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.
Shantez a Partnership Firm Registered Under the Indian Partnership Act ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR799; 2009(111)BomLR1338; 2009(4)MhLj37
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The present Appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Notice of Motion No. 2561 of 2007 dated 13th October, 2008 vide which the application filed by the Plaintiffs/Appellants under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( hereinafter referred to as the said 'Code') has been dismissed. Necessary f.s are that the Appellants filed the suit for damages for loss and destruction of certain antique pieces of furniture which were hired by the Defendants for the sets of a film under production. This resulted from the fire broke out in the Studio on 18th February, 2004 when shooting of the film was going on. It was averred in the plaint by the Plaintiffs/Appellants that the goods being in the nature of antique furniture had no market value and the value of which would appreciate by passage of time and though the furnitures were on hire basis the Respondents were liable to make good the losses. The Respondents had even filed ...
Gajanan P. Lasure, Indian Inhabitant and Aniket Bhagwanrao Deshkar, In ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)MhLj399
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, by consent of the learned Counsel made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the Respondents waive service. With the consent of the learned Counsel and at their request, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. Sometime before dawn on 11th July, 1997, a statue of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, situated at Ramabai Ambedkar Nagar, Ghatkopar, Mumbai was desecrated. Residents of the locality came together to protest against the act of vandalization. Senior officials of the Pant Nagar Police Station and the Assistant Commissioner of Police reached the site. The Fourth Respondent was a PSI attached to the State Reserve Police Force and was stationed in the vicinity of Chembur. On receipt of a message he is alleged to have led his platoon to the scene of the protest at Ramabai Ambedkar Nagar. The allegation against the Fourth Respondent is that without the orders of his superiors he ordered the opening of fire : in the course of the shooting, ten pe...
Thane Belapur Industries Association Technical Institute, Registered U ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR183
D.Y . Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, by consent of the learned Counsel made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the Respondents waive service. With the consent of the learned Counsel and at their request, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The First Petitioner is an institute of technical education that was established in 1986 by an association of industries in the industrial belt of Thane Belapur. The First Petitioner conducts an advance diploma course in Industrial Safety, Health and Environment. Permission to commence the course was granted by the Directorate of Technical Education in the State Government on 23rd October, 1985 with an intake capacity of sixty students from the academic year 1986-87. The course is recognized by the State Government and by its instrumentalities - the Directorate of Technical Education and the Maharashtra State Board for Technical Education. In June 2007, the Petitioner submitted a proposal for an increase in the intake capacity ...
Sahakar Agencies Pvt. Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under the Provisions ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR757; 2009(111)BomLR1547
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.Factual matrix of the cases1. The Petitioners in Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 2584 of 2008, namely, M/s Sahakar Agencies Pvt. Ltd., a Company duly registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, claim to be carrying on the business of management of Octroi collection stations and Toll stations and other similar facilities and activities at public places. Respondent No. 1, Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation'), a Government of Maharashtra undertaking, issued a notice of invitation for tenders in the form of `Offer Document' in the month of October 2008, thereby inviting tenders for management and collection of Tolls at the five Toll Stations at different entry points to Mumbai City, which were detailed as under:(i) Vashi on the Sion Panvel Highway;(ii) Airoli Bridge;(iii) Mulund on the Eastern Express Highway;(iv) Mulund/Thane (West) on LBS Marg and(v) Dahisar on the Western Express HighwayThe contract w...
Sahney Kirkwood Private Ltd. Vs. the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR1790
1. The appellants by the present motions have prayed to grant stay of recovery of tax and interest for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2003-04 which are the subject matter of the dispute till the disposal of the appeal admitted by this Court.2. The provisions of appeal are governed by Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. That provides for application of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to appeals to the High Court under Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 41 Rule 5(1) reads as under.An appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceeding under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the Appellate Court may order, nor shall execution of a decree be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred from the decree; but the Appellate Court may for sufficient cause order stay of execution of such decree.Order 41 Rule 5(3) thereafter reads as under.No order for stay of execution shall be made under Sub-rule (1) or Sub-rule (2) unless the Court mak...
Prakash Ganpat Sawant Vs. Ravindra Babaji Satam and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR710; 2009(4)MhLj468
Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. The Appeal is directed against an order dated 7th January, 2009 of a learned Single Judge on a Judge's Order. The learned Single Judge observed that the Judge's Order is one more attempt by the plaintiff-appellant to execute a decree in a suit instituted by him which has been dismissed. The order of dismissal has attained finality. Despite this proceedings were repeatedly initiated by the appellant which were all rejected by this Court.2. We have perused the record and heard the Appellant in person. In our view, the proceedings which have been initiated by the appellant are a sheer abuse of the process of the Court. The suit for possession instituted by the appellant was dismissed on 18th June, 1999. The Appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Hon Tale Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia (as their Lordships then were) on 4th August, 1999. Despite this, the appellant has persisted in fil...
Shakuntala Vasant Agarwal and ors. Vs. Five Star Poultry Farm and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR462
Mohta Anoop V., J.1. Heard finally, by consent.2. By the impugned order, the Ad hoc District Judge-1, Sangli has allowed the appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act') which was against an order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Miraj in Regular Civil Suit No. 303 of 2002 refusing to appoint an Arbitrator in a dispute among the partners of the partnership firm.3. In the present case, an application for appointment of Arbitrator, was filed by the plaintiffs themselves, though there was no such objection or application, filed by the defendants at appropriate time and/or at any point of time.4. Whether such application, at the instance of plaintiffs, is maintainable or not is not the issue, at this stage, I am considering the order dated 11.11.2005 whereby the said application was rejected against that order. The respondents thereafter preferred an appeal under Section 37 of the Act.5. Section 37 of the Act nowhere contemplates s...
Uttamrao S/O Santukrao Kulkarni and Nagorao S/O Santukrao Kulkarni, Di ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR143; 2009(4)MhLj841
K.K. Tated, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Present First Appeal is preferred by the the appellants - original claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 19-10-1993 passed by IInd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani, in L.A.R. No. 51/1985.3. Undisputed facts in the present case are that the S.L.A.O. issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 04-04-1983 for acquiring appellants - original claimants' land admeasuring 10 Acres and 9 Gunthas from Survey Nos. 51/A, 51/B, 52/A, 52/B, 54/A, and 54/B situated at village Bondargaon, Tq. Gangakhed, District Parbhani for Jayakwadi - Majalgaon right bank canal. After following due process of law, S.L.A.O. declared award dated 19-07-1984 and awarded compensation in respect of the acquired land @ Rs. 70/- and Rs. 80/- per Are totally Rs. 34,747/-. Being aggrieved by the said award, the appellants preferred Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and claimed compensation in respect...
Anupama Wine Distributors Vs. Tilaknagar Industries Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR331; [2009]151CompCas395(Bom); [2009]91SCL419(Bom)
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The petitioner has sought an order winding up the Respondent company inter-alia on the ground that the company is unable to pay its debts. According to the Petitioner the company is indebted to it in the sum of Rs. 4,21,00,000/-.2. The company does not dispute the fact that a sum of Rs. 4 crores was paid by the Petitioner to it and that the said sum has not been repaid. It is contended that the said sum was paid as a security deposit and that the company has several claims against the Petitioner far in excess of the said amount of Rs. 4 crores.3. Though the payment by the Petitioner to the company of the said sum of Rs. 4 crores is not disputed, it is necessary to see the circumstances and the manner in which it was paid by the Petitioner to the company in view of the first defence viz. that the said amounts were paid as security deposit and not as an advance/trade deposit.4. In or about 1986 the company appointed the petitioner as its exclusive distributor/promoter...
Javed S/O Sheikh Mustaque Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra Through the P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR719; 2009(4)BomLR1451; 2009(2)MhLj925; 2009(3)AllMR40
A.P. Lavande, J.1. Letters Patent Appeal No. 320/2008 and the reference made in Writ Petition Nos. 4910/2008 and 4911/2008 are being disposed of by the common Judgment since the question of law involved in the appeal as well as in the reference is identical.2. We have heard Mr. C.A. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.V. Sohoni, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition Nos. 4910/2008 and 4911/2008 and Mrs. S. Wandile, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 4911/2008 and Mr. A.S. Chandurkar, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Wandile, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. P.C. Khajanchi, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Dubey, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 320/2008.3. In Writ Petition Nos. 4910/2008 and 4911/2008 the learned Single Judge held that the view taken by another learned Judge in Writ Petition No. 2203/08 ( Javed Sheikh Mustaque Patel v. State of Maharashtra and O...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »