Mumbai Court February 2001 Judgments

Rainbow Industries Vs. Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR336; 2001(4)BomCR93; (2001)4BOMLR298; [2001(89)FLR412]; (2001)ILLJ1261Bom; 2001(3)MhLj508

ORDERR.J. Kochar, J. 1. The petitioner Company is aggrieved by the decision of the respondent to cover the petitioner Company under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (E.S.I. Act). It is further aggrieved by an order passed by the Competent Authority under Section 45(A) of the E.S.I. Act determining the amount of contribution payable in respect of employees of the petitioner's factory and a further order passed by the Competent Authority under section 45(C) of the E.S.I. Act issued to the Recovery Officer for recovery of the arrears of the E.S.I. Contribution payable by the petitioner Company. Finally it has also challenged the order of Employees' Insurance Court (E.I. Court) passed on 20th January, 1998 in application (E.S.I.) No. 96 of 1986 filed by the petitioner Company to challenge the aforesaid orders passed by the Competent Authority under the Act. The E.I. Court has exercised its jurisdiction to decide the said application under section 75 of the Act hol...

Mohammed Fekoo Mohammed Yusuf Vs. Shree Krishna Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR434; 2001(4)BomCR280; (2001)4BOMLR567; [2001(89)FLR393]; (2001)ILLJ1363Bom; 2001(3)MhLj492

ORDERR. J. Kochar, J.1. The facts and background reflected in this petition are shocking. It also indicates how the representative union under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 in the industry of respondent No. 1 has totally neglected the employees and left them in lurch without doing anything to protect their interest. The petitioner in this petition has impugned an order of the LaborCourt dated 18th December, 1996 passed by it in the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner being an individual found himself totally helpless and appears to have filed the said application to claim his legal dues such as retrenchment compensation, gratuity, bonus, privilege leave, house rent allowances and wages from 1st September, 1988 to 1994. Realising that the representative union (Woollen Workers Union (Red Flag)) was not looking after the Interest of the workers and has miserably failed to act as a representative union, ...

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Swamy Exports (Private) Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The officers seized 3425 kilograms of sulphur and 350 kilograms of dodecyl benzene stored in the premises of C.M. Mauji Sunderji & Company, a warehouse keeper. These goods were found to have been deposited by Swamy Exports (P) Ltd. Hasmukh Ganatra, a director of this company, in his statement said that the consignments were "obtained on the DEEC book of Rajabali & Sons." He said that the warehouse keeper has been specifically asked not to enter the goods in its record, and that the goods were to be sold after importation. A show cause notice was issued to Swamy Exports (P) Ltd proposing confiscation of goods. In reply Swamy Exports (P) Ltd now took the stand that the sulphur belonged to Surya Enterprises, Bombay, but, and that they had been kept in the warehouse. It also produced a letter of Surya Enterprises in support. It was contended that sulphur was not notified under the Customs Act, or restricted for import, being under Open General Licence. Any one could therefore i...

A. Fernandes Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is against the order of the Additional Collector, confiscating two video cassette recorders and 288 cakes of soap which he finds to have been seized from the appellant's possession, and imposing a penalty on him of Rs 15,000/-.2. Mrs Cheryl Fernandes, the appellant's wife seeks adjournment on the ground that the appellant's advocate has gone abroad on a holiday. This matter had been adjourned at the request of the counsel on 3.12.1999, 14.1.2000 and 9.6.2000. I therefore do not see justification for another adjournment.3. I have read the memorandum of appeal and heard the departmental representative.4. In this order, the Additional Collector finds that the goods ordered to be confiscated found in the cabin of the appellant on board the ship M.V. Kalidas, on which he was working as chief steward and assistant catering officer. He has relied upon the admission made by Fernandes in his statement dated 3.2.1990. In that statement, Fernandes had said that while he declared a...

Suglabai Ravayya Jangam and ors. Vs. Gurusidhya Basayya Jangam

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR581; 2001(3)BomCR52; (2001)2BOMLR388

A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Solapur below Exh. 29 in Civil Appeal No. 203 of 1990 dated 24.9.1993.2. Briefly stated, the Respondent filed suit against the petitioners for permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed by the Trial Court on 31.3.1990. Against the said decree the petitioners preferred an appeal before the District Court. Solapur. being Civil Appeal No. 203 of 1990. During the pendency of the said appeal the Petitioners filed an application below Exh. 29 praying for amendment of their written statement. The nature of amendment prayed by the Petitioners was in effect for setting up a counter-claim against the Respondent - original plaintiff. By the said amendment the Petitioners prayed for declaration against the Respondent-original plaintiff that the Petitioners have right of way from the suit property by easement of necessity and inci...

ion Exchange (India) Limited

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)4BOMLR86; 2002(1)MhLj411

D.Y. Chandrachand, J.1. Sanction of this Court is sought in pursuance of the provisions of Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act. 1956, for a Scheme of Amalgamation by which two Companies - Ion Exchange Speciality Chemicals Limited and Ion Exchange Environmental Services Limited will be merged with a Company known as Ion Exchange (India) Limited. The two Transferor Companies are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Transferee Company.2. The Transferee, Ion Exchange (India) Limited, was incorporated on 6th March 1964 and inter alia, carries on the business of manufacturing water treatment plants, ion exchange resins and chemical additives. Under clause 3 of the Memorandum of Association, the main objects of the Company include manufacturing and dealing in ion exchange resins, organic solvents, wetting agents, textile processing compounds and agents, fibre glass, heavy and other chemicals, petro-chemicals, electro-chemicals and of designing, fabricating, manufacturing and dealing in wate...

Deep J. Oberoi (Smt.) and anr. Vs. Indian Bank and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR583; 2001(3)BomCR39

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition takes exception to the order passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, J.D., Pune dated 17-8-1992 below Exhibit 13 in Regular Darkhast No. 72 of 1991.2. By the said application below Exhibit 13 the petitioner prayed for a direction that the decree holder be directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 22,745.25 in the Court and that the amount so deposited be made over to the judgment debtor/petitioners. The basis on which the said application was filed is that the original suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 1092 of 1978, as filed by the Decree Holder/respondent No. 1, against the defendant No. 2 i.e. late J.S. Oberoi, was a nullity being filed against a dead person. It is not in dispute that the said J.S. Oberoi died before the institution of the said suit. Therefore, according to the petitioners, decree passed by the Court in such suit was a nullity, for which reason it was inexecutable in law. According to the petitioners beside that the original defendant N...

Chairman, Laxmi Education Society and anr. Vs. P.H. Singh and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR576; 2001(3)BomCR458

R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioners are a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is also a public Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The petitioner No. 1 society runs a college viz. Shri Chinai College of Commerce and Economics, Andheri (East), Mumbai. The College is affiliated with the University of Bombay getting 100 percent grant. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Presiding Officer, College Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') passed on 27-11-1998 in Appeal filed by the respondents. The Tribunal had quashed and set aside the order of termination of the respondents and substituted the same by reinstatement without back wages, as far as the respondent No. 1 is concerned as the other respondent Professor having expired during the pendency of the proceedings there was no question of granting reinstatement. The Tribunal substituted the punishment of dismissal by depriving both the pro...

Anthony S. Vaz and ors. Vs. State of Goa, Through Its Chief Secretary ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR607

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri D'Costa, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Nadkarni, the learned Advocate General for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, and Shri Lotlikar, the learned Counsel for the respondents Nos. 4 and 5.2. The writ petitioners have challenged the validity of the notification dated 20th June, 1996, and further, sought direction against respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to withdraw the impugned notification.3. It is contended by Mr. D'Costa that the proposed land acquisition proceedings are totally mala fide and undertaken in colourable exercise of power. It is further contended that the road proposed to be constructed is a road which will link the proposed bridge to the Rawanfond-Navelim road. It is further contended that the acquisition of land for the link road will be a sheer waste of public money. Petitioners are the owners in possession of the landed property situated primarily in the Village Panchayat of Aquem-Baixo which forms subject-matter of notification dat...

Waman Punaji Shilarkar Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)948; 2001CriLJ1987

ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP for non-applicants.2. The applicant has been charge-sheeted for offence under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The applicant filed an application before the Magistrate for discharge on the ground that sanction to prosecuted him has not been granted by the government. This application was rejected by the Magistrate vide order dated 15-1-1996 which was challenged in revision before the Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide order dated 14-6-1996, which is subject matter of challenge in this application, held that the revision was not maintainable. Accordingly, he dismissed the revision on the ground of maintainability.3. Heard learned Advocates for the parties on the question of maintainability of revision before the Sessions Court. The issue is no longer res integra in view of the latest judgment of the Apex Court in K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat : 2000CriLJ...