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.
Haribai W/O Digambarrao Bhise Died Through L.Rs. and Ku. Jamunabai D/O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR112; 2009(6)MhLj75
P.R. Borkar, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the original defendant being aggrieved by the decree of partition and separate possession passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 86 of 76 decided by the Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Osmanabad on deputation at Kallam on 18.12.1980, which judgment and decree is further confirmed by the District Judge, Osmanabad in Regular Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1981 decided on 14.10.1985.2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated as follows:One Mukundrao had two wives, Tulsabai and Rangubai. Original appellant Haribai is daughter of Rangubai. Haribai expired pending this Second Appeal. Tulsabai had daughter Kaveri. Present plaintiff/respondent Indrabai is daughter of Kaveri. It is not disputed that Tulsabai, Rangubai, Kaveri had expired during life time of Mukundrao and there was no son born to Tulsabai or Rangubai or to Kaveri. Mukundrao expired on 28.3.1976. Present respondent/plaintiff Indrabai filed suit for partition and separate possessi...
Damu S/O Motiram Rathod and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR390
K.K. Tated, J.1. Heard Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. S.P. Dound, learned A.G.P. for Respondent - State. Present First Appeal preferred by Appellants/original claimants against the Judgment and award dated 24th April, 1992 passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Beed, in L.A.R. No. 403 of 1989.2. The undisputed facts are that, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short 'S.L.A.O.') issued Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 17th December, 1987 for acquiring land of the Appellants/original claimants for percolation tank from village Pachegaon, Tq-Georai, Dist-Beed. The S.L.A.O. Jayakwadi Project No. 2, Beed issued Notification for acquiring land of the Appellants from Survey No. 910 admeasuring 7 Hector and 18 Rs. for the said project. Thereafter S.L.A.O. issued Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 21st July, 1988. After following due process of law, S.L.A.O. declared award dated 20th March, 1989 and aw...
Clough Engineering Ltd., Oil and Gas Division Vs. Oil and Natural Gas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BLJR1671; 2009CriLJ2177
S.B. Mhase, J.1. Heard both sides. The order dated March 26, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Contempt Petition No. 96 of 2007 in Arbitration Petition No. 349 of 2007 is under challenge.2. By this order two Directors of the appellant have been discharged on a ground that they were not the Directors of the Company at the relevant time when alleged contempt was committed. However, as against the original respondent No. 4 the contempt proceeding continues, and the original respondent No. 1 - Appellant was directed to disclose the names of the officers who were concerned with or responsible for the sale of the subject goods and materials on 15th October 2007 etc. It is further ordered that the Court may consider of additionally proceeding against the other named officers of the respondent No. 1 Company with contempt action, if it is so warranted.3. It appears that there was injunction order which was valid till 10-11-2007. According to the respondent - applicant, th...
Farid Abdul Latif Noorani Vs. Mr. Sayed Sadiq Ali Qadri and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR92
Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Presently, I am deciding only the issue whether the Petition pertains to the Single Judge Bench or Division Bench, with reference to the Rule 18(3) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules, 1960. (for short, 'the Rules').2. The basic averments of the Petitioner are as under:3. The Petitioner is the present trustee of the 'Pir Bagdadi Dargah Dadar Trust', duly registered under the Regn. No. B/438 (BOM) (for short, 'the said wakf'), situated at N.C. Kelkar Road, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. The Petitioner is a Sunni Muslim, regularly offers prayer and worship at the Dargah. The Petitioner is integrally concerned with the functioning and welfare of the Trust. The Petitioner is one of four trustees of the wakf, governed by the provisions of the Wakf Act, 1995 (for short 'the Act'), and the Scheme framed by the Bombay High Court for administration thereof. The wakf is seized of the property, inter alia, consisting of a mosque and Dargah. The mosque...
Motwani Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kunal and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR64; 2009(111)BomLR1717; 2009BusLR444(Bom); [2009]152CompCas571(Bom); [2009]92SCL401(Bom)
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By both these appeals the Appellant challenges common order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court dated 29-6-2007 in Company Petition No. 726 of 1998 and Company Petition No. 171 of 2000. Both these company petitions were filed by two different Petitioners seeking the same reliefs namely winding up of the Appellant-company. The grounds on which the order of winding up of the Appellant-company was sought was also the same, and therefore, in our opinion, both these appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.2. The facts that are relevant and material for our purpose are that the Company Petition No. 726 of 1998 was filed by M/s. Kunal & Co., a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act seeking an order for winding up of the Appellant-company and an order for appointment of official liquidator as a liquidator of the company was also sought.3. In the petition, it was averred that the Appellant-Company was incorporated on 17.2....
Hanmabai W/o Iranna Patil Deceased through her LR's Dattatraya S/o Ira ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR380; 2009(4)MhLj805
K.K. Tated, J.1. Heard Mr. Gorde Patil, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. S.P. Dound, learned A.G.P. for the Respondents.2. The present First Appeals preferred by the Appellants/original claimants against the Judgment and award dated 14th December, 1992 passed by Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Biloli in Land Acquisition Reference No. 49 of 1991. In order to appreciate the challenge in this Appeal, it will be necessary to advert to few relevant facts in the matter.3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short 'S.L.A.O.') issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 22th June, 1983 for acquiring land of the Appellants for approach road to Yesgi Bridge. The Respondent acquired land admeasuring 28 Rs. from Gut No. 6, 1 Hector 25 Rs. from Gut No. 78, 34 Rs. from Gut No. 134 and 54 Rs. from Gut No. 138. Thereafter S.L.A.O. issued Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 30th January, 1986. After following due process of law, S.L.A....
The State of Maharashtra and the S.L.A.O. (iii) Vs. Chandrashekhar Tan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR785; 2009(6)MhLj33
K.K. Tated, J.1. These appeals are filed by State of Maharashtra under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act challenging the common judgment and award of the learned trial Court passed on 29-04-1994 in various Land Acquisition References. The trial Judge by the impugned judgment enhanced compensation, as also awarded benefits to the claimants under the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellants are challenging the said findings of the trial Judge in these appeals.2. The impugned judgment of all these nine appeals as stated is a common. The award of the S.L.A.O. is also common. The Notification for acquisition is common. The evidence adduced by the parties and relied upon by the Reference Court is also common. The issues raised are also common in all these appeals, so also, the principle of law. Hence, all these appeals are being disposed of with a common judgment.3. Few facts in the present matters are that the S.L.A.O. issued notification under Section 4 of the La...
Andrade Motors Vs. the Additional Collector (Eng./Rem) and Competent A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR120; 2009(111)BomLR1139
Anoop V. Mohta, J.By consent, heard finally.1. The Petitioner has basically challenged the impugned order passed by the Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai in Appeal under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (I.C. & R.) Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act') dated 19th January, 2009, whereby his Appeal against the impugned order dated 21/08/2008 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, G-South, MCGM, has been dismissed. In the result, the basic notice under Section 33 of the Act and the order passed by the Assistance Commissioner has been confirmed.2. Admittedly, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (for short, 'SRA') has sanctioned the Redevelopment Scheme on plot bearing C.S. Nos. 209 (pt), 224 (pt), 226 (pt), 231 (pt), 232 (pt) and 991 (pt), known as Belani Nagar, Worli Koliwada, Worli, Mumbai- 400 025, under Section 33(10) of Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991, (for short, 'D.C.R. Rules'). A Letter Of Intent dated 04/08/2006 shows the P...
The East India Hotels Ltd. a Company Limited by Shares Incorporated Un ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR123; 2009(111)BomLR1285; 2009BusLR307(Bom); (2009)223CTR(Bom)133; [2010]320ITR526(Bom); [2009]179TAXMAN17(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Validity of the CBDT circular No. 681 dated 8th March, 1994 is challenged in this Writ Petition. The said circular provides that all service contracts are covered under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). As a result whereof, every customer of the petitioner No. 1 hotel, while making payment to the hotel for occupying its room and availing other facilities/amenities provided by the hotel is required to deduct income tax at the rate specified in Section 194C of the Act.2. The petitioner No. 1 company operates a number of Five Star Deluxe Hotels all over India. The company as a chain of hoteliers offers various facilities/amenities to its guests all of which are essential for carrying on the hotel business. The services rendered by the petitioners apart from boarding and lodging are, providing highly trained/experienced multi-lingual staff, 24-hour service for reception, information and telephones, house-keeping of the highest standard, select ...
D. Gowadia and Co. a Partnership Firm Registered Under the Indian Part ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR127
S.B. Mhase, J.1. The Arbitration Petition (Lodging) No. 163 of 2007 was filed by the Union of India against the appellants, challenging the award passed by the Sole Arbitrator Shri S.R. Hosalkar in Civil Application No. CEPZ/BOM/04 of 1995-96. The said Award was passed on 23rd December, 2006 and it was served on the parties on 26th December, 2006. The said Arbitration Petition was filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Arbitration Act''). The Union of India-Respondents filed these Arbitration proceedings on 22nd March, 2007. Thus at this stage, we note that the Arbitration proceedings were filed by the Union of India within a period of three months as provided in Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act.2. On 23rd March, 2007, the Chamber Registrar has scrutinized the Petition and has drawn the office objections which are 10 in number and since then, the Petition was pending for removal of office objections. It appears from the book maintained by the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »