Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)101BOMLR811
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Respondent waive service. By consent heard forthwith.2. These are three petitions out of a group of petitions wherein the petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Cases launched against them or for directions not to prosecute. For the purpose of convenience out of these 3 petitions chosen, one is one from Mumbai and the others are from Thane. The facts in the Mumbai case are similar to all other cases.3. Bare facts which are essential for deciding the issues in controversy need to be stated, which are as follows:-In Writ Petition No. 700 of 1998, it is the case of the petitioner, that he is conducting Video Parlors since 1987 at various places in Mumbai. One such parlour was raided by the Police attached to Malwani Police Station on 27th April, 1998 at about 5.30 p. m. A case has been filed against the petitioner before the Metropolitan Magistrate's 42nd Court, Borivali, being L.A.C. Case No. 788 of 1998. It is alleged by the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999CriLJ4407
D.D. Sinha, J.1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed on 18-3-1996, by the Special Judge, Wardha in Special Case No. 6/87 whereby the present appellant/accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant/accused is also convicted for the offence punishable Under Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. It will be appropriate at this stage to consider few relevant facts of the prosecution case which has resulted in prosecution of the appellant/accused for the offences charged.3.' The accused joined the service i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(3)BomCR605
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. A suit for specific performance, injunction, receiver and consequential reliefs was filed by the respondent No. 1 against the present appellants, respondent No. 2 and Flavia Correia Gomes Clemente, who is said to have died prior to the filing of the suit. In this suit, respondent No. 1 sought injunction to restrain the present appellants, respondents No. 2 and the said deceased Flavia Correia Gomes Clemente, from in any way creating any third parry interest or in any way transferring the suit property or conveying the suit property or parting with possession of the suit property in any way, or encumbering or dealing with, or creating any charge over the suit property. The Civil Judge vide impugned order dated 29th May, 1998, granted the said application and restrained the appellants, respondent No. 2 and the said deceased Flavia Correia Gomes Clemente, from creating any third party interest or from encumbering or creating any charge of whatsoever nature in the sui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1999(82)FLR112]; (1999)IIILLJ1573Bom
N.J. Pandya, J.1. Petitioners are the employers of the Respondent No. 2 who came to be dismissed in July, 1984. Till the year 1986, he was facing criminal trial arising out of the alleged act of theft in the premises of the petitioners. The Respondent No. 2 was employed as watchman. Allegations were that he was caught red handed having stolen iron bars being used by the Petitioners-Company in its activities of building contractor.2. He came to be acquitted in the criminal trial in 1986 and by January, 1987 got the conciliation proceedings initiated resulting into a Reference where the learned Presiding Officer of the VIth Labour Court, Bombay decided Reference (IDA) 698/87 holding that the enquiry has not been held properly. Hence, it be struck down. This would mean that the Petitioner can lead evidence before the trial Court.3. This finding as to the enquiry not fair and legal is stated to be challenged by way of this petition. Admittedly, the enquiry was very short because according ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1999Bom219; 1999(3)ALLMR580; 1999(2)BomCR331; 1999(2)MhLj161
ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. The important question of law which arises in this matter is 'what is the remedy available to an aggrieved party if Arbitral Proceedings are terminated under section 25(a) or under section 32(2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.The Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 will hereinafter be referred to as the Act of 1996 and the Arbitration Act, 1940 will be referred to as the Act of 1940.2. The petitioners and respondent No. 1 had entered into an agreement. In terms of the said agreement dated 7th January, 1994 there was a provision to refer disputes arising between them to an Arbitral Tribunal. The address of the employer was 108, Standard House, 83, Maharashi Karve Road, Bombay-400 002. The agreement was for construction of buildings. The site where the building was to be constructed was at Nerul. By letter dated 18th November, 1996 the petitioners invoked the arbitration clause and appointed Prof. Madhav Deobhakta, as Arbitrator for 3 disputes arisin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(2)ALLMR42; 1999(2)BomCR356; [1999(82)FLR197]; (1999)IILLJ826Bom; 1999(2)MhLj57
ORDERN.J. Pandya, J.1. In all four complaints were filed under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the said Act, by individual workmen under section 28 of the said Act alleging that there is unfair labour practice on the part of the company with reference to Item No. 9 of Schedule IV. Coupled with that they have also alleged unfair labour practice in accordance with Item Nos. 5 and 10 also.2. As per the allegation in the complaints, this related to a settlement between the employer and the representative of the union of the employee as per the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. It is an admitted position that it being a textile unit, the employer and the employee aregoverned by Bombay Industrial Relations Act, hereinafter referred to as the said Bombay Act.3. After four complaints were filed by individual workmen, the employer had joined issue with regard to all the question involved...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(3)BomCR611
ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. Both these revisions arise out of the same Order passed by Civil Judge in the same suit. Civil Revision 49/98 is filed by original defendants 1 and 2 and Civil Revision 103/98 is filed by original defendants 3 and 4 (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants'). By impugned Order dated 17th September 1997, the trial Court had allowed the amendment sought by the respondents/original plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiffs'). 2. In order to appreciate the matter it is necessary to give brief background in which this amendment was sought by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffshad filed suit for specific performance seeking to direct the sole defendant, at that stage, to specifically perform the agreement of sale made in June 1981 and to execute sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs conveying Plot Nos. 6 and 7. No compensation for its breach either in addition to or in substitution of such performance was sought. However, in the alternative, the plaintiffs had sough...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(2)BomCR320
ORDERN.J. Pandya, J.1. It seems that a hotel in the name of Pilgrims Inn set up by the respondent Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the M.T.D.C.) has run into litigation right from the date that the M.T.D.C. had decided to give it to a private party to run the same. The first such an attempt was made by issuing a public advertisement in the Times of India, Bombay, on or about 28th December, 1988 calling upon the interested parties to submit tenders. The petitioner had submitted its tender on 23rd January, 1989. Revised offer was submitted on I3th March, 1989. Based on the offers received, the Board of Directors of M.T.D.C., on 25th March, 1989, had taken a decision in favour of the present petitioner. This action was challenged by the unsuccessful bidders by way of Writ Petition No. 1419 of 1989 on 10th May, 1989, pursuant to which revised offers were called which ultimately resulted into a decision again in favour of the petitioner on 5th Jun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(2)BomCR834
ORDERN.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. This writ petition raises a question of law as to the interpretation of the provisions of section 51-A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity, referred to as 'the said Act'). The relevant part of the said provision is as under;51-A(1)(a) Every Council shall have a Vice-President, who shall be appointed by the President from amongst the elected Councillors, before the first meeting convened by him is held, or as the case may be, within seven days from the date on which the vacancy in the office of Vice-President occurs due to any reason.(4) The Vice-president shall hold office of Vice-President for one year from date of his appointment or for the residue of his term as Councillor, whichever is earlier, subject to the provisions of sub-section (5) of this section and of section 55-A and other provisions of this Act and shall be eligible for re appointment.2. Petitioner C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(108)ELT299Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These five applications seeking stay relate to the same asses-sees and involve the same issue. On hearing Shri J.C. Patel the ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri K.L. Ramteke ld. JDR for the Revenue. It appeared that at this stage the main appeals themselves could be disposed of. With the concurrence of both sides this was done.2. The Assessees have two manufacturing units one situated at Chandrapura, Taluka-Halol, Dist. Panchmahals and the other is situated at Vishwamitri Road, Vadodara. Both units hold Central Excise registrations and operate under the Modvat credit scheme. Certain inputs were received in the Halol unit under cover of the invoices indicating payment of duty which invoices were not in the name of the Halol unit but were in the name of the Vadodara unit. Identically worded, Show Cause Notices were issued seeking reversal of the credit taken by the Halol unit, on the ground that the duty paying documents which were not in their name could not be deemed to be do...
Tag this Judgment!