Mumbai Court May 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.
Bhojraj Tulsiram Gajbhiye and ors. Vs. All India Reporter Ltd. Through ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR91
C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This Writ Petition challenges the order passed by the industrial Court whereby the objection raised by the respondents was sustained by the Industrial Court.2. The facts giving rise to the petition are as follows:The petitioners filed a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act read with Item No. 6 and 9 of the Schedule. The petitioners had contended that they were employees of the respondent No. 1 and 2 working with the unit of respondent No. 2. They submit that they have put in more than 240 days continuous service in a year. Their contention is that inspite of this their services have not been regularised and they are not being paid the salary according to Manisana Award. They submit that the respondents have indulged in an unfair labour practice. According to the petitioners respondent No. 3 is a Detective Agency and has nothing to do with the commercial business of respondents 1 and 2 a...
Raigad Concrete Industries and anr. Vs. Icici Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR238; 2009(4)MhLj923
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Alibaug decreeing the usual bank suit filed by the first respondent against the appellants and the other respondents to recover the amounts due under various credit facilities granted by it to the first appellant. 2. The appellants were defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 1 was the plaintiff. Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are individuals and were defendant Nos. 3 to 7. Appellant No. 2 and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are and in any event were at the material time partners of appellant No. 1. Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are guarantors. 3. The scope of this appeal is very limited. Mr. Godbole, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant's, limited his challenge to the judgment of the trial court to two grounds. He submitted that the first respondent was not entitled to recover the amounts due to it in view of it having already recovered amounts under the DICGC scheme. He also cha...
Ranjit Kumar Rajak Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR227
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. By consent heard forthwith.Can a person who is fully qualified for a post because of his past or present medical condition which otherwise does not interfere with his fitness to dispense the duties of his post be denied employment because of the financial burden that would be cast on the employer? The medical condition: Renal Transplant in 2004. Clause 14(1) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules reads as under:14. (1) All appointments in, and promotions to, the officers' grades shall be made by the competent authority in accordance with the policy or guidelines, if any, laid down in this behalf by the Central Board or the Executive Committee.Note: 1. Subject to such norms as may be prescribed by the Bank, such appointments and promotions will be subject to medical fitness and sound constitution of the person concerned to be certified by one or more qualified medical practitioners approved by the Bank.2. The petitioner had applied for the post of Pro...
Mahadeo Ramaji Khade and anr. Vs. General Manager, Western Coal Fields ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR219
Chaudhari A.B., J.1. In all these first appeals since according to learned Counsel for both sides only one question of law is involved for decision, they were finally heard together. The question of law that falls for considerations of this Court is framed thus:(i) Whether the claimants in the compensation cases i.e. the appellants herein in all these appeals are entitled to interest @ 5% per annum as provided Under Section 17(3) of the Coal-Bearing Areas (Acquisition And Development) Act, 1957 with Rules (for short Act of 1957) irrespective of the fact that during the period of the said delay possession Of the suit fields were not taken by the respondent-acquiring body?2. In support of the appeals, learned Counsel for appellants in all these appeals made the following submissions:(i) After issuance of Section 9 notification by virtue of Section 10 of the Act of 1957 the land under notification belonging to the appellants vested in the Central Government and the effect of vesting is co...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Bhimashankar Sidramappa Chippa, Partner o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR1; 2009(111)BomLR2008
D.G. Karnik, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the judgement and award dated 31st March 1986 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr.Division, Solapur in Land Acquisition Reference No. 52 of 1988 made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. First Appeal No. 72 of 1998 is filed by the State of Maharashtra while First Appeal No. 233 of 1999 is filed by Solapur Municipal Corporation which is the acquiring body. The cross objections Stamp No. 16262 of 1998 have been filed by the land owner Bhimashankar Sidramappa Chippa, Partner of M/s.Umashankar Industries (for short 'the claimant').2. The land bearing City Survey No. 10388. Final Plot No. 34A/52 under the Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Solapur admeasuring 5587.31 sq.m (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land') was acquired by the Government of Maharashtra at the instance of Solapur Municipal Corporation for the purpose of establishment of a market. Prior to the year 1979, the suit land was reserved as a playground under rese...
Shri Narendra Akash Maharaj Petkar and Sou. Niranjan Abhiman Gaikwad V ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Bom165; 2009(4)BomCR101
R.P. SondurBaldota, J.1. Heard counsels for both sides.2. This is a common order on the above two appeals arising out of the same judgment and decree dated 19th April, 2008 passed by the court of Small Causes, Pune in Special Civil Suit No. 1244 of 1995. The appellant in the first appeal are the original defendants No. 1 and 2. The appellants in the Second Appeal are original defendants No. 4, a proposed society through its members. The original plaintiff is respondent No. 1 in both the appeals and original defendant No. 3 is respondent No. 2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to by their original nomenclature.3. One Kashinath Siddaram Petkar @ Pantnath Prabhu was the owner of the properties described at Schedule A to E to the plaint, all the properties being his self-acquired properties. He was a staunch worshipper of `Gurudatta' and was religious/spiritual guide to several. He died on 23rd June, 1967 at his ashram called `Gurutvalaya'. The father of the plaintiff, Baburao is t...
The Commissioner of Income Tax-9 Vs. Ajanta Pharma Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR1905; (2009)223CTR(Bom)441; [2009]318ITR252(Bom); [2009]180TAXMAN494(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Admit on the following questions:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in approving the Order of the CIT(A) in allowing Respondent to exclude export profits for the purpose of Section 115 JB at the figure other than that allowed under Section 80 HHC (1B)?2. Whether in law for the purpose of calculating book profit under Section 115 JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under Explanation 1 sub Clause (iv) the export profits to be excluded from the book profits would be the export profits allowed as a deduction under Section 80 HHC after restricting the deduction as per the provisions of Sub-section 1B of Section 80 HHC of the Act or the export profits calculated as per Sub-section 3 and 3A of Section 80 HHC before applying the restriction contained in Sub-section 1B of Section 80 HHC?2. A few facts may be set out:The Assessee company was assessed under Section 115 JB of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2001-2...
Genom Biotech Private Limited, Vs. Director of Income Tax-1 (investiga ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR2029; (2009)224CTR(Bom)270; [2009]180TAXMAN395(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Whether the search and seizure action initiated against the petitioners pursuant to the warrant of authorisation issued by the Director Income Tax (Investigation) under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) on 14/15-5-2008 is in accordance with law and whether the order passed on 24/7/2008 under Section 281B of the Act to attach the immovable properties as well as the shares in the demat account held by the petitioner No. 2 is valid in law are the basic questions raised in this petition.2. The petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company and the petitioner No. 2 who is a non resident Indian ('N.R.I.' for short) is the Chairman and Managing Director ('C.M.D.' for short) of the petitioner No. 1 company. The petitioner Nos. 3 & 4 are the Directors of the petitioner No. 1 company. The petitioner No. 1 company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting pharmaceutical products.3. The business premises of the petitioner No. 1 company ...
Shri Masuood Alam Khan-pathan, Adult, Occ. at Present Advocate Vs. Sta ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR7
Mridula Bhatkar, J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against the Order dated dated 27th November 1998 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai. Factual Matrix:2. The Petitioner was working as the Administrative Officer in the office of the Administrative Medical Officer, E.S.I.S. at Mumbai. At the time of audit of the Hospital account, misappropriation of some amount was revealed and the investigation was carried out. The Petitioner was prosecuted along with some other person for misappropriation of the property and falsification of the account and criminal cases bearing Nos. 111 of 1984 & 112 of 1984 were registered against him. On the other hand, Respondent No. 1 had started departmental proceedings against the Petitioner.3. The aforesaid enquiry was conducted by a Special Officer for Departmental Enquiries, Nashik and Pune Division, Pune. The said enquiry was concluded holding the Petitioner guilty and accordingly a report was submitted by the Special Enquiry Office...
Shilpa Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary, T ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-07-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR497; 2009(111)BomLR2285
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.THE CONTOURS OF THE CASE1. The questions that arise before the Full Bench for determination relate to the standards which have to be applied in determining whether or not an applicant belongs to a designated Scheduled Tribe. Article 342 of the Constitution empowers the President to specify caste, races or tribes or parts or groups within them which shall be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to a State or a Union Territory. The power to include in or to exclude from the lists of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued by the President is vested in Parliament. Pursuant to Article 342, the Scheduled Tribes were notified by the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. This was followed by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1956. In 1976 Parliament enacted the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1976. Part IX of the Third Schedule to the Amending Act specifies Scheduled Tribes for the State of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »