Mumbai Court November 1997 Judgments

Fakkad Haibatrao Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR163; 1998(2)BomCR390

ORDERT.K. Chandrasekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner herein challenges the order Exh. B passed by Shri T.K. Kambale, Additional Commissioner, Konkan division on 17th November 1983 in this petition. By the impugned order the land comprising S. No.2 measuring 28.3/4 areas in village Shiroshi taluka Murbad Dist. Thane and ordered to be restored to the respondents. According to the case of the petitioner the respondent No. 3 was the wife of the original tenant who was cultivating the land. The original tenant died the respondent No. 3 surrendered the land to petitioners. Through an application alleged to have been made on 12-1-1957 to Tahsildar, Murbad for surrendering an order came to be passed on 17-8-1957 and the possession of the said land was given to the petitioner. As far back as 1979, a suo motto proceedings have been initiated under the provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Land to Schedule Tribes Act, 1974, by the Additional Tahsildar, Ulhasnagar. After issuance of the notice...

Jagu Tukaram Waghamale Vs. Dnyandeo Bala Waghmale and Another

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR267; 1998(2)BomCR433

ORDERT.K. Chandrasekhara Das, J. 1. The petitioner herein challenges the orders impugned in this case evidenced by Exhibit A, B, and C, whereby the claim of the petitioner that he is a tenant in respect of the land comprised in Section No. 414 nowGat No. 1004 measuring 5 acres and 5 gunthas in Arale Village, Dist. Satara are negatived. According to the petitioner he was the tenant under the respondent No. 2 in possession and his name appears in wheat column of the record of rights of the suit land during the period from 1956 to 1960-61. By virtue of the proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agriculture Land Act, 1948 an order came to be passed in favour of the petitioner on 10-10-1965. Accordingly purchase price was fixed at Rs. 391.59. It appears that this order has become final as the land lord did not take the matter in appeal. The petitioner when he was dispossessed at the instance of the respondent No. 1 who was the purchaser of the land from respondent No. 2 la...

Shri Birju Batran Vs. M/S. Phoenix Mills Ltd. and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR540; 1998(2)BomCR445

ORDERF.I. Rebello, J. 1. Rule. Respondent No. 1 waives service. By consent heard forthwith.In the instant case the petitioner joined the services in the year 1961. His services came to be terminated along with other workmen with effect from 28th February, 1982. He was taken back in service on 14th August, 1985. A reference in respect of his dismissal was also made to the Industrial Court. The petitioner applied to the Industrial Court to have his name deleted from the record on the ground that he had compromised the matter with the respondent Compay. The Industrial Court on such application, deleted the name of the petitioner from the reference. The petitioner was thereafter paid gratuity some time in the year 1991. After superannuation the petitioner moved an application to the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and claimed the difference on the ground of continuous service. The questions that arise in this petition are the same which have arisen in Writ Petition No. 1036 of ...

KamruddIn Umarji Shaikh Since Deceased Through His Heirs Vs. Shri Bark ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR272; 1998(2)BomCR778; 1998(1)MhLj728

ORDERT.K. Chandrasekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order passed by Shri T.K. Kambale, Additional Commissioner dated 14-12-1983 by exercising the revisional power under section 7 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Land to Schedule Tribes, Act, 1974 whereby the possession of the land in question has been ordered to be restored to the first respondent. The first respondent admittedly was the tenant of the land under the landlord respondent No. 2. By virtue of section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948, proceedings were initialed in favour of the first respondent and the purchase price has been fixed. Since the first respondent failed to pay the purchase price the order passed under section 32-G has become ineffective. Consequently the proceedings under section 32-P were taken and the possession of the property was surrendered back to the 2nd respondent, landlord. Undisputedly, the first respondent was evicted from the land pursuant to the proceedings u...

Vithal Ganpat Bhanushali Vs. Zipar Sukur Ghute and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR222; 1998(2)BomCR878

ORDERT.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The petitioner is the original landlord in respect of the land comprised in S. No. 26/1 measuring 7 acres and 5 gunthas situate at village Utavali, Taluka Jawhar in Thane District. Originally the first and second respondents who are the tribals were the tenants of the land. It appears that by virtue of the proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 the price was fixed and the respondent No. 1 and 2 failed to pay the instalments of the purchase price. Therefore the order passed in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 under section 32-G became ineffective. Consequently on the initiation of the proceedings under section 32-P the respondent No. 1 and 2 were evicted and the land came to be in possession of the petitioner. Subsequently in exercise of the powers under section 4 of the Maharashtra Restoration of the Land to Schedule Tribes Act, 1974, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dahanu on 22-11-1977 directed to withdraw...

Baburam Rameshwar Vs. Phoenix Mills Ltd. and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)ILLJ258Bom

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Respondent No. 1 waives service. By consent petition heard forthwith. The point involved in this petition is interpretation of the words 'continuous service' as defined in Section 2-A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The relevant portion of Section 2-A(1) reads as under : '2-A (1) Continuous Service. (1) For the purpose of this Act : (I) An employee shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he has for that period been in uninterrupted service including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness, accident, leave, absence from duty without leave (not beings absence in respect of which an order treating the absence as break in service has been passed in accordance with the Standing Orders, rules or regulations governing the employees of the establishment) lay-off, strike or a lock-out or cessation of work not due to any fault of the employee, whether such uninterrupted or interrupted service was rendered before or after the comme...

Shri Baburam Rameshwar Vs. M/S. Phoenix Mills Ltd. and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(1)ALLMR570; 1998(3)BomCR790

ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Respondent No. 1 waives service. By consent petition heard forthwith.The point involved in this petition is interpretation of the words 'continuous service' as defined in section 2-A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The relevant portion of section 2-A(1) reads as under:--'2-A(1). Continuous Service:--(1) For the purpose of this Act. (1) An employee shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he has, for that period, been in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness, accident, leave absence from duty without leave (not being absence in respect of which an order treating the absence as break in service has been passed in accordance with the standing order, rules or regulations governing the employees of the establishment), lay-off, strike or a lock-out or cessation of work not due to any fault of the employee, whether such uninterrupted or interrupted service was rendered before or after the c...

itc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT245Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue for decision in this appeal is whether the appellant is liable to pay duty on that quantity of cigarettes which were removed by it out of the stock produced by to a laboratory for the purpose of test. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Additional Collector has held that duty was payable.2. By the notice issued on 30th May, 1990 the Department proposed to recover duty on samples cleared during the period of 1st June, 1986 to 23rd February, 1987. The notice alleged suppression of the fact that the samples were taken to the laboratory for testing as a reason for invoking the extended period contained in the proviso to Section 11A of the Act. Advocate for the appellant contends that it suppressed nothing. Thee was no requirement for it to intimate the Department of the quantity issued for the test. He says that Rule 94 does not require any account to be maintained of samples removed for such testing. The notice does not allege or the Additional Collector find that the a...

Sushila Devi Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer. (Also Anil

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals by the assessees for the asst. yr. 1985-86 involve common issue. Therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of through this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that in 1959 J. M. Gupta purchased land at Santacruz, Mumbai. It was claimed to have been purchased with funds belonging to the HUF, headed by J. M. Gupta as Karta and comprising of Karta, his wife Smt. Sushila Devi Gupta and two sons, Anil Kumar Gupta & Arun Gupta. In the year 1962 three flats on ground floor and some portion on the first floor was constructed with the funds of the HUF. On 1st of March, 1976 through a partial partition of the above HUF the above property was partitioned and specified shares were given to Smt. Sushila Devi and two sons of the Karta. It is claimed that as on the date of partition, Anil Kumar Gupta was married and had a son. Arun Gupta was unmarried.3. The aforesaid partial partition was accepted in ...

Abdul Razak Ibrahim Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)100BOMLR45

A.P. Shah, J.1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of detention dated 15th January, 1997 passed by the Secretary to Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Preventive Detention) under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ('Act' for short) with a view of preventing the petitioner from smuggling goods in future.2. The salient and material facts which necessitated the detaining authority to pass the impugned order, as set out in the grounds of detention, are as follows :On 22nd July, 1996 the Officers of the D.R.I. seized from one Nainmal Joshi foreign currency worth Indian rupees 13,25,000/-. The statement of the said Nainmal Joshi was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the same day wherein he admitted that he was buying smuggled foreign marked gold biscuits from the petitioner and that he had made payment to the petit...