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.
Sunil Bhiku Yadav and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4262
V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. The appellants-original accused have challenged the judgment and order dated 6-12-1991 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 66 of 1989. By the said judgment and order, the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 498-A r.w. Section 34 and 304-B r.w. Section 34 of IPC. For the offence under Section 498-A r.w. Section 34 of IPC, the appellants were sentenced to SI for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- each i/d SI for three months. For the offence under Section 304-B r.w. Section 34 of IPC, the appellants were sentenced to RI for seven years. However, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the appellants of the offence under Section 306 r.w. Section 34 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge directed that both the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.2. The appellant No. 1 is the husband of deceased Neeta. Appellant No. 2 is mother of appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 3 is married s...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Smt. Kausalayabai Ramnath Dayama
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4259
V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. The applicant-State of Maharashtra has challenged the judgment and order dated 19.11.1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 290 of 1991. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent - orig. accused under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under:On 18.11.1986 the marriage of Kalpana (deceased) took place with Umakant who is the son of the accused. After the marriage, Umakant took his wife Kalpana to Kolhapur where he was working. They resided at Kolhapur for about one and half year then Umakant left his job at Kolhapur and came to Shirur along with Kalpana and started residing jointly with his parents and brothers. It is the prosecution case that after Umakant and his wife Kalpana came to reside at Shirur the accused started ill-treating Kalpana. According to the prosecution, the accused used to pick up quarrel with Kalpana and due to these ...
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Vs. Miriam J. Batliwala and Shamim Botawa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR481; 2009(111)BomLR565; 2009(2)MhLj776
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order, whereby the lower Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal filed by the petitioner and maintained the judgment and decree for possession passed by the Small Causes Court at Bombay and thereby the petitioners/defendants are ordered to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises and also ordered enquiry into mesne profits under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).2. The facts as stated are as under: . By an Indenture of Lease dated 14th December, 1954, the predecessor-in-title of the respondents-original plaintiffs granted property being plot land admeasuring 470 sq.yards equivalent to 4230 sq.ft. approximately bearing Cadestral No. 1/2 of Tardeo Division, Sleater Road, now known as Noushedji Bharucha Marg, Grant Road, Mumbai 400 007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises') on lease for a period of 20 years to the original lessee, M/s.Burmah Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Compan...
Shri Rohit Sidramappa Abdulpurkar Vs. the Laxmi Vishnu Textiles Mills ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Bom56; 2009(1)BomCR485
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.10.2003 on Exhibit '22' in Regular Civil Suit No. 156/1999, whereby Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Solapur has stayed the suit on application filed by the defendant by invoking the provisions of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Amendment Act, 1985, by holding that the suit for recovery of money is not tenable as the suit was for recovery of rent/money against the Sick Company without obtaining prior permission.2. The facts are as under:The petitioner is the owner of suit premises viz. Municipal House No. 192 admeasuring about 50'x30' situate in Neela Nagar Solapur.3. In 1957, the respondent company took it on lease for the purposes of storing finished goods and raw material. Since 1992, respondent-company is closed.4. On 9.9./1996 the petitioner terminated tenancy on the ground of non-user and subletting to the respondent No. 3. Notice was not replied by respondents 1 and 2. On 8....
B.K. Sharma (Since Deceased Through Lrs Ashok S/O Baldeokrishna Sharma ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(2)BomCR25; 2009(111)BomLR559; 2009(2)MhLj467
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Heard Shri Purohit, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri Patil, learned Counsel holding for Shri Sambre, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. By this Second Appeal, the original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 439 of 1983 is challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees delivered by the Courts below directing his eviction from suit premises. The judgments delivered are common judgments in two suits and two appeals. Regular Civil Suit No. 350 of 1983 was filed by present appellant against the respondent for specific performance of contract. The present respondent (defendant No. 2) in that suit filed Regular Civil Suit No. 439 of 1983 for possession along with other incidental reliefs. The suit filed by present appellant for specific performance was dismissed with costs while suit filed by the respondent was decreed and the appellant was directed to handover vacant possession. Against this judgment dated 3.5.1985 delivered by 23rd Joint Civil Judge...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Beirsdorf (India) Ltd. and the Inco ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR865; [2009]183TAXMAN178(Bom)
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 19.10.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (ITAT) Panaji Bench, in Income Tax Appeal No. 904/PN/92 in connection with the Assessment year 1989-90. By the impugned order, the ITAT dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). This appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law :(A) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in deleting the additions in respect of Sales Tax refund to the extent of Rs. 9,00,813/- ?(B) Whether the findings of the ITAT that Sales Tax refund should not be assessed as income till the litigation reaches finality is contrary to the provisions of Section 43B of the IT Act 1961, since now deduction is based on actual payment basis and even if the Hon'ble Supreme Court gives decision against the assessee, the deduction would be admissible on ac...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Sou. Anjana Raghunath Mohite
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ4258
V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. The appellant-State of Maharashtra has preferred this appeal for enhancement of sentence awarded to the respondent-original accused No. 2 by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 35 of 1991.2. By judgment and order dated 19.10.1991 the learned Sessions Judge, Kolhapur convicted the respondent under Section 315 r.w. 34 of IPC. However, considering the facts that she is a lady, she was very young, she was handicapped and the other facts of the case, the learned Sessions Judge directed that she be released on executing a bond in the sum of Rs. 1000/- for a period of one year with one surety from Kolhapur District in the like sum, she should keep peace and be of good behaviour during this period. According to the State, sentence of imprisonment ought to have been imposed on the respondent, hence, the State has preferred this appeal for enhancement of sentence.3. It may be stated here at this stage that respondent had not challenged ...
Western Coalfields Ltd. Through the Chief General Manager Vs. the Stat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR414; 2009(111)BomLR502
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Common question involved in all these Writ Petitions is, .whether State Government can levy and demand any sum as amount of nonagricultural assessment from Petitioners WCL.... Petitioner- Company is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with its Head Office at Nagpur and it is Central Government Undertaking in public sector as also the Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of Companies Act. It is having coal mines in western part of the nation including State of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. Prayers in all Writ Petitions filed by it are to declare that orders assessing non-agricultural tax and demand notices issued consequentially are illegal. There is also similar prayer in relation to Zilla Parishad cess and Gram Panchayats cess with direction to Respondents to refund the amount already recovered from it on that account.2. In W. P. 1161/2007 challenge is to assessment orders dated 3/3/2005 and 4/3/2005 and consequential demand notices da...
Abdul Kadar @ Babbu S/O Ismail Vs. Masjid Juma Darwaja a Registered Pu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR498; 2009(111)BomLR552; 2009(2)MhLj454
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioners . tenants challenge the judgment and decree dated 27.8.2008 delivered by District Judge . 9, Nagpur, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 170 of 2007, dismissing the same. The present respondent . Wakq filed Civil Suit No. 601 of 2004 in December 2004 for recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profit and for possession under Sections 15 and 16(d)(i) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, before Second Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur, and the same came to be decreed on 27.2.2007.2. Considering the nature of controversy, I have heard Shri P.A. Markandeywar with Shri P.M. Shrawane, learned Counsel for the petitioners . tenants and Shri Athar, learned Counsel for the respondent.3. Shri Markandeywar, learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged that the suit ought to have been filed by all Trustees in view of provisions of Sections 46, 47 and 48 of the Indian Trust Act....
The Managing Director, (Goa Constructions Housing and Finance Corporat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-2009
Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR486
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Since common point is involved in both these petitions, both are taken up for hearing together. The question which is to be considered in this Writ Petition is as to whether the public exchequer should be allowed to suffer in the matter of giving advertisement wherein activity of a particular individual is highlighted. In the present case, the advertisement was given on the occasion of the birthday or marriage anniversary of a particular person at the costs of public exchequer. On 25/04/2001 and 2/12/2005, the Division Bench of this Court took cognizance regarding local newspaper reports that is the Navhind Times. The said newspaper had published a quarter page public advertisement released by Board of Directors, Management and the staff of Goa Constructions Housing & Finance Corporation Ltd. which is a Government of Goa undertaking, wishing happy birthday and wedding anniversary to the Chairman. The Court took cognizance of the said advertisement as the Court was o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »