Mumbai Court September 1996 Judgments

Suresh Jayantilal Ajmera and Others Vs. Rasiklal Gokaldas Ajmera and O ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1997Bom279; 1997(2)BomCR30; 1997(1)MhLj327

ORDERDr. B. P. Saraf, J. 1. This is an appeal from the order of the learned single Judge rejecting the application of the appellants under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (the 'Act') for extending the time for making the award. 2. When this appeal was taken up for hearing Mr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, learned counsel for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection in regard to the maintainability of this appeal. It was contended that no a appeal lies against an order under Section 28 of the Act refusing to enlarge the time for making an award. Our attention was drawn to Section 39 of the Act, which provides for appeal, to show that an order under Section 28 refusing to enlarge time for making the award is not included in the list of appealable orders set out in sub-section (i) thereof. It was submitted that appeal lies under Section 39(i) of the Act only from the orders specified therein and 'from no others'. It was also submitted that no appeal lies from the impugned order eve...

Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed Vs. Ulhas Damodhar Thigl ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)IILLJ1130Bom

1. On the request of the learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forth with. 2. This writ petition is filed by the respondent in complaint ULP No. 893 pending in the Labour Court, Aurangabad. Pending the complaint the Respondent filed application, Exh. U2 for interim relief of reinstatement but that application was rejected by the Labour Court against which the respondent filed Revision No. 35 of 1994 in the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court set aside the order passed by the U. hour Court & granted the application directing the petitioner respondent to reinstate the respondent retrain in service during the pendency; and disposal of the complaint. 3.That order dt. July 5, 1995 passed by the Industrial Court is questioned in this writ petition. 4. It is well settled that under See. 30(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, interim orders cannot be granted in the absence of strong prima facie case in favour of the complainant. It, therefore, necessarily follows tha...

Smt. Virbala K. Kewalram and ors. Vs. Shri Ramchand Lalchand and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR414

V.H. Bhairavia, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order passed by the City Civil Judge dated 15th April, 1994 in Charity Application No. 35/93, dismissing the application and confirming the order of the Charity Commissioner passed under section 70-A of the Public Trusts Act.2. The proceedings were initiated under the Public Trusts Act before the Deputy Charity Commissioner by the respondents herein by filing an application invoking the revisional jurisdiction under section 70-A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and sought order for change report for registration of immovable property bearing C.T.S. No. 400 admeasuring 703 sq. yards. The Trust Deed alleged to have been executed by one Kumbhandas Kewalram, registered at Serial No. 1609 on 31st May, 1963 in the office of Sub-Registrar of Assurance, Bombay on 1st October, 1963, settled the properties mentioned therein admeasuring 1399 sq.yards comprising of C.T.S. No. 400 and C.T.S. No. 401 admeasuring 588 and 582 sq. mts. r...

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Irphan Khudada Bardi and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR584

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. A perverse judgment of acquittal dated 29th April 1982 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 221 of 1980 acquitting the respondents for offences punishable under section. 302 I.P.C. read with 149 I.P.C., in the alternative under section 302 read with 34 I.P.C.; 324 read with 149 I.P.C.; 324 read with 34 I.P.C.; 147 I.P.C.; and 148 I.P.C. etc. has prompted the State of Maharashtra to file an appeal under section 378(1) Cr.P.C.2. We may straightway mention that the appeal against respondent No. 7, Ikbal Gulam Rasul Kharabe, stands abated in view of the order dated 1-11-1993 passed by a Division Bench of this Court comprising of M.L. Pendse, J. (as he then was) and M.F. Saldanha, J.3. Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as under :---31-5-1980 was the day of General Elections. The atmosphere in Bhiwandi, especially in the locality of Kasaiwada was tense. The two main contestants in the fray were candidates of Congress (I) party an...

Dr. P. NavIn Kumar and ors. Vs. the Bombay Municipal Corporation and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR652

M.B. Shah, C.J.1. The question involved in these two public interest petitions is whether the Municipal Corporation should be permitted to construct toilet block near 'Gateway of India'. Petitioners have prayed that the Municipal Corporation be prevented from constructing toilet block.2. In our view, this not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the Corporation is providing a facility which is a must for human beings at a place which is visited by thousands of persons every day. Facility of providing toilet block is also to prevent nuisance arising because of unauthorised use of the open space to answer natural calls by people visiting the area. Further, the resolution to construct toilet block was already passed on 5th August, 1991. No objection was taken at the relevant time. Subsequently, toilet block is constructed and thereafter the present petition is filed on 13th March, 1992.3. Apart from this, on merits also, we do not think that any ...

Mannlal S/O Ramprasad Yadao Vs. Presiding Officer, Second Labour Court ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(1)BomCR119

ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The petitioner, a dismissed driver of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for short), has herein challenged the award passed by the Labour Court affirming the said dismissal by the Corporation on account of the misconduct. Shortly stated the factual panorama is as follows :2. The petitioner Mannala was working as a driver for about 8 years and was attached to Tumsar Depot. A charge-sheet came to be served on him on 25-7-1977 alleging therein that on 19-7-1977, while one P.P. Sable who was working as a Traffic Controller, was on duty in the room next to the Control Room, the petitioner entered the same at about 3 O'clock in the after-noon and at that time he was under the influence of liquor. He abused the said Shri Sable in the filthy manner and though he was tried to be appeased, the petitioner did not stop abusing and instead picked up an aluminium rod and hit Shri Sable on his left hand 3-4 times. N...

Mhaiskar K.G. Vs. Bank of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR480; (1996)98BOMLR656; (1998)IIILLJ851Bom; 1996(2)MhLj664

N.D. Vyas, J.1. By the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order of dismissal dated May 25. 1983 confirmed by the appellate authority by its order dated April 7, 1987 and again confirmed by the reviewing authority by its order dated September 23, 1987. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the said orders and prayed for reinstatement with full backwages and consequential benefits.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:The petitioner joined the employment of the Respondents in 1962 as an Officer and continued in the employment till he was dismissed from service. It is not necessary to trace the subsequent career of the petitioner in service. Suffice it to say that in 1980, the petitioner was transferred as Branch Manager to Amravati Main Branch of the Respondent-Bank and he was further designated as Coordinator of Amravati District with overal...

The Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Muhammad Masud Muhammad MahsIn B ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR314

M.L. Dudhat, J.1. This appeal and the cross appeal are filed against the judgment and decree dated 23rd June 1993 passed by the learned District Judge, Raigad, Alibag in Land Acquisition Reference No. 184 of 1986. In the said judgment and decree dated 23rd June 1993 given by the learned District Judge, the learned District Judge has disposed of in all 79 Land Acquisition References. Since in all these matters there is a common question of fact and common question of law arise for consideration, we are disposing of these matters by the judgment as in First Appeal No. 455 of 1994 with First Appeal No. 741 of 1994. Ratio of the judgment given by us will be applicable to all other First Appeals and/or Cross Objections.2. Few facts which are material for the purpose of disposing of these first appeals are as under.3. Appellant No. 2 State of Maharashtra issued notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for the sake of brevity) f...

Raymond Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Today the matter was listed for admission. However, considering the issue involved, admitting the appeal the same is taken up for final disposal. (i) the credit was taken on the basis of the original invoices when the prescribed documents was only the duplicate copy of the invoice and (ii) that the inputs used for manufacture of packing material which were exempted from duty was not entitled to Modvat credit in relation to final product.4. So far as the packing material aspect is concerned, the issue has squarely stood decided by the Madras High Court in Ponds (India) Ltd. v. Collector -1993 (63) E.L.T. 3 (Mad.). This has also been followed by this Bench in Ashwin Vanaspati v. Collector. Even in the earlier decision of the Tribunal in FDC Ltd. v. Collector -1991 (55) E.L.T. 601 (Tribunal) it has been held that denial of Modvat credit on inputs used in manufacture of packing material which are used for packing of the final product, which are excisable, cannot be denied. In that case...

Commr. of Cus. Vs. Appollo International

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT477Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the order impugned in the appeal, Commissioner has held that the staple pins imported by the importer, the respondent in this appeal, were entitled to clearance under the special import licence. The Department seeks to challenge this finding on the ground that the goods are "consumer goods" as defined in the Policy and cannot permit to be imported under the special import licence produced.2. It is first contended by the Departmental Representative that the reliance by the Commissioner on the Specification of staple pins in the Import Export Policy aligned on the specification is misplaced, because this classification is not in the nature of amendment of the policy cannot be part of the Import Policy. The Commissioner himself has not accepted that classification in this publication as part of the policy as he refers to this classification before referring to the fact that the policy based on the clearance is permissible. It is next contended that at the relevant time that the imp...