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.
Lalji S/O Bansanarayan Choubey Vs. Jiyalal Chavan and the State of Mah ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)MhLj565
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgement of acquittal rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), in Summary Criminal Case No. 1525/1997 whereby and whereunder respondent No. 1 - Jiyalal came to be acquitted of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant and the respondent No. 1 were acquainted with each other. So also, there is no dispute about the fact that the respondent No. 1 issued a cheque No. C532820 dated 16-01-1996 for Rs. 20,000/- drawn on the United Western Bank Limited, Aurangabad, in favour of the appellant/complainant. The cheque in question (Exh-26) was presented by the appellant to his Bank, namely, the Indian Overseas Bank, Aurangabad branch. The cheque was returned to him on 28-02-1996 with an endorsement 'funds not arranged for'. The cheque had bounced and as such, a demand notice was issued to the respondent No. 1 on 06-03-1996 by the appellant through...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Central -ii Vs. Shri. Omprakash K. JaIn ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-2009
Reported in: [2009]178TAXMAN179(Bom)
1. All these appeals are being disposed off by this common order.2. Income Tax Appeal (L) Nos .3494 of 2008 to 3500 of 2008 are in respect of one Sanjay S. Jain. In respect of this assessee, the Tribunal was pleased to reverse the judgment of CIT (A). The A.O. and CIT (A) had rejected the contention of the assessee that the statements recorded were under duress or coercion and as such, could not be accepted. The Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances was of the view that the addition was made only based on the admission of the assessee at the time of search which had been retracted and that the A.O. as well as CIT(A) had ignored the contention of the assessee that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was incorrect. It then went to observe that the assessee did actually furnish all particulars which had not examined by the A.O. The Tribunal further observed that the documentary evidence was produced by the assessee before the A.O. however, no attempt was made to verify t...
Pradeep Babubhai Chinai and anr. Vs. Sindhu Resettlement Corporation L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR450
Khanwilkar A.M., J.1. This Writ Petition takes exception to the judgement and Order dated 21st June, 1993 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay in Appeal No. 377/1992. The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court in turn confirmed the view taken by the trial Court vide judgement and order dated 24th November, 1992 below Interim Notice No. 369/1992 holding that the Court had no jurisdiction to try and entertain the subject suit in view of the fact that the suit premises are governed by the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as P.P. Act).2. The relevant facts to examine the question regarding jurisdiction of the Court are as follows. The Punjab National Bank, a Public Corporation, is the owner of the building in which the suit premises are situated on the second floor of the building known as PNB House. The first respondent is a tenant of the said Bank in respect of the premises on the second ...
Shantaram S/O Deochand Shinde and ors. Vs. Eknath S/O Deochand Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR20; 2009(111)BomLR728
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Jalgaon, in an appeal (RCA No. 382/1983) whereby and whereunder dismissal decree passed in suit (RCS No. 25/1976) came to be reversed. Original defendants are appellants and Respondent is original plaintiff. Original defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are wife and sons of defendant No. 1 - Shantaram. Original plaintiff - Eknath and defendant No. 1 Shantaram are real brothers inter se.2. Subject matter of the suit is an open space of 3 Ares area around a well situated in land bearing Gat No. 25, alongwith right to draw water from the well and use of an approach way (Dhav) to reach the well.3. There is no dispute about the fact that the well is situated in land Gat No. 25 owned by defendants Shantaram and others. There is also no dispute about the fact that land Gat No. 26 is owned by the plaintiff - Eknath and is situated on eastern side of the defendants' land Gat No. 25. There is no dispute...
Shri Narhar D. Sakhwalkar and ors. Vs. Shri Suresh Lahoti,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR28; 2009(2)MhLj755
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The Petitioners now L.Rs. of Original (deceased) Tenants have filed the present Writ Petition as both the Courts after considering the material and the evidence on record granted the decree of possession in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Landlords on the ground that the Petitioners / Tenants have created/ assigned interest/ tenancy in favour of Original Defendant / here Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the suit property.2. The case of the landlords-Respondents for possession of the premises on the ground of bonafide need and unauthorized permanent structure, was rejected. There is no further challenge made against other concurrent findings. The only challenge is made by Original Tenants/ now Legal heirs, with regard to the subletting. There is no challenge made even by the sub-tenants Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.3. In the present case, the Original Tenant (deceased) was doing business of Grocery and stationery shop in the suit premises. He was monthly tenant of the earlie...
Sau. Snehalata Raghunath Joshi Vs. Laxman Hari Mulik Deceased by His L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR284
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The Petitioner, landlord has challenged the reversal order dated 05/10/1990 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangli whereby, the lower Appellate Court allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondents/tenants and the decree for possession passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 117/1979 dated 25/07/1984 is set aside except the part of the money decree, that resulted into dismissal of the suit for possession, filed by the Petitioner.2. The suit premises - shop admeasuring 12 x 15 sq.fts. on the ground floor in a building situate in C.T.S. No. 736-A, B, C, known as Wadekar Building, Ganpati Peth, Sangli. It was leased out to the Original tenant Shri Mulik- Original Defendant No. 1 at Rs. 10/- per month, including electricity charges, education charges, for running tailoring business 'Mulik Tailoring shop'. He suffered from Leprosy and was unable to run his business. As Defendant No. 1 wanted to sublet the premises, the Petitioner gave public notice as well as individual n...
The Commissioner of Income Tax-3 Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: [2009]313ITR340(Bom); [2009]178TAXMAN135(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Admit on the following question:(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in holding that the Assessee Company had sufficient funds of its own for making the investments without using the interest bearing funds even though the Balance Sheet of the Assessee Company as at 31.03.1999 shows that the Assessee Company has no reserve or own funds for making the investments in the sister concern and therefore, borrowed funds have been utilized and interest on these borrowed funds are rightly disallowed by the Assessing Officer2. We may also mention that in Appeal Memo the Revenue had raised the following question:(B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that advances to sister concerns were for business purposes even though the Assessee Company is not in the business of investments and there is nothing on record to suggest that the advance...
In Re: Tata Realty and Infrastructure Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: [2009]149CompCas117(Bom); [2010]97SCL315(Bom)
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. I have today passed an order dispensing with the procedure under Section 101(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. This is in view of the averments made in the affidavit-in-support of the company petition and in a further affidavit dated December 19, 2008, inter alia, to the effect that the creditors of the company are of the value of about of Rs. 127 crores; creditors of an aggregate value of about 99.38 per cent, have given their consent and that subsequently the remaining creditors have been paid and/or have also given their consent.2. The company registrar has invited my attention to an order of a learned single judge of this Court dated December 19, 2008, in Company Petition No. 1067 of 2008 connected with Company Application No. 1680 of 2008 (India Value Fund Advisors P. Ltd., In re [2009] 149 Comp Cas 115), which is similar to the present application. The learned judge called for a certificate from qualified auditors/chartered accountants empanelled with the Registr...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and ors. Vs. Prakash Sridhar M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR288; 2009(2)MhLj228
Bobde S.A., J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties2. The petitioner - Municipal Corporation has challenged the Order of the Industrial Court setting aside the suspension of the respondent.3. While working as a Manager, the respondent failed to grant swimming tank reservation to (i) Handicapped Sports Association of India for 21 days in August 1993 and 21 days in September, 1993, and (ii) Lions Club of Midtown for 26 days in April, and May, 1994, thereby putting the petitioners to a loss of Rs. 47,250/-. In contemplation of an enquiry, the Commissioner apparently placed the respondent under suspension by an order bearing No. MGC/F/670 dated 17.5.1995. However, what was communicated to the respondent was not this order of the Municipal Commissioner but an order dated 22.5.1995 signed by the Dean of the Hospital where the respondent was working. This order signed by the Dean clearly stated that the respondent was suspended by the order of the Municipal Commissioner bearing No. MGC/F/6...
Kamal R. Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR496
Kumar Swatanter, C.J. 1. The petitioner is an actor and producer and has produced a film titled as 'Deshdrohi'. This picture was floated for release with effect from 14th November, 2008 while production of the film was completed in January 2008. The State of Maharashtra took a decision to suspend exhibition of this picture on and from 14th November, 2008 and passed an order dated 12th November, 2008. In this order it was stated that in the film North Indians have been referred to as 'Bhaiyyas' in a derogatory manner by the locals, several scenes denigrate North Indians and the overall view and the contents appear inflammatory. The Film Certificate Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 11th October, 2008 granted a 'U' Certificate to the film subject to certain dialogue modifications at five instances. All these changes have been made. The Principal Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra (Home Department) then proceeds to notice that the theme of the film and its impact remains unchang...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »