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.
Corporate Management Council of India P. Ltd. Vs. Lonza India P. Ltd. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-2009
Reported in: [2009]150CompCas898(Bom)
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The petitioner has sought an order of winding up of the company, inter alia, on the ground that it is unable to pay its debts. According to the petitioner, the company is indebted to it in a sum of Rs. 7,58,52,000.2. Two identical leave and licence agreements, both dated April 3, 2008, were entered into between the petitioner and the company. Under each of the agreements, the petitioner agreed to give and the company agreed to take on leave and licence basis, an office unit, belonging to the petitioner, ad measuring 3,500 sq. ft. together with three car parking spaces. The premises and the car parking spaces are in the same building 'Solitaire'. The terms and conditions of the agreements are identical.3. Under Section IV, Clause 1 of each of the agreements, an aggregate sum of Rs. 10,53,500 was payable per month towards the use of the licensed premises, the furniture, fittings, equipment, etc., therein, and the car parking spaces in the compound of the building. Sec...
Vijay Pappu Narayandas Rizwani and ors. Vs. Narayandas Nwalrai Rizwani ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR408
Borde R.M., J.1. An interlocutory order passed by the trial Court below Exh. 25 in Regular Civil Suit No. 483/07 is subjected to challenge in this petition at the instance of original plaintiffs.2. Petitioners/original plaintiffs instituted suit against defendant Narayandas claiming perpetual injunction restraining him, his agent, servant or any other person claiming through him from causing obstruction and interference in possession of the plaintiffs over property bearing CTS No. 3317 'Palki' converted to different municipal numbers, known as Prabhat Talkies, Nanded. According to plaintiffs, their father defendant No. 1 got married second time with one Sonali who is 35 years of age. The marriage is solemnised by defendant No. 1 after death of plaintiffs' mother. It is further alleged that the second wife of defendant No. 1 is instigating him not to allow plaintiffs and other family members to reside with them at Nanded. However, plaintiffs denied their illegal demand and being annoyed...
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Through the General Manager, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomLR1503; [2009(121)FLR234]; (2009)IILLJ637Bom
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. Rule. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally.2. The Petitioner challenges the judgment of the Labour Court allowing the Respondent's application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act by which various monetary reliefs were granted in favour of the Respondent.3. The Respondent was employed by the Petitioner as a BEST Conductor on 6.10.1981. He was dismissed on 11.4.1985. The Respondent challenged the dismissal by filing Application (BIR) No. 239 OF 1986. The Labour Court allowed that application directing the Respondent to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages from the period of dismissal upto the date of reinstatement. In an appeal filed by the Petitioner, the matter was remanded. Thereafter, the Labour Court decided the matter and passed a fresh order granting the Respondent reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. This order was confirmed by an order dated 19.1.1998 of the Industri...
Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. (Mahagenco) Vs. Mahara ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: [2009(121)FLR238]; (2009)IILLJ627Bom
ORDERS.A. Bobde, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Industrial Court, Nasik, allowing the respondent No. 1's complaint under Item 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.2. The respondent No. 1's members are employees of the petitioner working as medical staff in the Medical Dispensary of the Thermal Power Station at Eklahare. In the complaint to the Industrial Court, they alleged that the petitioner wrongly brought about change in the working hours of the medical staff from six-and-a-half to eight hours without giving a notice of change as required under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. Section 9A of the Act reads as follows:9A. Notice of change. No employer, who proposes to effect any change in theconditions of service applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule, shall effect such change,(b) without giving to the workmen likely tobe affected by such change a not...
Mr. Pallonji M. Mistry (Decd.), Executrix of His Estate, Mrs. Dhun R. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomLR1497; (2009)227CTR(Bom)592; [2009]319ITR167(Bom); [2009]178TAXMAN341(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Income Tax Reference No. 3 of 1994 is in respect of the assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81, 1979-80. Income Tax Reference No. 1 of 1994 is in respect of the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. In respect of both the References, the learned tribunal has referred several questions for determination of this Court. In our opinion, if question No. 2 is answered, there will be no need to answer the other questions referred to. The question for consideration before us reads as under:Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that the property would stand transferred only with effect from the date of registration of the Deeds of Conveyance of flats?2. A few facts may now be set out. The assessee had 1/3rd share in the property known as Bhaktawar building. The other shares were held by other persons. The property consists of five flats jointly owned by the co-owners and 32 flats occupied by the tenants. Another three flats at the releva...
Vijay K. Mehta and Dr. Amritlal C. Shah Vs. Charu K. Mehta and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR179
ORDERBilal Nazki, J.1. When both these matters were taken up, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the appeals and, therefore, prayed that the preliminary objections be decided without going into the merits of the appeals. Therefore, the matters were heard only on preliminary objection.2. The Joint Charity Commissioner's order dated 23rd July, 2008 has been challenged in the writ petitions. These petitions came to be heard by the learned Single Judge of this Court and the learned Single Judge allowed the petitions partly. The learned Single Judge did not quash the order of the Charity Commissioner but directed that the first paragraph of the impugned decision would read as:Respondent Nos. 1 to 9, the trustees shall not take any policy decision and shall not enter into any financial transaction with regard to the trust without prior approval of the CC till further orders.3. The objection taken to the maintai...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Wackhardt International Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: [2009]314ITR11(Bom)
1. The present appeal can be considered on the following questions:(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessee's claim of non-refund of customs duty paid under Section 20 of the Customs Act, 1962, as business loss under Section 37(1) without appreciating the fact that the assessee had not submitted any documentary evidence, either before the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) or the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in respect of re-export of consignment and claim for refund of customs duty filed before the customs authorities?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing the above expenditure as business expenditure under Section 37(1) in the assessment year 1999-2000 when the assessee had no business during the year and the only source of income during the year...
Pandurang Atmanand CamotIn Alias Pramod Atmanand Kamat Vs. Sunivas Bui ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR829
Pangarkar C.L., J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, are as follows:The plaintiff is the resident of Goa while the defendant No. 1 is a builder in Goa. The defendant No. 1 has constructed a building known as Darshan Apartment at Miramar, Panaji, Goa. The plaintiff was interested in purchasing a flat in the said building known as Darshan Apartment. The plaintiff, therefore, approached the defendant No. 1 for purchasing the flat. The agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 for sale of flat bearing No. 2/1 to the plaintiff. On 16.04.1983, the defendant No. 1 gave to the plaintiff the keys of the flat No. 2/1. On that day, the plaintiff could not check up whether the keys that were handed over to him, were in respect of the flat which was agreed to be sold to the plaintiff. The plaintiff could not do so because of the fact that he was required to immediately leave for Bombay for proceeding to Abu Dhabi. It is the contention...
Mahendra Wasudeo Muley Vs. Shamkimata Shikshan Va Krida Prasarak Manda ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-2009
Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR435
Dongaonkar S.R., J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is challenging the Order dated 14/12/2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati, on the application for condonation of delay in preferring an Appeal No. 19/1997 to challenge the termination Order dated 20.1.1992, rejecting his application.3. The petitioner had preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (in short MEPS Act), to challenge his termination dated 20.1.1992 issued at the instance of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. As the appeal was filed in 1997, he had preferred an application for condonation of delay of about 5 years in preferring that appeal. According the petitioner, he was involved in litigations against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Civil Court. Even a criminal case was initiated by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 against him under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C., later on Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola,...
Nagorao Bhujanga More and Venkati Nagorao More Vs. Premalabai W/O. Dig ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR813; 2009(4)MhLj478
P.R. Borkar, J.1. This is a second appeal preferred by original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who have challenged the decree for partition and separate possession passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Nanded in Regular Civil Appeal No. 92 of 1984 decided on 26th October, 1989 and thereby reversing the judgment and decree dismissing the suit, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Biloli, in Regular Civil suit No. 302 of 1982 decided on 28th February, 1984.2. It is no more disputed that one Digambar More was resident of village Ratoli, Tal. Biloli, Dist. Nanded. Appellant No. 1 Nagorao is father and appellant No. 2 Venkati is brother of said Digambar. The family owns suit-lands described in plaint paragraph No. 1. It is case of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 - Premalabai that she was legally wedded wife of Digambar and respondent No. 2 Mahananda was born to them. Digambar died in an accident on 25th May, 1982. Relation between respondent No. 1 Premlabai and Digambar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »