Mumbai Court October 1988 Judgments

Laxman Mahadev Teli Vs. Principal, Shri Pancham Khemraj Mahavidyalaya ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1989Bom213; 1988(4)BomCR35; (1988)90BOMLR552; [1989(58)FLR52]; 1988MhLJ1039

Lentin, J.1. A temporary employee cannot be kept in suspended animation indefinitely. Such is the ratio of this judgment.2. On 30th Sept., 1978 the petitioners was appointed as a peon in a temporary capacity for a period of one year in Pancham Khemraj Mahavidyalaya whose Principal and President are respondents 1 and 2 respectively. He was appointed for a period of one year with the stipulation that if his work was not found to be satisfactory, he could be relieved with one day's notice. His services were terminated with effect from 31st Mar., 1979. The petitioner was again appointed as a peon in a temporary capacity with effect from 22nd Sept., 1979 with the stipulation that his services could be terminated at any time. The petitioner's services were terminated with effect from 1st April 1980. The petitioner was again appointed in a temporary capacity as a peon in Mar. 1981. It is not disputed that thereafter he throughout worked without break in service till 19th June 1986, when by th...

Raju Mahavir Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR160; (1988)90BOMLR529; 1989MhLJ833

S.M. Daud, J.1. These petitions by persons claiming to be a lessee and lessor respectively impugn an order passed by the Addl. Commissioner Konkan Division in an appeal under section 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the U.L.C. Act.2. Land bearing Survey No. 151-A City Survey Nos. 461 and 462 etc.etc. of village Nahur, Taluka Kurla was formerly part of the Bhandup Estate which held it along with other properties as Inam land. This type of grant along with others were abolished vide section 5 of the Bombay Personal Inam Abolition Act, 1952 hereinafter to be known as the 'Abolition Act'. A proper understanding of the controversy to be resolved requires a categorisation of the lis personae. First, are the petitioners, to be referred to by their surnames i.e. Shah and Patil. The latter claims to be an 'inferior holder' of the land-his rights having been enlarged into full-fledged ownership by the Abolition Act. Shah claims to be the son and...

J.J. Foams (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) No. S/49-l/83-Bond, dated 31-3-1983. The facts of the case for disposal of this appeal can be briefly stated as below :- The appellants imported Polyether Polyol, TDI 80 and Silicone compound contained in 486 drums. They were bonded at Bombay. On arrival, the importers sought for immediate transfer in bond to Delhi. When the consignment arrived in containers and destuffed in Bombay Docks, some of them were found in rusty condition and some of the drums were leaking. Hence the appellants applied for survey which was conducted on 27-2-1982 and 1/9-3-1982. The survey was conducted in the presence of Customs as per the survey report. Though the drums appeared intact, they were found partly rusted, 13 drums of TDI found leaking and 2 drums of Polyether Polyol empty and 8 leaking. On survey it was ascertained that the total shortage was TDI 216 kgs and Polyether Polyol was found short by 590 kgs. However, notwithst...

Jitendra Damji Bhedda Vs. Collector of Customs, Preventive

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1989)(20)LC171Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal arises out of and Is directed against the Order-in-Appeal bearingNo. S/49-212/87 GC (BMY) dated 13.11.87 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay.2. The undisputed facts are that on 26-8-1985 the appellant made an application for a gold dealer's licence mentioning two grounds, namely that he was working with M/s. Pushpak Jewellers, Bombay, from 1973 to 1982, his name had been mentioned in GS-6 form of M/s. Pushpam Jewellers for the said period and which are available in the office of the Deputy Collector. Secondly, that he got a Goldsmith Certificate No.BHJ/GS/44/83 and he has been maintaining the accounts In the form of GS-13 of the business conducted by him. in the Annexure to the application the applicant furnished the turnover as under: Period Weight 3. The Superintendent issued a show cause notice dated 25-9-1986 alleging that the appellant herein does not fulfil the condition as laid down in Proviso (b) to Rule 2 (f) of the Gold (Control) (Licensing of ...

Premnath M. Shirodkar Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1989)(21)LC270Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-/Appeal bearing No. S/49-207/87 GC dated 20.4.87 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay.2. The undisputed facts are that the appellant on 11.11.85 made an application for Gold Dealers Licence, which was received by the department on 15.11.85. The department issued a show cause notice dated 17.12.85 alleging that the place in which the applicant intends to deal in gold is a remote place and having regard to the population and remoteness of the pla :e, it does not require any gold dealers licence to be issued. It was further stated that n earby markets are not big, which warrant a separate gold dealers licence and therefore tr e appellant was called upon to show cause as to why his application should not be reject id. The appellant sent a detailed reply controverting the statement contained in the show cause notice. He submitted that when the place vapoli is a Taluk Headquarters comprising of 70 villages. The...

Nandakumar Shankar Mhatre Vs. Dayanand Mahadev Mhatre and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR112

ORDER1. This is a petition for cancellation of bail under S. 439(2) of the Criminal P.C.2. The respondents are the accused in C.R. No. 17 of 1988 of Bhava Sheva Police Station for the offences punishable under section s 302, 147, 148, 149, 323, 114, 207 and 326 India Penal Code. They were released on bail by the Sessions Court by three different orders. After they were released on bail they abused the liberty granted to them and they had attacked the house of one Dilip Dayaram Mhatre and the Uran Police Station registered offences against them for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 336, 504 and 506 I.P.C. It has been alleged in the petition that there was sufficient evidence against the petitioners for the commission of the offence under S. 302 read with S. 149 I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge released them on bail and they abused the liberty granted to them. It was further alleged that an application was made to the Sessions Judge for cancellation of bail on 23rd August...

Pravinkumar M. JaIn Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1989)(24)LC193Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-original bearing No. 11/87 (Collector) dated 20-4-1987 passed by the Collector of Customs (Preventive) Bombay.2. The subject of challenge in this appeal is the order of confiscation of the primary-gold weighing 1440.900 gms under Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act and the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- imposed on the appellant under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act 3. Shri Gujral, appearing for the appellant, contended that the department had accepted that the primary gold found in the appellant's possession were obtained by melting the old gold ornaments given by the customers. If that position is accepted the gold belonging to the customers cannot be ordered to be confiscated and, therefore, the order of confiscation itself is illegal. In that connection Shri Gujral placed reliance on the decision of the CEGAT reported in 1985 ECR page 167 and the Supreme Court decision reported in 1987 (31) ELT page 609.Secondly Shri ...

Bank of Baroda Vs. Shrihari Moreshwar Vaze and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1989]66CompCas320(Bom)

1. The only grievance made by the appellants' learned counsel, Mr. Aras, before us is that the learned trial judge did not grant any penal interest to the appellants while decreeing the suit. In support of this contention, learned counsel relies upon a directive issued by the Reserve Bank setting out instances where scheduled commercial banks 'may be justified in charging penal rates'.2. While Mr. Aras contends that this directive is binding upon the scheduled commercial banks, he does not say, as indeed he cannot, that it was also binding on the learned trial judge. Even on that score, all that the directive does is to give a discretion to the scheduled commercial banks to charge penal rates as this is borne out by the words 'may be justified in charging penal rates'. (The underlining is ours.)3. Further, for not granting penal interest, the learned trial judge has given cogent reasons, namely, that the promissory note and the letter of hypothecation did not stipulate for any penal in...

Ramkrishna Bajirao Gotmare Vs. Kanhaiyalal Tribhuwanlal Shah

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1990Bom361

ORDER1. What is the starting point of limitation to file an application under Art. 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for execution of a decree affirmed in appeal and when there was no stay, is a point to be determined in this civil revision application. That under the old Limitation Act, 1908, starting point was the date of appellate decree in such a situation, is not disputed before me. Contention is that the new Act has brought about a change in the legal position by which time begins to run from the date of passing of the original decree, since it is enforceable from that very date. Art. 136 is worded as under :(see table)2. Basic facts lie within a narrow compass. A money decree for a sum of Rs. 6,0000/- and odd was passed by the trial Court on 30-7-1968. Appellate Court affirmed the said decree on 17-10-1969 and no stay under 0.41, R. 5 of the C.P. Code was evenFor the execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction) or order of any civil Court.Twelve y...

Omprakash Tulsiram and ors. Vs. H.J. Leach and Co.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR97; (1988)90BOMLR554; 1989MhLJ51

H. Suresh, J.1. If a tenant claims a right of way, say, a private road, which leads to his premises, and contends that any obstruction by the landlord in the user thereof is an interference with his right to quite enjoyment of the demised premises, which Court will have jurisdiction to entertain and try such a suit? Secondly, to what extent he can enforce his right of way? These are the two questions which arise in this matter.2. In the suit filed in the Bombay Civil Court bearing No. 8313 of 1987, the plaintiffs/tenants have pleaded that they are the tenants in respect of godowns being Block No. D and D/1 and an open space together admeasuring 7,600 square feet in Gupta Mills Estate, Reay Road, Bombay-400 010. The defendants/respondents are the landlords of the said premises. The plaintiffs say that the demised premises were let out to them by the defendants in September 1940 and that right from the inception of their tenancy they were entitled to the use of the road passing through t...