Mumbai Court February 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.
Cotex Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR447; 2009(4)MhLj238
Oka A.S., J.1. I have heard detailed submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant. This is an application for grant of special leave to prefer an appeal under Sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant is the complainant in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1881'). By the impugned order the learned Magistrate has acquitted the second respondent (accused).2. It will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case in brief. According to the case of the applicant, the second respondent is the proprietor of M/s. M.M. Knits Wears. As per the orders placed by the second respondent, the applicant sold and delivered cloth material to the second respondent having total value of Rs. 14,77,717/-. Four cheques were issued by the second respondent for payment of the price of the goods sold. The said cheques were dishonoured and communication of dish...
Raghunath Baba Pathare and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-2009
Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR473
Chandiwal K.U., J.1. Heard the learned Counsel.2. The award passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar dated 30th June 1992 whereby the opponent were directed to pay an amount of Rs. 12950/-for acquisition of 43 R land from Gat No. 553 and 50 R land from Gat No. 626 is subject of challenge.3. The short point in the matter is that the learned Judge while awarding grant of compensation to the claimant held, based on 7/12 extract, that the land under acquisition was a dry land. However, it was pointed out during the course of argument that even the award of the SLAO throughout refers to existence of the well in the property which indicated that the lands were irrigated. On earlier date, at the request of learned A.G.P. matter was adjourned and under instructions from the concerned Officer, he confirms that the learned SLAO has considered the well and its compensation is awarded to the tune of Rs. 5870/-. However, it was the entry in the 7/12 extract which prompted the le...
Dipti Kumar Mohanty, (Proprietor - Monisha Agency) Vs. Videocon Indust ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3220
V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. By this common judgement, the writ petition and criminal revision applications noted above are being decided together in as much as questions of law and facts involved therein are of identical nature.2. A brief resume of background facts in the context of Writ Petition (Cri. W.P. No. 497/2008) may be stated. The petitioner and the respondent - M/s Videocon Industries Ltd. were having transactions. The petitioner is proprietor of M/s Monisha Agency. The respondent is a multinational Company. One of its branch office is at Bhubneshwar. The petitioner used to purchase goods from the respondent's branch at Bhubneshwar. The petitioner allegedly issued a cheque dated 05-06-2006 for Rs. 3,00,000/- (rupees three lacs) in favour of Videocon International Ltd. The cheque was drawn on UCO Bank. The cheque was presented by the respondent in State Bank of India, Ahmednagar for encashment. It was sent by the said Bank to the drawee Bank i.e. UCO Bank, branch at Tangi (Orissa) f...
Supreme Treves (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-2009
Reported in: [2009]182TAXMAN216(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. By consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.2. This petition is filed to challenge the notice dated 28-3-2008 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'). By the said notice the assessment for assessment year 2002-03 is sought to be reopened. As the reassessment order was passed on 30-12-2008 during the pendency of the present petition, the petition has been amended to challenge the order of reassessment.3. The facts relevant for the present petition are that the petitioner is a Company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of automobile insulation/trim components, floor covering of carpets, etc.4. For the assessment year 2002-03 the assessee had filed its return of income which was duly assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 24-1-2005, by allowing depreciation on goodwill as claimed by the assessee.5. By the impugned no...
A.R. Sulphonates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra Mathadi and General Kamgar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-2009
Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ401Bom
S.A. Bobde, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.2. The petitioner has challenged the Order of the Industrial Court, Thane, dated July 14, 2008 in Complaint (ULP) No. 146 of 2006, by which the learned Industrial Court has held that the issues raised by the petitioner vide Exhibit C-3 do not need any consideration and therefore the application is liable to be rejected.3. The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. In the complaint, the petitioner raised a preliminary objection as to the' maintainability of the complaint since the petitioner had denied the relationship of employer and employee with the complainant. This objection was raised vide a Exhibit C-3.4. The learned Judge however rejected the application on January 23, 2008. Against the rejection, the petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 3091 of 2008 decided on May 2, 2008. This Court specifically observed; that the petitioner has raised a preliminary obje...
Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-2009
Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Bom)160; [2010]320ITR658(Bom); [2009]182TAXMAN236(Bom)
Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. Admit on the following question:(i) Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that reimbursement made to a unit of Government of India by cheque is against public policy?(ii) Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure incurred by appellant for sales promotion is not allowable under Section 37 on the ground that it is allegedly in the nature of unlawful consideration granted to military personnel?2. The appellant company is manufacturer of Indian made Foreign liquor. According to them they are depending to a large extent on orders from the Military Canteen for the sale of its products. For the relevant accounting year 1990-91 out of the total sales of about Rs. 7.21 crores was to the military canteen which constitute 45 per cent of its total turn over. The Company's business interest is critically linked with the sales to CSDs. ...
Automotive Manufacturers Limited Vs. Member, Industrial Court and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR429; (2009)IVLLJ153Bom
Bhatia J.H., J.1. In both the matters, Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties the matters are taken for final hearing immediately.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.3. These are two counter petitions arising out of the order passed by the Industrial Court on 11th April, 2008 in Complaint ULPA No. 1032 of 1993. One petition is filed by the employer/Management of the Automotive . and second petition is filed by employee - Smt. Sweety Aranha. 3A. Admitted facts are that the employee was initially appointed as telephone operator and her services were confirmed. Thereafter she was posted as a Assistant Dispatch Clerk. In September, 1990, two employees of this employer had died and their dead bodies were in the mortuary of the Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur. Mr. Kalantari-Manager of the employer had been there. The employee was also present there. According to the management, the employee assaulted Mr. Kalantri and on his report an F.I...
A B and U Communication Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jitu Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR427
Ganoo R.Y., J.1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 15,14,474/. The plaintiffs have also prayed for interest to the. tune of Rs. 10,86,495.52 @ 24% p.a., from the date of the dishonour, till filing of the suit. The plaintiffs have also claimed interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the filing of the suit till realization and costs.2. The plaintiffs have instituted the present suit on the basis of four cheques of different dates totaling to Rs. 15,14,474/-, which eventually got dishonoured on 12-12-2002.3. The present suit is basically filed on the basis of four dishonoured cheques by taking the benefit of provisions of Order 37 of C.P.C. Accordingly, the plaintiffs had taken out Summons for judgment. The Summons for judgment was decided on merits. By an Order dated 7-10-2008, the defendants were ordered to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-on or before 12-11-2008 and subject to that condition, the defendants were permitted to file the written statement. It is an admitt...
Shri Shankar Goltekar, Son of Soiru Goltekar Vs. State of Goa, Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR1600
N.A. Britto, J. 1. Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the acquisition of land for the purpose of setting up a waste disposal plant for Respondent No. 2-MMC initiated by notification dated 6-3-2008 issued under Section 17(1) dispensing an inquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act, for short) and after filing of the petition, to the notification dated 30-6-2008 issued under Section 6 of the Act.2. The Petitioner claims to be a tenant of the said property which belongs to the Comunidade of Cunchelim surveyed under No. 8, sub-divisions 1 to 11 and No. 9, sub-divisions 1 to 45, admeasuring about 32050 sq. meters.3. The Petitioner had raised the issue of health hazards being created on account of setting up of the said waste disposal plant as well as non application of mind whilst granting the provisional authorization by Respondent No. 3 Board. However, these issues have already been dealt with by this Court at the behest of the villagers of Cunchelim village in Wri...
The Union of India (UOi) through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Vs. M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR438
Mridula Bhatkar, J.1. This petition is filed against the order passed by CAT dated 01.11.2002 by which the order of voluntary retirement of the respondent on 30.11.1998 was held bad in law and quashed.2. Factual Matrix : The respondent, in the year 1998 was holding the post of Superintendent Grade II in the Southern Command, Pune Unit. He gave notice dated 28th April, 1998 to the Chief Engineer, Southern Command of intended voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.7.1998 i.e. after completion of 20 of years service. On 13th May, 1998, he again wrote a letter and informed that he wanted to reconsider his decision of voluntary retirement. On 1st September, 1998, he again wrote letter stating that he intended to take VRS w.e.f. 30.11.1998 and also gave undertaking that he will not withdraw his application for voluntary retirement under any circumstance. The Chief Administrative Officer, by letter dated 21st September, 1998, accepted the said request for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 30th November, 19...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »