Mumbai Court March 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.
Vodafone Essar South Ltd., a Company Incorporated Under the Companies ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR943; 2009(163)LC11(Bombay); 2009(237)ELT35(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for filing hearing.2. The basic question raised in this petition is, whether the customs authorities are justified in seizing three consignments of 48F optic fibre cables ('OFC' for short) imported by the petitioners and cleared on assessment under tariff Heading 85.44 with the benefit of exemption notification No. 24/05 dated 1/3/2005 and whether the customs authorities are justified in collecting from the petitioners Rs. 1,83,46,210/- towards differential duty on the 11 consignments of OFC cleared in the past on assessment under tariff Heading 85.44 on the footing that the said goods were liable to be assessed under tariff Heading 90.01 of the Customs Tariff Act.3. The petitioners are engaged in the business of providing telecommunication services in various states in India. For their business the petitioners have been importing OFC from time to time. Since 2006 there is disp...
Golden Chariot Airport a Registered Partnership Firm Vs. Airports Auth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR1347
S.A. Bobde, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the Order in Appeal of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court at Bombay, dismissing their appeal and confirming the order passed by the Estate Officer under The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The area in question is a space admeasuring 5,000 sq. ft. in front of Terminal 1-A at the Bombay Airport owned by the Airports Authority of India - the respondent No. 1. The petitioners came into possession of the premises under an Agreement entered into by the respondent No. 1 after accepting the petitioners bid. The petitioners thus obtained a Licence for establishment and running of a deluxe restaurant at the aforesaid premises. The petitioners were allowed to make a construction of semi permanent nature. On the expiry of the licence they were to take away their furniture and installation and hand over vacant possession of the premises. During the period of construction for...
Shrikant Vasudeo Bhole Since Deceased Through Lrs. Smt. Mangala Shrika ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR729
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this appeal, the appellants who are original plaintiffs challenge the judgment and decree dated 2nd July 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in L.C. suit No. 37 of 1980. The plaintiffs had filed the suit seeking a decree of specific performance of the agreement of sale of a flat dated 27th February 1977. The agreement was entered into between plaintiffs and defendant No. 1. Admittedly, defendant No. 1 is the owner of the land bearing No. 33, admeasuring 492 sq. yards, bearing C.S. No. 6/509, situated at Mahim, Mumbai. The defendant No. 1 was constructing a multistoreyed building on the land. He entered into an agreement dated 27th February 1977 with the original plaintiff to sell flat No. 7 to him. The total agreed consideration was Rs. 55,000/- and the plaintiff paid full amount of consideration to the defendant No. 1. According to the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 could not develop the property himself. Therefore, he entered into an agreement...
Sterling Investment Corporation Private Limited Vs. Kamal Steel Corpor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR98; 2009(4)MhLj516
Khanwilkar A.M., J.1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents though served.2. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the lower Court dated 17th June 1994 in Injunction Notice No. 2 of 1978 in R.A.D. Suit No. 514/2132 of 1973. The petitioner was impleaded as defendant No. 1 in the said declaratory Suit filed on behalf of M/s. Kamal Steel Corporation. In the said Suit, one M/s. A. Hatimbhoy & Co., a firm was also impleaded as defendant No. 2. The plaintiff and defendant No. 2 arrived at amicable settlement and invited order of the Court in terms of the Consent Terms. That order came to be passed in the Suit on 16th May 1973 whereunder the Suit was dismissed as against defendant No. 2 in view of the Consent Terms. Besides, at the plaintiff's instance, the Suit was also dismissed as against defendant No. 1. Curiously enough after over five years thereafter, three applicants claiming to be ...
Chandulal P. Patel and anr. Vs. Jaywant H. Thakur and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR103
Dalvi Roshan, J.1. This Chamber Summons is taken out for revocation of the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The Suit is filed for specific performance of a Deed of Assignment of development rights dated 1st February 2003 and in the alternative for receipt of a certain sum claimed by the plaintiff as damages. The Suit is also for declaration that another agreement for development dated 31st December 2007 is void.2. It is conceded by all the Advocates that the Suit for specific performance is not a Suit for land under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. That has been held in the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Hatimbhai Hassanally v. Framroz Eduljee Dinshaw A.I.R. 1927 Bombay 278 and ultimately upheld even by the Supreme Court in the case of Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Daulat and Anr. : AIR2001SC3712 . This is therefore not a suit for land.3. The Deed of Assignment of development rights dated 1st February 2003 for specific performance of which the Sui...
Pralhad Kisan Gilabile Vs. Raghunath Narayan Tapkir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR97; 2009(4)MhLj452
Khanwilkar A.M., J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. This Petition takes exception to the order passed by the Executing Court on 28th June 1994 which has disposed of the Application preferred by the petitioner praying that the regular Darkhast No. 33/1977 cannot proceed in view of the subsequent events. The regular Darkhast No. 33/1977 was the outcome of the ex parte decree passed in favour of the decree holder. It is not in dispute that the said ex parte decree was later on set-aside. As a result of which, the Suit was restored to the file to be proceeded in accordance with law. The restored Suit was proceeded further and eventually was decreed on 22nd June 1982. After the said decree, the decree holder once again filed another Darkhast 409/1982 which, however, has been later on dismissed for default. Instead of pursuing the subsequent regular Darkhast No. 409/1982 to its logical end by getting it restored, the decree holder wanted to continue with the regular Darkhast No. 33/1977. ...
Julia Carlos Rodrigues and ors. Vs. Narayan Naique Yesso Naik and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR740
Britto N.A., J.1. This Second Appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff in R.C.S. No. 239 of 1973.2. Heard Shri R.G. Ramani, learned Counsel on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs. The defendants/respondents have chosen not to remain present.3. At a time when the Goa Rent Control Act was not.enforced in village Chinchinim, the plaintiffs filed the suit with the allegation that the defendants were in arrears of rent for nine months in respect of a room which was let out to them i.e. by the plaintiffs husband on 21-2-1973 for a period of eight months. The defendant resisted the claim contending that the defendants were the mundkars in respect of the suit house. The plea taken by the defendants was negatived first by the Mamlatdar and finally by the Administrative Tribunal. Once the said plea was negatived the defendants could not have had any right to hold on unto the house or the land. The claim of the plaintiffs was therefore decreed by the trial Court only to be upheld by the. first ...
Haribhau Pandurang Kubale Vs. Chanvim Engineering (P) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR861
Dongaonkar S.R., J.1. Heard Shri Mohokar, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Dandekar, Advocate for the respondent. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.2. The petitioner is challenging the interim order passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur on Exhibit 2 in complaint ULP No. 434/2008 on 11.2.2009, on the application of the petitioner seeking interim relief in terms of prayer clauses in the application:(i) by an interim order direct the respondent to withdraw the reported Unfair Labour Practice temporarily withdrawing the charge-sheet dated 17.10.2008 and departmental enquiry fixed on 30.11.2008, onwards during the pendency of complaint;(ii) grant ad interim relief staying the departmental enquiry fixed on 30.1.12008 onwards during the pendency of present application and confirm/grant the same after hearing both the parties.to reject the interim relief.3. According to the petitioner in the charge-sheet supplied to him, there were no such contents or allegations warrant...
Bhalchandra Vishwanath Kalve Vs. Tulshiram Asaramji Sharma,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR445; 2009(111)BomLR1740
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. The present petitioner filed an application before the Rent Controller Mangrulpir under Section 13(3)(i)(ii) & (vi) of the Rent Control Order against the respondent claiming that the suit premises is a joint family property and he himself is the Karta of the joint family. The respondent was inducted as a tenant at the rent of Rs. 12/- P.M. in the year 1954. Later on rent was increased to Rs. 25/- because the respondent had taken additional hall on the second floor. It was contended that respondent was habitual defaulter in making the payment of rent. From 01.06.1989 to 31.01.1991 the total rent due from him was Rs. 783/-. He further contended that he had retired from service and he bonafide required the suit premises for his own occupation as he had no other house to live at Mangrulpir. He sought permission to issue quit notice on these grounds.2. Respondent contested the application denying that he was habitual defaulter and he was in arrears of rent and that petitio...
Vimal Builders Vs. Nand Kumar Anant Vaity and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MhLj572
ORDERRoshan Dalvi, J.1. This Suit is filed by the purchaser of a property which initially belonged to Defendant Nos. 1 to 39. Defendant Nos. 1 to 39, who are admittedly the original owners of the suit property, entered into an Agreement with Defendant No. 40. Defendant No. 40 entered into the Agreement with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff contends that Defendant No. 41- Society has no right in the suit premises. Defendant No. 41- Society had earlier entered into an Agreement with Defendant Nos. 1 to 39, under which it claims to have been put in possession. The Plaintiff also claims to be in possession of the suit property. The suit property is open vacant land. It would be prudent to understand the transactions that took place in respect of the suit property chronologically.2. The initial Agreement of Defendant Nos. 1 to 39 with Defendant No. 41 was executed on 24.10.1981. The said Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) shows 'the entire purchase price of Rs. 3,26,390/-' deposited with M/s. So...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »