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.
Rameshchandra Ramkishan Sarda Vs. Shri Shankarrao Chavan, Through Its ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR159; 2009(111)BomLR1783; 2009(4)MhLj796
P.R. Borkar, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the original plaintiff whose suit bearing Special Civil Suit No. 104 of 1991 for recovery of Rs. 4,12,000/- was dismissed by 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded on 14.07.1994 on the ground that the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,1960.2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated as below:The respondents are Chairman and Manager of a factory run by Shri Shankarrao Chavan P.V.C. Pipe Utpadak Sanstha Maryadit, a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The plaintiff/appellant has approached the Court with a case that he had agreed to carry out construction of excavation, brick lying, plastering, concreting, carpentry, joinder of steel and iron work, drainage work, water supply, sanitary fitting etc. of factory building and other constructions at the site of the defendant factory. An advance of Rs. 5,...
Shree Shridharkrupa Builders and Realtors P. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Mahen J. Dho ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR383; 2009(111)BomLR1197; [2009]91SCL372(Bom)
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The appeal is admitted. With the consent of the parties the appeal is heard finally.2. This is an appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act against an order and judgment of the Company Law Board. The order was passed in a petition filed by the Respondent for reliefs under Section 163 of the Companies Act. (For convenience I will refer to the Respondent herein as the Petitioner and to the Appellant as the company).3. This appeal raises the following questions of law :(i) Whether a shareholder of a company has no locusstandi to maintain a petition for reliefs under Section 163 of the Companies Act if he is also a Director of the company.(ii) Whether the Company Law Board has the power and jurisdiction in a petition for reliefs under Sections 163, 621 or 629 of the Companies Act to advise the Registrar of Companies to take necessary action as per law in the event of the Petitioner in a petition for reliefs under Section 163 making an application under Section 629 o...
Biddle Sawyer Ltd. Vs. Chemical Employees Union
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR317; 2009(111)BomLR1153; 2009(4)MhLj289
Ranjana Desai, J.1. The appellant is a Pharmaceutical Company, registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The respondent is the Union which represents the workers of the appellant. In this appeal the appellant has challenged judgment and order dated 2/4/08 delivered by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 191 of 2008.2. Admittedly the respondent had entered into two settlements with the appellant. They are dated 25/9/87 and 14/7/90. Following clause was there in both these settlements.Ganesh Festivities Advance': That the company shall pay effective from the year 1990 and thereafter every year ten days before Ganesh Festival Ganesh festivities advance of Rs. 480/-.ANDThat the said amount shall not be recovered.3. A fresh charter of demands was submitted by the respondent on 5/1/94. Since the demand could not be settled amicably, it was referred for adjudication vide Reference (Industrial Tribunal) No. 31 of 1997. One of the demands of the respondent was relatin...
Loreal India Private Limited a Company Incorporated Under the Companie ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR392
S.B. Mhase, J1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 17th January 2008 in Notice of Motion No. 3062 of 2007 in Suit No. 2316 of 2007. Against the said order original Plaintiff has filed Appeal No. 139 of 2008 wherein the Respondents are original Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 respectively. Appeal No. 182 of 2008 has been filed by original Defendant No. 1 wherein the Respondents are original Plaintiff and original Defendant No. 2. It is clarified that original Defendant No. 2 has not filed any appeal and in both the appeals original Defendant No. 2 is the Respondent No. 2. For the sake of convenience and in order to avoid ambiguity and confusion, the Appellant in Appeal No. 139 of 2008 and the Respondent No. 1 in Appeal No. 182 of 2008 has been referred to as 'the Plaintiff', while the Appellant in Appeal No. 182 of 2008 and the Respondent No. 1 in Appeal No. 139 of 2008 has been referred to as 'the Defendant No. 1'. So...
The Managing Director, Vs. Zikar Hazi S/O Mohammad Akhar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR378; 2009(111)BomLR1843; 2009(4)MhLj527
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Special Civil Suit No. 54 of 1989 filed by the respondent for recovery of damages of Rs.1,99,650/- has been decreed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhandara, on 24th February 1994. This judgment also dismissed counter claim of appellant complaining about damages of Rs.8,10,993/- and for recovery of amount of Rs. Three lakhs. The present First Appeal challenges this judgment and decree.2. On 2.5.1989, there was a fire in Rice-hay staking yard of the appellants. In that fire a truck having registration No. MHG . 7535 was destroyed. The haystack stored by the appellants for manufacturing paper was also destroyed. The plaintiff claimed damages from defendants for his truck while defendants through counter claim sought to recover damages sustained by them. After deducting the insurance claim as received by them, the defendants claimed decree of three lakhs against the plaintiff.3. I have heard Shri Muley, learned counsel for the appellants - defendants an...
Official Trustee Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-2009
Reported in: (2009)227CTR(Bom)115; [2009]180TAXMAN595(Bom)
1. The question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 is as follows:Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of Section 21(1A) inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, the appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was liable to tax on the excess of the value of the corpus of the trust over the value of the interest of the beneficiaries under the trust?2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:(a) Under a Letters Patent of Her late Majesty Queen Victoria an eminent person in Bombay Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy was conferred the title of Baronet. A condition of conferring baronetcy upon him was that he should settle in perpetuity such property on himself and the male heirs of his family who might succeed him in such baronetcy, as should be adequate to support the dignity of the title conferred on him. Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy was therefore, desirous of settling in trust a...
Cit Vs. Smt. Sushila Devi Khadaria L/H of Late Gopal Khadaria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-2009
Reported in: [2009]319ITR413(Bom); [2009]183TAXMAN275(Bom)
1. The substantial questions of law as enumerated in the appeal memo are as follows:(a) The substantial question of law arises in the present appeal is regarding the true scope and correct interpretation of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and other provisions and whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Honble Tribunal is right in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and deleting the addition of Rs. 41,93,729 being the disallowance consisting of fresh loans and the interest on old loans ?(b) Another substantial question of law which arises in the present appeal is regarding the true scope and correct interpretation of Section 57 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and other provisions and whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Honble Tribunal is right in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 17,84,036 being the interest and finance charges paid?2. As regards question (a), the answer to the same hinges on the fact as to whether ...
Santan Fernandes and ors. Vs. the State of Goa Through the Chief Secre ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR714; 2009(4)BomLR1468
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State of Goa, through its Land Acquisition Officer, for acquiring the lands for the purpose of development of Government Village School Playground at Fatrade, Varca Salcete, Goa.2. The petitioners are the owners/tenants of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 107 with different sub divisions. They are carrying on agricultural operations in the aforesaid lands. According to the petitioners, they are cultivating paddy fields in the aforesaid lands. It is the case of the petitioners that the said paddy fields are the only means of their livelihood and their respective families.3. The Government of Goa earlier issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on 04-05-2006, which was published in the Official Gazette on 10-05- 2006 for the purpose of acquirin...
Naranji Bhimji Family Trust, Thr. Managing Trustee, Shri Mahendra Bhav ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR746; 2009(4)MhLj522
J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing immediately. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner claims to be owner and landlord of the suit premises admeasuring 2137 sq. ft., which is part of the property bearing City Survey No. 1060 admeasuring 1687.1 sq. mtr. shown on sheet No. 13, Tq. Ramtek, dist. Nagpur. The property originally belonged to one Shamji Naranji and in the year 1962, by order of the Charity Commissioner, the said property was included in Naranji Bhimji Family Trust and accordingly entry was also taken in the city survey record in the year 1969. According to the petitioner-Trust, one Nanalal Thakkar, husband of respondent No. 2 and father of respondent No. 3 was in the service of Shamji Naranji. Said Nanalal died in the year 1972. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. legal representatives of said Nanalal had no residential accommodation and, therefore, on thei...
Sharad Chhajjuram Aggarwal and anr. Vs. Bombay Builders Company Ltd. a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR79
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. Both these Appeals are directed against the same judgment and decree passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Suit No. 1053 of 1981. Therefore, both these Appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.2. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding these Appeals are, Sharad Chhajjuram Aggarwal and Poonam @ Poornima Sharad Aggarwal filed a suit being Suit No. 1053 of 1981, to which the Bombay Builders Company Pvt.Ltd. was joined as Defendant No. 1 and Industrial Development Bank of India was joined as Defendant No. 2. (The parties will be referred to by their designation in the suit). The Plaintiffs claimed in the suit that the Plaintiffs entered into an agreement dated 17th May, 1979 with Defendant No. 1, which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The Defendant No. 1 was constructing a building called 'Mahendra Towers' on plot of land admeasuring about 3000 sq.ft. situated at 72, Bomanji Petit Road, Cumballa Hill, Bombay...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »