Mumbai Court August 2010 Judgments
M/S.A.P.Hordiwala and Co.and ors.Vs. Dr.Rustam J. Patel,and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
This Revision Application is directed against Judgment of the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes upholding the decree of ejectment of the Applicants passed by the learned Trial Judge in RAE Suit No.1298 of 1968.2. According to the parties, on 24th September, 1856 one Framjee Nusserwanjee leased out with effect from 1st January, 1855 to one Cammoo Yacoob a 100 x 30 yards piece of land presumably with a godown bearing No.28 at Colaba, Mumbai for a period of 99 years. The Lease Deed also gave an option to said Cammoo Yacoob to seek renewal of lease for a further period of 99 years. It is not in dispute that the Plaintiff trust are successors in interest of said Framjee Nusserwanjee and the interest of Cammoo Yacoob fell upon Cammoo Yacoob Charitable Trust. The original Defendant Nos.1 to 7 were the trustees of the said Cammoo Yacoob Charitable Trust.3. The Plaintiffs claimed that the lease of Cammoo Yacoob Charitable Trust expired on 1st January, 1954. Yet the lessees continued...
Tag this Judgment!Badesaab Yusuf Shaikh, Age 18 Years,and ors.Vs. State of Maharashtra,a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
1 These appeals arise from the judgment and order dated 28/03/1990 rendered by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, at Pune in Sessions Case No. 338 of 1987. In all 3 accused came to be tried in the said case for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 202 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).2 By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune acquitted accused nos.2 and 3 from all the charges and therefore, Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 1990 by the State of Maharashtra against the said order of acquittal. Accused no.1 came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. Hence, he has filed Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 1990 against the said order of conviction and sentence. He was released on bail by this Court on 18/06/1990, pending his appeal. 3 As per the prosecution case accused no.2 Yusuf Ismail Shaikh was a tailor by profession and the husband of accused no...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Mansukha Khavadiya, Vs State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-2010
1.Heard the counsel for the appellant and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondents State.2. The criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7th April 2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay, whereby the appellant came to be convicted for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default R.I. for one month. The appellant is also convicted for an offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default R.I. for two months (both the sentences were directed to run concurrently).3. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as follows:- The deceased Shobha was the wife of the appellant. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant treated Shobha well for some time after their marriage, however thereafter subjected her to ill-treatment. The appellant used t...
Tag this Judgment!Balakrishna Khashaba Mohite.Vs. the State of MaharashtrA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2010
1.The appellant was tried by the Sessions Court at Satara in Sessions Case No. 136 of 2002 for offences punishable under Section 302, 323 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short). By the judgment and order dated 20/1/2004 the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-, in default to suffer further R.I. for three years for having committed murder of Sunil Kakade ("the deceased"). The appellant has also been convicted for offence punishable under Section 449 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer further RI for one year. The appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC. The substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order the appellant has preferred this appeal.2. It is necessary to give gist of the prosecution case....
Tag this Judgment!Gmm Pfaudler Limited.Vs. Tata Aig Life Insurance Company Limited and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-2010
1.The Plaintiff s action is in essence a common law action upon nuisance committed by Defendant No.1 which is actionable as a tort. The Plaintiff occupies and owns the top floor of the building Peninsula Towers (the said building) at Peninsula Corporate Park. terrace of the Plaintiff s building is just above the Plaintiff s premises. Defendant No.1 occupies the 6th floor of the said building owned by Defendant No.3.2.It is the Plaintiff s case that Defendant No.1 acquired its premises in June 2004 and put up air conditioning chiller plant consisting of 3 chillers on the terrace of the said building above the Plaintiff s premises. The chiller plant causes vibration and noise in the office premises of the Plaintiff. That constitutes a nuisance to the Plaintiff. It has also been the Plaintiff s case that the vibration of the chillers has caused cracks in the walls and the ceilings of the Plaintiff s premises and structural damage thereto. The Plaintiff contends that it is a threat to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmibai W/O Ganesh Parke, Age 35 Years, and ors.Vs. the State of Maha ...
Court: Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1) All the petitioners are agriculturists having their lands at villages Kushnoor, Ghungrala and Saverkheda, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded. It is the contention of the petitioners that though their lands are different, however action taken by respondent No.2 is common against all the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners have filed this common Civil Revision Application.2) It is the case of the petitioners that notification under section 32(1) and (2) of the M.I.D.C. Act was published in the official Gazette on 20.12.1993 and on 23.12.1993. The petitioners were not made aware about acquisition proceedings of their lands. The notice under Section 12(2) was served on the petitioners, when the petitioners were gone for accepting amount under the award. It is further case of the petitioners that they came to know about acquisition of their lands for the first time when they received notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. They have withdrawn the amount under protest and initiated to subm...
Tag this Judgment!Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.Vs.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
1. This Bench has been constituted by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to answer the following question of law:"With reference to the provisions of Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, whether Small Cause Court constituted under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act is a Court subordinate to the Bombay High Court on its original side?"2. The events leading to the Constitution of this Bench are as follows:. Suit No.514 of 1984 was instituted by Aderbad Co.op.Hsg. Society Ltd. claiming a decree of declaration that Defendants Nos.9 & 10 have procured membership of the Plaintiffsociety by fraud and misrepresentation. A further decree of declaration was claimed by the Plaintiffsociety that Defendants Nos.9 & 10 are not the members of the Plaintiffsociety and/or are liable to be expelled as such. It appears that the Plaintiff society in its General Body Meeting held on 622005 passed a Resolution resolving to revoke/cancel the nominal membership of the Defendants Nos.9 & 10. The Plaintiff/s...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. Videomax Electronics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-2010
Per: P.G. Chacko These appeals are directed against the Commissioner's order dropping all the charges levelled against the respondents in the show-cause notice dated 17/03/1999 issued by the department. M/s. Electronic Instrumentation (proprietor: Shri Vinod Kumar Agarwal) and M/s. Videomax Electronics (proprietress: Smt. Sneh Lata, w/o. Shri Vinod Kumar Agarwal) are the respondents in these appeals filed by the department. Components/parts required for electronic goods, namely, rechargeable lights and radio cassette recorders, were imported by the respondents during the period from April, 1997 to February 1998. These imports were made in several consignments during the said period. A set of Bills of Entry were filed by Electronics Instrumentation and another set by Videomax Electronics. These Bills of Entry were accompanied by the respective invoices and packing lists. In each Bill of Entry, the imported items were described in the same manner as in the invoice and the packing list. T...
Tag this Judgment!PravIn Tukaram Dharpawar, and ors.Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
1. Heard learned counsel for both the sides.2. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this petition are that the original petitioner Tukaram was in the service of the respondent Corporation. He was appointed on 18th November 1962. Because he was being prosecuted in a criminal court, he was placed under suspension on 16 th November 1977. He continued to be under suspension till he was reinstated in service on 7th June 1984. On 25th February 1988, the original petitioner applied for voluntary retirement with effect from 1st June1988. By a communication dated 30th May 1988, the petitioner was informed by the Corporation that in terms of his letter dated 25th August 1988, he is permitted to retire from the service of the Corporation with effect from 1 st June 1988. Thereafter by a letter dated 20th April 1989, the petitioner was informed that though his request for voluntary retirement has been accepted, he cannot be permitted to voluntarily retire with effect from 1st June ...
Tag this Judgment!Birla Cotsyn (India) Ltd.Vs. Tarachand S/O Chiranjilal Sharma, Aged 53 ...
Court: Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on: Aug-26-2010
1. Challenge in all this three writ petitions is to identical orders passed by Labour Court appeal by Industrial Court in revisions. All complaints are under Section 28 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ULP Act). Contention of Employer Petitioner in short in all matters is Labour Court or Industrial Court could not have gone into the question of disputed status of respective respondent no.1 in all these Writ Petitions as these courts under Section 28 exercise summary jurisdiction. Hence, only when relationship of employer and employee is either undisputed or indisputable, the jurisdiction can be exercised. Looking to the nature of controversy and at the request of parties, matters have been heard finally at admission stage by making Rule returnable forthwith.I have heard Shri V.R. Thakur with Shri H.V. Thakur, learned Counsel for Employer/Petitioner and Shri S.D. Thakur with Shri P.S. Kshirsagar, l...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »