Mumbai Court February 1998 Judgments

Prabhash Chand JaIn and ors. Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank

Court: DRAT Mumbai

1. The important question of vesting or acquiring the jurisdiction directly by the Recovery Officer in a transfer execution proceedings is involved in this appeal preferred by the judgment-debtors.2. The facts leading to the transfer of execution proceedings are as below : Consent decree in Suit No. 170/84 was obtained by the decree-holder Bank on 20.10.1986 for Rs. 10,13,745.06. The decree also directed the payment of future interest. The copy of the decree is however not produced on record. The Bank sought to execute this decree in execution proceedings bearing No. 165/1988 in Jullandhar Court who had passed the decree by attachment and sale of the properties belonging to the judgment-debtors and also by civil imprisonment. The Exerting Court had even issued the warrant of arrest on or about 17.3.1990. There were in all eight (8) decrees and all of them were sought to be executed by the arrest of the judgment-debtors. The decrees in 7 (seven) were fully satisfied and as such the que...

Sarsabai W/O Namdeo Kudale Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR710; 1998(3)BomCR352; (1999)IILLJ506Bom

ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard Mrs. Wadmare learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. for R-State. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.2. The petitioner claims that she was working as Daily-rated labourer under the respondent No. 4 and her services came to be terminated orally on 4-11-1997. That gave rise to file Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 9/1998, before the Labour Court, Aurangabad on or about 27-1-1998 alongwith an application for interim relief under section 30(2) of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The learned Judge of the Labour Court, without issuing any notice to the other side, allowed the application by his order dated. 28-1-1998 and issued notice returnable on 17-2-1998. By this order the learned Judge of the Labour Court directed the respondents to allow the complainant to report for duty forthwith on the post, on which, she was working previously.3. On receipt of a copy of the said order dated 28-1-1998, the respondent-Department approached the Industrial ...

Temple of Maruti, Situated at Cacoda, by Its Attorney Shri Shashikant ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR403; 1998(3)BomCR540

ORDERN.J. Pandya, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree rendered by the learned District Judge, South Goa, at Margao in Regular Civil Appeal No. 44/1990, on 20-3-92. The said Civil Appeal, hereinafter, referred to as 'the First Appeal', was arising out of a decree granted in favour of the original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 7/1976 of the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem, South Goa.2. The plaintiffs are the members of the Managing Committee of a 'Devasthan' known as 'Marutigad' and the suit relates to the property registered in the Land Registration Office, under No. 17521 and enrolled in the matriz under No. 663 and said to have been surveyed in the old cadastral Survey under No. 497. The property is known as 'Xelchi Tembi'. The defendant No. 1 was laying claim to it alleging that it is part of his property known as 'Bansai Cotumbona', registered in the Land Registration Office under No. 15262 and was wrongly occupied by one Savlaram Tatob...

Narahari Vishnu Lanke Vs. Narayan Ganpat Pisal and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(3)ALLMR763; 1998(4)BomCR747; (1998)2BOMLR32

ORDERD.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay dated 24-7-1986 in Appeal No. 377 of 1978. That appeal was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 28-3-1978 passed by the Single Judge of the Small Causes Court at Bombay in R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 3357 of 1970. That suit was filed by the petitioner claiming that he is owner of building known as 'Lanke Building' situated at 8, Dhuswadi, Bombay- 02 and that the respondent No. 1 Narayan is a tenant of a single room No. 52 in the said building. The landlord sought decree of eviction against the tenant on several grounds namely, that the tenant is not ready and willing to pay rent: that the tenant has unlawfully sublet the suit premises and that the tenant has changed the user of the premises. The trial Court found against the landlord on all the grounds and dismissed the suit. In the a...

Bhabani Basu, Through the Superintendent, Central Jail Aguada Vs. Stat ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)777

ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The appellant was tried for possession of 22 dots of L.S.D., 60 L.S.D. strips, 120 grams of charas, 20 Ecstacy tablets and 3 grams of Ecstacy powder which is punishable under sections 20(b)(ii) and 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. The prosecution had examined four witnesses in support of the charge. The accused/ appellant had examined himself in his defence. After hearing the accused/appellant and on perusal of the evidence on record, the learned Special Judge, Mapusa, found the accused guilty for the said offences.2. The accused/appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rupees one lakh, in default rigorous imprisonment for two years under section 20(b)(ii) of the said Act. Similar sentence and fine and sentence in default was imposed under section 22 of the said Act. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The period during which the appellant was in custody in connection with this case was ordered to be s...

Cricket Club of India and anr. Vs. Baljit Shyam (Ms) and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)IILLJ578Bom

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. Petition heard forthwith.The petitioners herein have approached this Court in exercise or' its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to impugn the order dated September 25, 1997 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in Revision Application (ULP) No. 28 of 1997 in Complaint (ULP) No.205 of 1995. By the impugned orderthe Industrial Court, Mumbai, was pleased to set aside the order of the Labour Court dated November 30, 1996 dismissing the complaint tiled by the Respondent No. 1 against the petitioners under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act for the sake of brevity). The Respondent No. 1 approached the Labour Court alleging an act of unfair labour practice on thepart of the petitioners herein, in terminating the services without holding an enquiry or complying with the other provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,...

Bombay Port Trust Employees' Union Vs. Union of India (UOi) and Ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1998(79)FLR198]; (1999)ILLJ175Bom

R.M. Lodha,J. 1. Heard.2. By means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the Petitioner prays that the order passed by the Central Government on January 18, 1995 refusing to refer the industrial dispute for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 be set aside.3. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are :The Petitioner, Bombay Port Trust Employees' Union (for short 'Union') served a strike notice on the Chairman, Bombay Dock Labour Board (Respondent No.2 herein) pressing for the demand that promotional post of Tindel in chipping and painting Section should be filled from amongst the mazdoors of the said Section on the basis of their seniority as per the practice and any action of the second Respondent and Respondent No. 4 herein viz. Secretary, Chipping and Painting Employees Association Private Limited depriving senior mazdoors of their right to promotional post of tindel be held illegal and unjusti...

Suyog Granites and Marbles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT975Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an application filed by the applicant seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 3,49,000/- and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed by the assessing authority namely Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Mehsana, confirmed by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Ahmedabad.2. We heard Shri D.H. Shah, the learned Counsel for the Applicant and Shri S.V. Singh, the ld. DR for the Department and after hearing them we feel that the appeal itself could be taken up for hearing after waiving the pre-deposit and with the concurrence of the parties.3. By an order dated 22-11-1996 the Assistant Commissioner after considering the show cause notice issued had held that the items claimed by the applicant were not capital goods coming within the purview of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He therefore confirmed the demand of Rs. 3,49,000/- under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and he also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. Against the said orde...

K and K Gems Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(76)LC117Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Appellants imported a consignment of Rough unworked Emeralds as per their declaration in Bill of Entry dated 9.1.1997 filed in Mumbai Custom House. The value of the goods declared was Rs. 32,34,370/-.During the examination of a drum in which the goods were packed, on removal of empty plastic bags and covers, on opaque VPS bag was found concealed at the bottom of the drum and in that bag three transparent plastic packets were found in folded condition containing pre-shaped/preformed (worked) emeralds totally weighing 774.67 gms.valued at Rs. 10,95,122/- with duty liability of Rs. 5,69,463/-. Such worked emeralds can be imported only against specific import license which the appellants did not possess.2. As regards the unworked emeralds imported, these on being evaluated by an expert panel and appraisers, were found to be overinvoiced. Their value was appraised at Rs. 9,91,750/- as against declared value of Rs. 32,34,370/-. Overinvoicing amounted to Rs. 22,42,620/-.3. In answer t...

Ravangaon Sugar Farm Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(76)LC469Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Shri S.S. Prashar, representative of the appellant is present. He prays for an adjournment. Having perused the orders and after hearing Shri M. Ali, JDR we think it unnecessary to adjourn the case.2. The dispute in these appeals relates to the question whether notional interest on advances received by the appellant from contracting buyers of sugar manufacturing machinery is to be added to the assessable value. Appellant was receiving advance by way of security from all buyers; generally the advance varied from 10 to 30%, in a few cases 50% and in one cash 100%, depending on the nature of the machinery items and the standing of the buyer. The Assistant Collector approved the prices in part II by adding, notional interest on the advances at 18% per annum to the declared price. On this basis seven demands of differential duty were confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) the assessee has filed the present appeals.3. The goods in question were made out of the goods on the basis of the cont...