Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2008)110BOMLR137; (2008)13VST157(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. This petition is filed basically to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 25 of the Maharashtra Tax Laws (Levy, Amendment and Repeal) Act, 1989 ('amending Act' for short) in so far as it pertains to amending Entry 9 and Entry 61 in Part II of Schedule C to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ('BST Act' for short) with retrospective effect from 1st July, 1981. The petitioners have also challenged various assessment orders passed for the period from 12th October, 1979 to 29th June, 1987 as well as the order in Revision dated 7th October, 2005 passed during the pendency of the present Writ Petition. However, during the course of argument, learned Counsel for the petitioners did not press those reliefs and the only issue pressed in this writ petition is regarding the constitutional validity of Section 25 of the amending Act.2. Facts relevant for the present petition are that, since 1979 the petitioners have been manufacturing 'paper based decorative laminates' ('t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2008Bom136; 2008(4)BomCR787; (2008)110BOMLR1524
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. In view of various conflicting decisions of a number of Single Judges, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice has referred the following Question for being answered:Whether a woman litigant who files a petition for grant of Probate of a Will is exempted from payment of Court Fees as per Government Notification dated 1st October,1994 duly amended by an explanatory notification dated 23rd March,20002. The aforesaid Notifications read as under:REVENUE AND FORESTS DEPARTMENTMantralaya, Bombay 400032,dated 1st October, 1994.Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959.No. STP.1094/CR-859/M-1 - Whereas, the Government of Maharashtra has recently announced a policy with a view to promote the welfare of the women;And whereas, the same welfare policy for women inter alia, provides for exemption of Court fees for women litigants in cases relating to maintenance, property right, violence and divorce;And whereas, Section 46 of the Bombay Court Fees Act,1959 (Bom.XXXVI of 1959), empowers the State Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(6)BomCR171
Bhosale D.B., J.1. Chamber Summons No. 200 of 2008 is taken out by the applicants/purchaser of Lot No. 1 (part of suit property) for the following reliefs:(a) that the learned Court Receiver be directed to execute Conveyance of the property mentioned in Lot No. 1 in favour of M/s. The Ruby Mills Ltd., purchaser of Lot No. 1;(b) that the learned Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay be directed to hand over all the original title deeds of the property mentioned in Lot No. 1 to the purchaser M/s. The Ruby Mills Ltd.;(c) that pending the hearing and final disposal of this Chamber Summons, the learned Court Receiver be directed not to deal with the purchase price of Rs. 5,40,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores Forty Lacs only) to the detriment of M/s. The Ruby Mills Ltd., (Purchaser);(d) that pending the hearing and final disposal of this Chamber Summons, the learned Court Receiver be directed to resolve the labour issues and resolve any claims and/or disputes of the employees of defendant No. 1 inc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(5)BomCR665
Borde R.M., J.1. This petition is moved by non-trible transferee raising exception to the judgment and order passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Bombay in Revision Application No. 1/92 decided on 15-6-1992 thereby confirming the order passed by Tahsildar, Nandurbar on 10-1-1992 ordering restoration of possession of lands to respondents herein/trible transferor in view of provisions of Section 3 of Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Restoration Act).2. Some undisputed facts are thus:Agricultural land which is subject-matter of dispute bears gat No. 71/1 admeasuring 7 H and 88 R situate at village Bhayane Tq. Nandurbar, Dist. Dhule. The land originally belongs to respondents who belong to tribal community. Said land was sold in public auction held on 30-5-1969 for recovery of loan dues. Petitioner/non-trible transferee is the person who has purchased the property in public auction held on 30-5-1969 by offering highest bid ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(6)BomCR546
Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard. In both these appeals since common question of law is raised, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts relevant for the decision on the point which is sought to be raised are that pursuant to the award passed by the learned arbitrator, the appellants filed arbitration petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter called as 'the New Act' and the said petitions came to be dismissed by the orders dated 9-10-2006.3. The appellants thereupon preferred the appeals against the said orders. The Appeal No. 77 of 2007 was admitted on 11-10-2007, leaving open the issue as to whether the appellants would be liable to pay the Court fee under Schedule I, Article 1 and not under Schedule II, Article 13 as is sought to be paid by the appellants. As far as the Appeal No. 78 of 2007 is concerned, the same is yet to be admitted. However, in both the appeals the issue regarding the liabilit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(6)MhLj482
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. It is to be noted that these proceedings were initially filed as Civil Revision Application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, read with Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code. When the matter was called out on 29-8-2008, this Court has in view of the judgment in the case of Dilip Bidesh v. Shiv Gopal reported at : 2005(6)BomCR207 , found that said revision was not maintainable. The revision applicant then sought permission to convert revision into a writ petition and that permission was accordingly granted by reasoned order, after noticing the fact that revision was filed way back in 1995 and the matter was going on before various Courts since 1986.2. After conversion of revision into present writ petition, the matter has been again listed for final hearing. Shri Panpalia, Advocate, who had filed Vakalatnama for the respondent, has stated that on 24-1-2002 itself, he filed pursis vide Stamp No. 679 of 2002, seeking leave to withdraw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(2)BomCR446; (2008)110BOMLR3580
K.K. Tated, J.1. In the present appeals, the appellants-original petitioners challenge common order dated 4.8.2008 passed by the Single Judge dismissing the appellant's Writ Petition. The appellant-original petitioner filed Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging Notice under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 hereinafter referred to as M.R.T.P. Act (for brevity sake) issued by the Assistant Commissioner, H/East Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai in respect of unauthorized construction being adjacent to the building No. 1, Tata Colony, B.K. Road, Bandra (E), Mumbai-51. It is the case of the appellant that he is in possession of the suit premises for the last several years and not only that Municipal Corporation granted them permission to repair the said suit construction. It is the case of the appellant that the suit construction is not of a temporary nature but the same is constructed of bricks and RCC structure. It is th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR4435
Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The appellant has challenged the judgment of the Second Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, dated 4.12.2003 in Sessions Case No. 84 of 2003, under which the appellant was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default of the payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.2. The prosecution case is that the appellant committed murder of his wife by pouring kerosene on her person and setting her on flames in their matrimonial home on 25.7.2002 as he suspected her of having an affair with a neighborhood boy, one Rajendra. This aspect has been shown by the prosecution in the dying declaration of the deceased Meera, which has been recorded by the police officer who was sent by the concerned Police Station upon being informed of the medico-legal case noticed by the hospital and which statement has been treated as her FIR, up...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR4303
Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The Appellants have challenged the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 1007 of 1996, dated 27th October 2004, under which they have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to suffer rigourous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-each and in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for three months each.2. The prosecution case is that the Appellants were the sister-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased Vidya Shetye, respectively. They lived in the same house with Vidya and her husband one Prakash. There were frequent quarrels between the appellants and Vidya. A criminal complaint was also filed by Vidya's brother against the Appellants as well as her husband for ill treating and harassing her. It is the prosecution case that on 4-1-1996 when the Appellants were in the house with Vidya, Appellant No. 1, he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted. 2. Lands belonging to Ambya Kalya Mhatre (`A.K.Mhatre' for short, now represented by his LRs.) situated at Dapoli village, Panvel taluk, Raigad district, bearing Sy. Nos.89/1, 85/1, 27/1, 41/1B, 41/1A, 152/3, 155/7, 18/7, 89/3, 23/2 and 99/1 in all measuring 1.73.6 Hectares (17360 sq.m.) with a large number of fruit bearing trees and a well therein, were acquired for New Bombay project in pursuance of preliminary notification dated 3.2.1970 (read with corrigendum dated 5.9.1970) and final notification dated 29.7.1979. 3. The special Land Acquisition Officer (for short `the Collector') awarded the following compensation by award dated 4.7.1986: S.No. Description Market Solatium Additional amount Total value (30%) @ 12% per annum 1. Land ` 24,898.32 ` 7469.49 ` 49,049.69 ` 81,417.50 2. Trees ` 83,629.00 ` 25,088.70 ` 1,65,586.40 ` 2,74,303.10 3. Well ` 500.00 ` 150.00 ` 990.00 ` 1,640.00 Possession of the land was taken on 9.9.1986. Not being satisfied with the compensa...
Tag this Judgment!