Mumbai Court December 1998 Judgments

Executive Engineer, Upper Painganga Project Vs. M.V. Panse and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1999Bom254; 1999(2)ALLMR366; 1999(4)BomCR822

ORDERD.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Smt. Wandile, learned Assistant Government Header for the applicant, and Shri Pendse, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2. The Civil revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 19-10-1996 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pusad in M.J.C. No. 21 of 1995 whereby the learned Court below rejected the application moved by the present applicant under section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.2. It will be proper for me to consider few relevant facts, which have given rise to the dispute in question. At the relevant time, the applicant was Executive Engineer, Upper Painganga Project, Division No. 2, Umarkhed. He was incharge of construction of left bank canal of Painganga Project at Isapur. The tenders were invited by the Superintending Engineer, Upper Painganga Project Circle, Nanded for the above referred construction work. The tender of respondent No. 2 M/s. Qureshi brothers being lowest, was accepted and construction work ...

Mahesh Govind Vs. L.P. Rege. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR5a

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Respondent No. 1, as the Administrative Officer of M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, filed a complaint against the petitioner herein before the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 59th Court, Vile Parle, Bombay, being Case No. 4/S/95 (38/S/85). It was the case of the respondent No. 1 that the petitioner was in possession of premises belonging to the company and though he ceased to be an employee, he had refused to hand over possession of the premises and consequently the complaint. Process in the case was issued on 29th August, 1988. There was one more accused who was discharged by order dated 27th July, 1994 and charge under Section 630 of the Companies Act and 406 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the petitioner herein. In the complaint, the complainant set out that the petitioner was initially employed on probation by appointment letter dated 9th October, 1953. He was confirmed on 27th April, 1954 and his resignation was accepted as and on July, 14, ...

Sea Bridge Maritime Agencies Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT250Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Customs imposing a penalty of Rs. 11 lakhs on the appellant under Section 112 of the Act.2, The appellant is an agent of the slot charterer of M/s. Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. The slot charter is explained in the following terms in the book Maritime Law by Christopher Hill, published by Lloyds of London, fourth edition, 1955 :- "This has reference to the carriage of containers, or to use current jargon, TEUs (20-foot equivalent units). The shipowner or operator 'rents out' or hires a 'piece' of space (a percentage of the total space available on the vessel) for carrying TEUs in return for which he receives hire calculated in accordance with the number of slots (accommodation for each TEU) payable whether or not those slots or spaces are actually used." A slot charterer is therefore a person who is engaged in such an operation of hiring some of the space on the container ship and selling it in turn to shippers. The vessel had be...

Vasant Investment Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Company Law Board and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1999Bom207; 1999(1)ALLMR362; 1999(2)BomCR254a; (1999)1BOMLR916; [2000]102CompCas421(Bom)

ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. The legality and correctness of the order dated 22-5-1992 passed by the Company Law Board. Western Region Bench, Bombay is subject matter of challenge in this appeal filed under section 10(f) of Companies Act, 1956. By the said order the Company Law Board disposed of two appeals namely Appeal Nos. 4 and 5(iii) CLB/WR of 1991 filed under section 111 of Companies Act, 1956 wherein the order of the company refusing to register the shares lodged for transfer was impugned.2. The present appellant M/s. Vasant Investment Corporation Limited (the Company) is incorporated under Companies Act, 1956. The issued, subscribed and paid up capital of the company is Rs. 36,97,435/- divided into 96,961 shares of Rs. 37/- each and 1500 equity shares of Rs. 74/-. The Company carries on business as dealer and consultant in securities and investment. The Company is not listed on any stock exchange. On 3-1-1989 Shri Kashi Deora, (respondent No. 4 - transferee) lodged to the company 1460...

Shri R.V. Joglekar Vs. the Head Master of Shri Damodar Vidyalaya High ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(2)ALLMR596; 1999(3)BomCR426

ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The appellant had filed a suit for reinstatement and/ or compensation by way of damages. The claim for reinstatement was rejected. However, compensation to the tune of Rs. 35,711.40 corresponding to 18 months salary with 6% interest was ordered to be paid to the appellant. This judgment dated 29th May, 1992 is impugned by the respondents by filing First Appeal No. 8/1993. The appellant filed Cross Objections. The appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed since the respondents did not comply with the requirement of Rule 12(V) and (VI) of Chapter IX of the Appellate Side Rules, 1960. Therefore, the Cross Objections filed by the appellant are required to be dealt with in this judgment.2. The appellant is M.A. in Marathi and B.Ed. in Sanskrit. He was appointed as Assistant Teacher in respondent's School in 1964/65. He was promoted to the post of Headmaster two years later. This School imparted education through Marathi medium. In the year 1973 classes in English M...

Smt. Kaushaliaben A. Thakkar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)101BOMLR454

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule.2. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable and heard forthwith.3. The petitioners in this case have approached this Court against the order dated 12th October, 1998 allowing the application by the respondents accused dated 9th July, 1998 in C.G. 361/P/98. The short facts which may have to be stated are as under :4. The Police had filed a charge-sheet against the accused amongst others under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. An offence under Section 307 of IPC is tribale by the Court of Sessions. The matter was before the Magistrate for committing the proceedings. On behalf of the accused/respondents, it was submitted that initially the case was registered under Section 326, no deadly weapons were used nor grievous hurt caused and consequently there was no material on record disclosing an offence under Section 307 of IPC and prayed that the proceedings under Section 307 be dropped. Learned Magistrate impressed by the said arguments allowed...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. P.K. Mathew Varghese

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT686Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the car imported by P.K. Mathew Varghese, respondent in appeal could be cleared in terms of ITC Public Notice No. 202/92-97, dated 30th March, 1994, issued by the Director General Foreign Trade. More particularly we are concerned with whether the condition in A(a) of this public notice is satisfied. This condition requires that for the benefit of the importation without licence specified in the public notice to be available, to motor cars of engine size exceeding 4 cylinders or 1600 CC engine capacity, the car must have been "in the use of the importer for more than a year prior to return to India".2. The importer in the proceedings in the Custom House relating to clearance of his Pajero Mitsubishi car, of capacity of more than 1600 CC, said that he could not drive while he was in the United Arab Emirates and that he did not employ a driver. He also declined to give evidence of the source of funds for purchase of the car, tak...

Bharat Bijlee Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These cross appeals, one by the assessee and one by the revenue, for assessment year 1986-87, are disposed of by this consolidated order.Rival contentions have been heard and records perused.3. The first issue involved in this appeal is relating to the disallowance of the provision for accrued liability for Leave Travel Assistance of Rs. 5,61,033.4. The relevant facts, relating to this issue, are that the assessee is maintaining the books of account on mercantile basis. It has a scheme of Leave Travel Assistance for its employees. In the employment contract itself, a sample of which has been shown to us, the assessee agreed to pay Leave Travel Assistance to the employees at mutually agreed rates.However, for the purpose of giving maximum tax benefit to the employees, the assessee allows the LTA in such a manner so that the benefit of section 10(5)(ii)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 28 of the Income-tax Rules, could be obtained. The assessee in its books of account p...

The Union Carbide (India) Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Kumbla and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(1)ALLMR540; 1999(1)BomCR705; 1999(2)MhLj63

ORDERA.V. Savant, J.1. Heard both the learned Counsel; Shri Rele for the petitioner employer and Shri S.M. Dharap for respondent No. 1 complainant, who claims to be a workman.2. The petition is by the employer Union Carbide (India) Limited seeking to challenge the orders dated 22nd October, 1984 (Exh. H) and 29th June, 1990 (Exh. I), both passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mumbai and the order dated 4th October, 1994 (Ex. K) passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner against the orders passed by the Labour Court. Against the order dated 22nd October, 1984 passed by the Labour Court deciding the preliminary issue that the complaint was maintainable since respondent No. 1 was a 'workman', as defined in section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'I.D. Act') or an employee as defined in clause (5) of section 3 of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 (for short the said 1971 Act), the petitioner had filed a writ ...

Skol Breweries Ltd. and Another Vs. Sanman Distributors Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1999Bom249; 1999(2)ALLMR63; 1999(2)BomCR312; (1999)1BOMLR215; [2001]103CompCas435(Bom); 1999(2)MhLj205

ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. Both the company applications arise out of identical facts and, therefore, were taken up and heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. In Company Application No. 363 of 1997 made in Company Petition No. 422 of 1992, the applicants (respondent-company in the main company petition) have prayed for setting aside the ex parte winding up order dated 25-4-1997 and for consequential relief that Company Petition No. 422 of1992 be restored to file and be heard and finally disposed of on merits. In Company Application No. 364 of 1997 made in Company Petition No. 430 of 1992 also, the applicants (respondent-company in the main company petition) have prayed for setting aside the ex parte winding up order dated 25-4-1997 and for consequential relief that Company Petition No. 430 of 1992 be restored to file and be heard and finally disposed of on merits.3. For the sake of brevity and convenience, I intend to refer to the facts of Company Application No. 363 of ...