Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-18-2008
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR896; 2009(111)BomLR479
A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. Being aggrieved by the order, below Exh. 4, dated 18.6.2007 in Civil Suit No. 2/2007 (Garware Wall Ropes Limited.v. A.I. Chopra and Anr.), rejecting the application for grant of temporary injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff, the present appeal was filed.3. This appeal was decided by this Court by judgment and order dated 19.12.2007. In Civil Appeal No. 4762/2008 decided on 1.8.2008, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India set aside the said judgment and remitted these appellate proceedings for fresh disposal in accordance with law and also indicated the questions to be decided. Thereafter, respondent-original defendant No. 1 in the instant appeal filed Civil Application No. 6230/2008, which came to be allowed by this Court under order dated 28.8.2008. That application came to be allowed and the documents proposed to be filed with the said application were taken on record. Learned Counsel for both the parti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-12-2008
Reported in : (2008)110BOMLR598; 2008LC(BOM)309
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of Shri Kilor, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3701/2007, Shri Shinde, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5100/2007, Shri Gordey, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5855/2007, Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent No. 1 State, Shri Vikas Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India with Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in Writ Petition Nos. 3701/2007 and 5855/2007 and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in Writ Petition No. 5100/2007, and Shri Arun Agrawal, learned Counsel for the respondent M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Shri Kilor, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3701/2007, states that petitioners do not want to press prayer Clauses (2) and (3) in the writ petition. In view of the said statement of learned Counsel Shri Kilor, Shri Parchure, learned Counsel for the inter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-18-2008
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR447; 2009BusLRSN-5(Bom); 2009(2)MhLj940; (2009)19VST301(Bom)
S.A. Bobde, J.1. By this Petition, the petitioner No. 1, which is a public charitable trust, and others have questioned the liability to pay entertainment duty in respect of the cable television net-work in the premises of the Hospital and have prayed for setting aside the orders demanding such duty and confirming the demand.2. According to the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1 is a public charitable trust which runs the Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre without any motive of earning profit. A cable operator in the area is said to have offered its basic service of 32 channels free of charge as a special case for one year, to be renewed subsequently. In pursuance thereof, the petitioners have installed about 150 television sets with cable connection in some rooms and in common waiting areas where relatives/friends of patients wait in the hospital. According to the petitioners, the hospital does not charge any special fee from the patients in respect of the television sets inst...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-19-2008
Reported in : (2008)220CTR(Bom)425; [2009]310ITR320(Bom); [2009]177TAXMAN81(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. This reference has been made by the Tribunal to this Court in respect of, the asst. yr. 1979-80. The respondent had entered into agreements with Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL), Bharat Electronics Ltd. (BEL) and Siemens India Ltd. (Siemens).2. The first agreement between the assessee respondent and BHEL was entered into on 21st July, 1974, the second was dt. 28th July, 1975, and the third agreement was entered into earlier on 28th Oct., 1975.Similarly assessee entered into agreements with BEL on 15th March, 1967, 23rd Feb., 1973 and dt. 17th July, 1975.The assessee had also entered into agreements with Siemens dt. 22nd Feb., 1973 and 17th July, 1975.3. The issue which arises for consideration in the present reference is whether the amounts received under those agreements by the respondent from the three companies were chargeable to tax in India either having regard to the provisions of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) or having regard to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-28-2008
Reported in : 2008(3)ALLMR35; 2008(3)ARBLR204(Bom); 2008(4)BomCR594; (2008)110BOMLR852; 2008(4)MhLj238
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This First Appeal filed under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Act) challenges the judgment and order dated 16/6/2007 delivered by learned District Judge, Nagpur in Misc. Civil Application No. 531 of 2003 whereby the learned District Judge has allowed application under Section 34 thereof filed by present Respondent. Appellant had stated that controversy herein is covered by the judgment dated 23/12/2005 in First Appeal No. 601/2005 and hence both parties had agreed to address the court finally at the stage of admission itself. On one date, Respondent stated that another matter vide F.A. No. 284/2007 between parties involving similar point was already closed for judgment and therefore it was thought fit to await such judgment. The said Appeal was decided on 20/12/2007. In the meanwhile record & proceedings from Court of District Judge were called for and thereafter, parties were heard on 11th, 12th and 13th Februar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-24-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)BomCR440; 2008(4)MhLj784
Roshan Dalvi, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith as affidavit in reply on behalf of the respondents has been filed. Heard Mr. Pathan learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mrs. Bhide learned A.G.P for the respondents.2. The petitioner was appointed as a Resident Anesthetist at ESIS Hospital, Worli, Mumbai under Appointment Order dated 23rd September, 1980, Exhibit-E to the Petition. That was a temporary post of M.M.I.S. Class II requiring the petitioner to officiate on the post until the post was filled on regular basis. The petitioner served initially at Worli and then at Mulund and Ulhasnagar. She is now serving at the E.S.I.S Hospital, Worli, Mumbai. She lives in Thane as is evident from the title of the Petition.3. The petitioner does not reside in Government accommodation. The petitioner claims to be paid House Rent Allowance (HRA) on the premise that she does not want and has rejected the government accommodation offered to her.4. The petitioner was initially offered government acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-10-2008
Reported in : 2009(2)BomCR183
Dalvi Roshan, J.1. The original plaintiff No. 1 and plaintiff No. 2 were the heirs of one Prakash Nagindas Parekh, who expired on 20th February, 1984 in KEM Hospital, Mumbai. Plaintiff No. 1 expired pending the Suit. Plaintiffs 1 (a) to 1(b) are the heirs and legal representatives of the original plaintiff No. 1 along with plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiffs claim damages from the defendant upon the tort of negligence.2. The defendant is a qualified practising Surgeon. The aforesaid Prakash Nagindas Parekh (the deceased) suffered from a condition called hyperhidrosis (excessive sweating). He was under the treatment of the defendant who had performed a surgery medically called upper Dorsal or Cervical Sympathectomy which is a surgery to be performed on the hands (upper limbs) to alleviate the said medical condition. Sympathectomy is a surgical excision of a part of the nervous system which causes hyperhidrosis. It is the plaintiffs' case that the defendant was negligent during course of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-03-2008
Reported in : 2008(5)BomCR69; (2008)110BOMLR2304; [2008(119)FLR424]; (2009)ILLJ2Bom
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. In these two Writ Petitions the interim order passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai on 5/5/2008 in Complaint (ULP) No. 118 of 2008 is challenged. By the said interim order, the Industrial Court has rejected the application of the Complainant-Union by declining to stay the transfer of the employees from Mulund in Mumbai to Baddi in Himachal Pradesh except in the case of 7 employees. 2. Complaint (ULP) No. 118 of 2008 was filed by the Nicholas Employees Union (Union for short) alleging unfair labour practice on the part of Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. (Company for short) in closing the Mulund Unit and transferring the permanent employees working in the Mulund Unit to Baddi a place in Himachal Pradesh. The Union contended that the decision of the Company in shifting the Mulund Unit and consequently transferring the employees is vitiated by malafides and constituted unfair labour practice under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. As the Industrial Court declined to grant interim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-15-2008
Reported in : 2008(4)ARBLR313(Bom); 2008(5)BomCR196
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. On 20th July 2003, the Petitioner invited tenders for the construction of 1648 tenements for the rehabilitation of project affected households at Kanjur Marg. This was a World Bank Project. The work was to be carried out in two phases. Phase I envisaged the completion of 384 tenements. Phase II involved the completion of the balance. The area where residential premises were to be constructed was densely populated and was congested with dwelling units of an informal nature. The two phase programme of work was to be in accordance with the availability of vacant space for the construction of buildings. The contractor was to initially complete three or four buildings and upon the shifting of project affected families in the space which would be vacated, other buildings were to be constructed. The contractor was on notice that he would have to coordinate the work in such a manner as would avoid any hindrance in progress of the work 'for which he would not be paid any ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-25-2008
Reported in : 2009ACJ585; 2008(6)MhLj941
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.Relevant Facts:1. Mohd. Riyazur Rehman Siddiqui met with an accident on 30th September 1986 on Bidar-Udgir road while he was driving a motor-cycle No. MZV-6233. According to him, while he was driving the vehicle at a very moderate speed, the driver of jeep bearing No. MZV-6437 who was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently gave a dash to the motor-cycle and resultantly he sustained injuries. A case under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code was registered with the Police Station, Udgir. The Appellant resultantly of the accident sustained permanent disability to the extent of 48%. He filed a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being Case No. 26, of 1987 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur, which was contested and decided finally by the Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 5th May 1989 awarding compensation of Rs. 51,000/- only with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the claim petition. T...
Tag this Judgment!