Mumbai Court October 2001 Judgments

Jagdish Prasad Srivastava Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ233CAT

1. The applicant has assailed order dated 19.11.1997 (Ex. A) whereby he is sought to be prematurely retired under Rule 1802 (a) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume-II. The applicant was functioning as Assistant Controller of Stores, Group 'B' at the time the aforesaid order was passed. The applicant has sought quashing and setting aside of the aforesaid order with consequential benefits.2. The learned Counsel of the applicant Mr. G.S. Walia has basically raised two issues in the present matter - (1) that the impugned order has not been passed by the appointing authority, i.e., the General Manager and that it has been passed against the provisions of the Statutory Rule 1802 (a) ; and (2) that while the objective of compulsory retirement under the provisions of Rule 1802 (a) is to weed out the dead wood when an employee has outlived his utility, the applicant's meritorious and efficient service of thirty years has not been taken into account and the impugned order has been ...

Prashant Vagaskar and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2002Bom120; 2002(4)BomCR363; 2002(2)MhLj154

V.C. Daga, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused record and proceedings. This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree passed by the Bombay City Civil Court, Mumbai, on 30-8-2001, in L.C. Suit No. 6306/1984, whereby the suit has been dismissed under Order 15, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('C.P.C.' for short). The parties hereinafter, shall be referred to as arrayed in the original suit.BACKGROUND FACTS The facts necessary to appreciate rival contentions may be stated briefly :2. The appellants/original plaintiffs, claiming to be the monthly tenants of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (original defendant No. 2), in respect of the suit property, since prior to 1962, filed a suit on 31-8-1984 mainly against the defendant No. 1, challenging the notices issued under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 ('Act' for the sake of brevity), directing removal and/or demolition of unauthorised structures alleged to have been constructed by the plaintiffs....

Central Railway Employees Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Y.M. Patil and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2002(92)FLR318]; (2002)ILLJ679Bom

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. These Letters Patent Appeals involve a common issue regarding the payment of special contribution of provident fund to the respondents. When the Letters Patent Appeals were admitted, it was agreed by the parties that the Writ Petitions and the Letters Patent Appeals would be heard together. Hence, by this judgment we are disposing of both the Letters Patent Appeals as well as the writ-petitions.2. The appellants are a society registered under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 and have the railway employees as their members. The respondent Nos. 1 to 36 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 7 of 2000 and Respondent No. 1 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 6 of 2000 are their ex-employees (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the respondents'). The appellants had created. a fund for provident fund in the year 1943 for the benefit of their employees. The fund was vested in the trustees of the trust which was created to manage the provident fund and was known as the C...

Krisnna Vasudeo Kotwal and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)ILLJ404Bom

ORDER1. Heard.2. Mr. Dharap, learned counsel for thepetitioners, contended that the order of the StateGovernment dated September 11, 1989 and theReport submitted by the State Contract LabourAdvisory Board on August 29, 1989 are bad inlaw as the relevant factors provided inSub-section (2) of Section 10 were not takeninto consideration.3. Prior to the present writ petition, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 182 of 1989 before this Court which was disposed of on April 11, 1989 by the following order:'(a) The petitioners are permitted to make an application to the State Government under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Mr. Dharap appearing for the petitioners states that such an application will be made latest by end of this month. (b) On such application being made, the State Government shall, within one month of receipt thereof, forward the same to the State Contract Labour Board for consideration of the demand for abolition of contract labour system. T...

Mohanrao Tatoba Patil Vs. Pilu Maruti Patil and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)BomCR12

P.S. Patankar, J.1. The father of this appellant by name Tatoba and his three other sons by name Shamrao, Anandrao and Sarjerao and the appellant sold the lands Survey No. 130/9 admeasuring 2 acres and 2 gunthas and Survey No. 129/3 admeasuring 20 gunthas from village Gudhe by registered sale deed dated 6th March, 1968 for Rs. 5,000/- to respondent No. 1. It was sold for family necessity. Respondent No. 1 was put in possession. On the same date an agreement of reconveyance was executed in their favour by respondent No. 1 agreeing to convey the lands if the amount of Rs. 5,000/- was repaid within ten years. Consolidation Scheme came to be introduced in the Village in 1969 and it was completed in 1971. Out of those lands, three gat numbers came to be formed. They were given Block Nos. 1335, 1389 and 1517. Block No. 1335 came to be numbered as new Block No. 275. It admeasured 25 Acres.2. Notice dated 23rd May, 1977 was served upon the defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 1) to accept Rs. 5,000...

Hector Hoshang Mehta and ors. Vs. Marol Nand Dham Udyog Premises Co-op ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)BomCR67

J.A. Patil, J.1. This is a suit for declaration of title, possession and arrears of rent together with incidental prayers. The plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land which is a large plot of land, admeasuring 25034.88 sq. metres, bearing Survey No. 61 Hissa Nos. 1 to 6, Survey No. 62/ 1 to 2, Survey No. 63/ 1 to 11, Survey No. 64/ 1, 4-A, 9 and 10 and Survey No. 65/ 3 to 5 situate at Marol Maroshi Road, Andheri, Mumbai. The defendants are a Co-operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. By an indenture of lease dated 29th July, 1972, made between the plaintiffs and defendants, the plaintiffs demised the suit land together with the buildings standing thereon or which may be constructed upon it for a term of 98 years commencing from 1st January, 1970, for a monthly rent of Rs. 9000/ payable on or before 10th of each calendar month. The said indenture of lease is duly registered and it contains certain terms and conditions. Besides the payment of ren...

Smt. Elsy George Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002CriLJ540

Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who describes herself as wife of the detenu Nedumpurambil Poulose George has impugned the order dated 16-11-2000 passed by the second respondent Mr. Somnath Pal, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, 6th Floor, B Wing, New Delhi detaining the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (As amended), hereinafter also referred as the COFEPOSA Act. The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 16-11-2000, was served on the detenu on 18-11-2000 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this writ petition. 2. The prejudicial activities of the detenu which prompted the second respondent (hereinafter also referred to as the detaining authority) to pass the im...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Vijayaraj Prithviraj Bafna

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR493

Rajiv Mohite, J.1. A raid by the Customs and Central Excise Officers of Dahanu Circle, conducted on 19.8.1973 on the premises of King Motel at Gholwad led to the recovery of some smuggled goods and resulted in the filing of a private complaint by the Assistant Collector of Customs against the present Respondent (Original Accused No. 1 Vijayraj P. Baphana) and the two Respondents in Criminal Appeal Nos. 864 of 1985 (Original Accused No. 2 Jayantilal Jain) and Criminal Appeal No. 863 of 1985 (Original Accused No. 3 Keshavbhai Patel) alleging the commission of offences punishable under Section 135(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports Act, 1947.2. The said Private Complaint filed on 24.5.1976 by Mr. S.C. Choudhary, Assistant Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Bassein, was accompanied by a copy of the necessary sanction for prosecution under Section 137 of the Customs Act.3. At the stage of trial, the prosecution examined in all three witnesses to...

Fabworth (India) Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(147)ELT478Tri(Mum.)bai

1. M/s Fabworth (India) Limited [in short, FABWORTH] are the appellants in appeal Nos. E/902 to 904/96 and appeal Nos. E/929 to 933/98 preferred against Order-in-Original No. 59-61/95 dated 9.11.95 and Order-in-Original No. 111-115/97 dated 27.11.97 respectively, of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur. M/s woolworth (India) Limited [in short, WOOLWORTH] are the appellants in appeal Nos. E/924 to 928/98 preferred against Order-in-Original No. 116-120/97 dated 27.11.97 of the same Commissioner. Both the companies have their hundred percent export-oriented units [100% EOUs] in the MIDC Industrial Area, Butibori, Nagpur District. FABWORTH's unit manufactures various processed (i.e. subjected to processes such as hydroextraction, dying, stentering, heat-setting etc.) fabrics with the grey fabrics received from their sister unit (100% EOU) working at Raipur, and exports the same. The processed fabrics so manufactured and exported are all-wool worsted fabrics (Sub-Heading 5111.22 of t...

Marsil Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application for waiver of predeposit of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed upon the applicant herein who has been held to have imported crystal fine glass beads and chattons and also assorted glass beads and chattons recovered from here business premises, illicitly.The Ld. Counsel submits that the goods seized from the business premises were locally purchased and the burden lay upon the department in the case of such goods to prove that they are not locally acquired and this burden has not been discharged by the department. He further submits that the goods valued over Rs. 6 lakhs are still with the department and therefore prays for waiver and stay of recovery thereof.2. Ld. DR opposed the prayer stating that no bills for local purchase, were produced by the applicant and that the goods were under valued.3. Having regard to the fact that the claim of the applicants regarding goods seized from the business premises has not been disputed and prima facie having regard to the ...