal is directed against judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Vasco-da-Gama in Special Civil Suit No. 38/2001/A. The appellant herein is the original defendant No. 1 in the said suit. Respondent herein instituted the said suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 15,00,000.00 which was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant by way of earnest money towards a sale consideration as the plaintiff and defendant agreed for transaction of sale of a barge and the plaintiff had agreed to purchase the same for Rs. 1,60,00,000.00. The defendant was the owner of a barge being M.V. Divya-1, bearing No. MH-H-657. The defendant agreed to sell the said barge to the plaintiff for the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,60,00,000.00. It was agreed that the plaintiff shall pay Rs. 15,00,000.00 towards earnest money to the defendant and balance of Rs. 1,45,00,000.00 was to be paid within a period of 70 days from the date of the agreement. It was agreed that plain...
Confraria De Ssmo Jesuse Nossa Confraria De Ssmo Jesus E Do Rosario Vs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR817
Majmudar P.B., J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 6th September, 2003, passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Panaji in Land Acquisition Case No. 193 of 1998.2. By the aforesaid Judgment the learned Judge has rejected the reference of the present appellant under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.3. Vide Notification dated 6-5-1993 published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act the Government decided to acquire certain lands for the purpose of development of playground at St. Cruz (Calapur) of Tiswadi Taluka. The total area acquired was 15,965 sq. meters which included the area of 14330 of land from various survey numbers belonging to the present appellant. By award dated 10-10-1996 the Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 30/- per sq. meters for the said acquired land. While awarding the said rate the Land Acquisition Officer found that the acquired land was tenanted agricultural land. A reference un...
Nagnath Jagannath Lomate and anr. Vs. Narsing Sambha More and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Bom133
ORDERR.M. Borde, J.1. Heard Shri B.A. Shinde, learned Counsel for petitioners and Shri B.R. Sontakke Patil, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6. Respondent No. 7 served.2. Rule, made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties.3. Petitioners are raising exception to the common order dated 2-1-2008, passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tuljapur, below Exhibit-100 in R.C.S. No. 79/2002 and below Exhibit-92 in R.C.S. No. 81/2002, whereby amendment application to the written statement presented by original defendant No. 6-Respondent No. 6 herein, raising counter claim, has been allowed.4. Petitioners are husband and wife inter se. Petitioner No. 1, who is original plaintiff in R.C.S. No. 81/2002, whereas petitioner No. 2, who is plaintiff in R.C.S. No. 79/2002, have presented suits claiming decree of perpetual injunction against defendants-Respondents herein. It is the contention of plaintiffs in both the suits that they have purchased agricultural property f...
Subhash Narasappa Mangrule, Partnership Firm, Vs. Sidramappa Jagdevapp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR301
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard finally by consent.2. The Petitioners have challenged two interlocutory orders below Exhibit Nos. 15 and 24 in Regular Darkhast No. 17 of 2006 pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Akkalkot, District Solapur.3. The facts of the case are as under:On 22/06/2001, the Respondent filed a Criminal Complaint being S.C.C. No. 923 of 2001 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akkalkot v. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.It has been alleged that the Petitioners, engaged in the garment business allegedly borrowed money to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the Respondent/Complainant.3. On 15/05/2001, Petitioner No. 2 being a partner issued a cheque No. 923237 dated 28/04/2001 of Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of Respondent.4. On presentation of the said cheque, it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and returned to the Respondent on 10/05/2001.5. On 25/06/2001, the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority issued a letter to the member Secretary...
Udaysingh Ramsingh Pawar Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the Supe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR937
S.S. Shinde, J.1. The present application is filed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 15.9.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chalisgaon in Regular Criminal Case No. 227/1998.2. It is the case of the applicant that he is Chairman of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Chalisgaon. An employee named Shri.Ananda Shenpadu Sonwane was dismissed from the services for absence from the duties and certain misconduct. The said employee approached to the Labour Court, but he was not granted any relief. He had also filed a complaint under the Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) but that was subsequently dismissed by the learned Special Court, Jalgaon.3. It is the case of the applicant that thereafter, the mother and wife of Shri. Ananda Shepadu Sonwane alongwith one Mr. Namdeo Jadhav met the applicant in his house and requested to reconsider his case sympat...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Zenith Steel Pipes and Industries L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-2009
Reported in: [2009]315ITR95(Bom)
R.S. Mohite, J.1. By this reference, the following questions of law have been referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act.1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in not allowing the assessee's claim for weighted deduction under Section 35B of the I.T.Act, on the expenditure headed 'advertisement and publicity in newspapers and magazines in India? This question has been raised in respect of three assessment years viz. 1976-77, 1978-79 and 1979-80.2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case fees paid for certificates or origin and legalisation of export documents and stamp fees were not allowable under weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Act? This question has been referred in respect of the assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80.3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »