Mumbai Court June 2000 Judgments

Bombay Tyres International Ltd. Vs. All India Bombay Tyres Internation ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2000(87)FLR44]; (2000)IIILLJ1497Bom

S.S. Nijjar, J. 1. In this Writ Petition under Article 226, the petitioners seek setting aside of the order dated September 30, 1997 passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Mumbai, inter alia, declaring that the petitioners have engaged in unfair labour practice under item l(b) of Schedule II and items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MaharaShtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MRTU & PULP Act') and further directing the petitioners to cease and desist from indulging in the said unfair labour practice. The petitioners have been further restrained from refusing to pay any of its employees of Sewree Central Office and the employees of each of the District Offices/depots throughout India without any; discrimination whatsoever bonus and ex-gratia amount at the rate of Rs. 3050/- in respect of the years ended October 31, 1985 and October 31, 1986 after adjustment of Rs. 4000/- if paid as advance.The petitio...

Shri Rangrao Nivritti Lad and ors. Vs. Vishnu Joti Thorbole and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR105; 2001(1)BomCR157

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This petition has been filed by the original defendants 1 to 10 land owners in respect of Survey No. 743/2 situated at Village Kundal, Taluka Tasgaon. The suit land originally belonged to Shri Daulu Nana Thorbole who had four daughters. The suit land was bequeathed by him by executing a Will as back as in the year 1919 in favour of one of the daughters Smt. Radhabai w/o Bhau Ghadage, the predecessor in title of the petitioner herein. The respondent No. 1 claims to be the tenant in respect of the said suit land.2. The petitioners herein filed a suit being Suit No. 187 of 1970. Another suit came to be filed by the respondent No. 2 herein being Civil Suit No. 1 of 1972. Both the suits were filed for declaration and possession. In the said suits the respondent No. 1 raised a plea that he was the tenant of deceased Radhabai Ghadage; and therefore requested the Civil Court to frame issue as to whether he was the tenant in respect of the suit land, so that the said issue...

Sitaram K. Jawale Vs. Mhada and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR331; (2000)102BOMLR925a

S.S. Nijjar, J.1. The Petitioner has filed this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the Respondents to enter the correct date of birth of the Petitioner in the service record as 15.5.1934 instead of 15.5.1930. His request for correction of the date of birth was rejected by the Respondents on 14th February, 1990.2. The Petitioner was working as Mazdoor in the Bombay Housing & Area Development Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). He was employed in the Board in 1959 as daily-wage-mazdoor. Thereafter he was absorbed in work-charged establishment in 1963 again as a mazdoor. He was made permanent from 1.4.1970. He has studied upto Standard VII. He appeared for the Standard VII in 1952, but failed. He has done his schooling from Jeevan Shikshan Vidya Mandir, Vechle, Dist. Satara upto Standard IV and then from Zilla Parishad School, Kodoli, Dist. Satara and ...

Maulaali Yakub Jamadar and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)317; (2000)102BOMLR544

S.A. Bobde, J.1. The appellants/original accused have been convicted and sentenced by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No. 125 of 1990 for offences punishable under Section 498-A r/w Section 34 and Section 306 r/w Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). Against this judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the accused have preferred this appeal.2. The prosecution story is as follows:Mumtajbi, the deceased, was the daughter of one Nabilal Baban Mulla. She was given in marriage to accused No. 1 Maulaali Yakub Jamadar. Accused No. 2, Tajbi, is the sister of accused No. 1. She is married. Accused No. 3, Khutijabi, is the mother of accused Nos. 1 and 2. At the relevant time, accused No. 1, Maulaali, along with his wife was residing at Shivnagar area of Islampur in a rented room and was working as a driver with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. Maulaali and Mumtajbi had three sons from their marriage.3. It is the case of the prosecutio...

Ganesh Vasudeo Parab Since Deceased by His Legal Heirs and Representat ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR642; (2000)102BOMLR925

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay dated 19.3.1986 in Tenancy Appeal No. 159 of 1985.2. The Petitioners herein claim to be the tenants in respect of the suit lands bearing S. No. 6 H.No. 31; S.No. 7, H.No. 1+2A : and S. No. 10 H. No. 1. totally admeasuring about 13 acres 24.9 gunthas. The respondents are the owners in respect of the suit lands.3. Sometime on 30.6.1973 the petitioners filed an application under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act before the Tahsildar, Vengurla for a declaration that they were the tenants in respect of lands bearing S. No. 6 H. No. 31 and S. No. 7 H. No. 1+2A. That as a counter blast to the said application taken out by the petitioners, the respondents filed a suit for injunction against the petitioners in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vengurla being Suit No. 18 of 1974, inter alia, praying...

Medical Genetic Clinic and Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals)-XVII, Bombay, dated 19-10-1995 for the assessment year 1989-90.2. The assessee is a firm consisting of two partners, Dr. Hema Purandare and Dr. Amit Chakravarty. During the year the firm purchased one computer machine called "Robotron Computer Aided Image Analyser".The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee was not engaged in business nor is it engaged in the activity of construction, manufacture or production of any one or more of the articles or things other than those specified in the list in the Eleventh Schedule to the Income-tax Act so as to be entitled for investment allowance on this machinery.She noted that the assessee is engaged in professional activity and are consultant medical geneticist and is offering services mainly for prenatal diagnosis of hereditary diseases/defects. The instrument to be purchased being an advance model of machinery would reduce the required manual labour to 15%. S...

Shriram Dhondiba Kachi, Since Deceased Through His Heirs and Legal Rep ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR335; 2001(1)BomCR85

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 227 the petitioners have challenged the judgment of the VII Addl. District Judge, Pune dated 6-10-1986 in Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1985. The petitioners are the successors in interest of the original plaintiff, who claimed to be the landlord in respect of the premises in question. Whereas, the respondents are the original defendants. The respondent No. 1 (original defendant No. 1) is the tenant in the suit premises.2. According to the Ld. Counsel the conclusion recorded by the Appellate Court on issue No. 2 as to whether there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 is erroneous.3. Both the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have referred to the chequered history of litigation between the petitioners and the respondents 2 and 3. It is seen that the respondent No. 2 (Original defendant No. 2 in the present suit) had instituted a suit being Special Civil Suit No. 85 of 1962 for a...

D.S. Mittle and anr. Vs. Shantilal R. Shah

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ACJ54

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal is filed by the opposite parties challenging the order made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal making the award against the opponents/appellants. The sole question that is argued in this appeal is that sufficient material has not been produced by the claimants on record to establish that it is the vehicle owned by the opposite party No. 1, which was responsible for the accident. The learned counsel submits that victim Shantilal has stated in his deposition that it was a Fiat car which was involved in the accident. The learned counsel submits that, however, a car of the opposite party No. 1 which bears registration No. MMF 3353 is Ambassador car and, therefore, as the identity of the vehicle is not established award could not have been made.2. I have gone through the entire evidence on record, which is relevant for consideration of the above referred point. I have also gone through the reasons given by the Tribunal for rejecting this defence. I am in ...

Medical Genetic Clinic and Laboratory Vs. Ito

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001]79ITD14(Mum)

ORDERS.V Mehrotra, A.M.This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XVII, Bombay, dated 19-10-1995 for the assessment year 1989-90.2. The assessee is a firm consisting of two partners, Dr. Hema Purandare and Dr. Amit Chakravarty. During the year the firm purchased one computer machine called 'Robotron Computer Aided Image Analyser'. The assessing officer noted that the assessee was not engaged in business nor is it engaged in the activity of construction, manufacture or production of any one or more of the articles or things other than those specified in the list in the Eleventh Schedule to the Income Tax Act so as to be entitled for investment allowance on this machinery. She noted that the assessee is engaged in professional activity and are consultant medical geneticist and is offering services mainly for prenatal diagnosis of hereditary diseases/defects. The instrument to be purchased being an advance model of machinery would reduce the re...

Narendra Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(71)ECC161

1. This is an application for waiver of duty of Rs. 4,26,821 out the total demand of Rs. 7,76,821 demanded by the Order-in-Appeal made on 14.7.99.2. It is the case of the applicant before us that they are manufacturing auxiliary machine for use in weaving machine namely Cam Dobby machine. The said Cam Dobby machines are mounted on the loom which the erected in the factory of the consumer. Mr. S.P. Mathew, Ld.Counsel appearing for the applicant had stated before us that whenever they are selling the parts, their invoice represent that they were selling only parts of the Cam Dobby head. Whenever they are selling whole machinery, they are describing as whole machine consisting of various parts. He invited our attention to the specific invoice at page 13 which describes the sale of Cam Dobby machine consisting of various parts and page 16 where the part numbers are mentioned. It is the case of the department where the parts are mentioned separately, they must be treated under heading 8448...