Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

Avinashkumar BhasIn Vs. Air India

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR135; 2002(4)BomCR772; [2001(91)FLR307]; (2001)IILLJ1504Bom; 2001(3)MhLj673

Ranjana Desai, J.1. The petitioner, an ex-employee of Air India, has impugned in this petition the Order dated 11th January, 1988, passed by Deputy Director In-flight Service, dismissing him from the service of Air India Corporation from the date of communication of the order to him. He has also impugned the order dated 30th March, 1988, passed by Secretary and Deputy Director (Administration), Air India dismissing his appeal against the said order dated 11th January, 1988.2. The petitioner was working as an Assistant Flight Purser with Air India. He was on temporary posting at London, where he was posted along with several others to perform flight duty, and to facilitate his stay in London, the petitioner was provided with accommodation in Sheraton Heathrow Hotel. On 30th April. 1974, he was apprehended at about 8p.m. by London Police on the allegation of being in possession of 195 mg. of Canabls, a controlled drug of Class B. The charge-sheet read as follows:'At 95, Gunterstone Road,...

Smt. Ushakiran Shridhar Shinde and ors. Vs. Arunkumar Kisaanlal Kalal ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR21; 2001(4)BomCR200; (2001)3BOMLR414

ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard counsel for the appellants and respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company. Nobody appeared for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, even though served.2. Appellants were the claimants before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal. Dhule. They filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the opponents, who were the driver of the Matador, the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company. The claim arose out of the accident caused to Shridhar G. Shinde - the husband of the appellant No. 1, who was Medical Officer posted in General Hospital at Dhule. The incident took place on 3.11.1987 at 7.45 a.m. that he was going on his Awanli Moped. According to the claimant, the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the Matador by the respondent No. 2. Dr. Shinde received fatal injuries and died within 4 days.3. M.A.C.T. dismissed claim petition on the ground that the opponent driver was not negligent but the deceased himself was neglig...

Claude Pereira and ors. Vs. Mrs. Mary D'Souza Sequeria

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR530; (2001)3BOMLR625

V.C. Daga, J.1. The legal representatives of the landlords original plaintiffs have filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The petition is directed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. Both the Courts below were pleased to hold that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the suit premises wererequired by them for their reasonable and bona fide occupation and further held that no hardship could be caused to the petitioners in the event decree for eviction and possession was refused.FACTUAL MATRIX Factual matrix lies in narrow compass and it is this :3. The petitioners are the owners and landlord of the house situate at 6, Rajan Village, Off Carter Road, Bandra, Bombay. The said house consists of ground and first floor. The respondent is a tenant of the first floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 140/-. The suit for eviction and possession was filed by the original plaintiffs (since deceased) against the defendan...

Mohansingh Tanwani and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2002Bom39; 2002(1)ALLMR818; 2001(3)BomCR285; 2001(3)MhLj339

Marlapalle, J.1. All these petitions have assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 29th of November, 2000 passed by the Minister of State for Urban Development. Government of Maharashtra under Section 313(1)(a), (b), (c) and (e) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short, Municipalities Act), By the said order the Municipal Council at Dhule came to be superseded by the Government. The Writ Petition No. 4901 of 2000 has been filed by two sitting Councillors and Writ Petition No. 5142 of 2000 has been filed by the three sitting Councillors, whereas Writ Petition No. 5011 of 2000 has been filed by the President of the Municipal Council, Dhule, By our interim order dated 1st December, 2000 the impugned, order was stayed and, therefore, the elected body continued to be in office, including its President, during the pendency of these petitions.2. On behalf of the State Government the Joint Secretary from the Urban ...

Tulsiani Chambers Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Shrikant V. G ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR125; 2001(4)BomCR573; [2001(89)FLR565]

R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner is a co-operative society formed by the owners of the commercial premises in the building of the society. There is no dispute that the society itself is not carrying on any trade business or industry. There is also no dispute that the society is rendering service to its members who have their office in the building . The society employee about 22 persons in different categories. The society had employed the respondent as supervisor cum electrician or electrician-cum-supervisor from the year 1982 when the society was registered. By an order dated 7th May, 1998, the petitioner society informed the respondent employee that the post of supervisor was abolished with immediate effect and, therefore, he was rendered surplus. He was further informed that in the meeting of the managing committee held on 6th May, 1987 the service of the respondent was terminated with immediate effect. In this letter, the respondent was offered one month's wages in lieu of notice ...

Laxman Dhanu Laman and ors. Vs. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR834; (2002)104BOMLR175

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. The petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 17.7.1985 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in File No. 170/B/of 1983 - Latur.3. In a suit bearing R.C.S. No. 164/1972 filed by the respondents, an issue of tenancy was referred to the Revenue Officer in terms of the provisions contained in the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 for the decisions on the said issue. The Revenue Officer empowered to decide such issues under the said Act by its decision dated 30.3.1981 answered the said issue in affirmative and the petitioners were declared to be the tenant of the suit premises. Being aggrieved, the respondents preferred appeal against the same before the Deputy Collector at Latur being Appeal No. 6/1982/Tenancy without any success as the same was dismissed by the Deputy Collector on 19.8.1983. The matter was taken up in revision application before the Mah...

M/S. Gajran Corporatin, M/S. Sai Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These bunch of 17 appeals, although filed by different assessees, covers the same point and is therefore taken up together for disposal in this common order.2. We have heard Shri MN Sayed for the appellants and Shri BK Choubey for the Revenue.3. The appellants Draw Texturised Partially Oriented Yarn. The inputs and outputs were covered under the proforma credit scheme under Rule 56A with effect from 1.3.87, vide Notification No. 84/87. Notification NO. 1/93 which superceded Notification No. 175/86, prescribed concessional rate of duty based on value of clearances by SSI units.Vide amendment dt. 25.4.94 the input and output were specified for benefit under this notification. This notification gave two options.The first was that the assessees could pay concessional rate of duty and avail of modvat credit. The second option was not to pay any duty and not to avail of modvat credit. The assessees in these cases opted for the first option as soon as goods were notified under Notificatio...

Geoffrey Manners and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT1418Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Applicant manufactures as a job worker tootpaste which it supplies to Smith kline Beecham Asia Pvt. Ltd. The value for assessment of such toothpaste is to be derived from its retail price as provided in Section 4A of the Act. In the order impugned in the appeal, this value has been applied to the quantities of the toothpaste manufactured by the applicant which was distributed free of cost.2. The Commissioner accepts that the value of these goods should be determined under rule 6B(1) of the Valuation Rules but says that this value is the value of the goods to be sold in retail. The counsel for the applicant contends that "value" is determined in the Valuation Rules as meaning the value referred in Section 4. Therefore it is by application of rule 6B(2) that the value is to be determined. We find this argument prima facie to be acceptable. The value under Section 4A is the deemed value and an exception to the value as determinable under Section 4. It is the latter value which is refe...

Priyanka Carbon and Chemical Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellant absent and unrepresented. We have heard the departmental representative.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of high density polyethylene tapes and strips. These tapes and strips were classified by the department under 5406.90 of the Tariff not accepting the appellant's claim for classification in heading 3926.90. The question of classification of these tapes and strips was later decided by the Tribunal, holding them to be classifiable under heading 3920.32.3. The appellant thereupon claimed refund of the duty paid by it on the ground that it was collected without authority of law. Notice was issued to the appellant proposing in effect, to deny the claim. It proposed to deny the refund claim on the ground that the duty paid by the manufacturer was equal to the duty payable under heading 3920.32, decided by the Tribunal to be correct. It proposed to deny the claim of duty of Rs. 1.33 lakhs approx. paid under the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles Act,...

Vinay Kochhar, Satyen Kochhar and Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vinay Kochar, appellant in appeal C/469/96-Bom, at the relevant time was the Director of Kochar Carriers Pvt. Ltd.; Satyan Kochhar, appellant in appeal C/470/96-Bom., his son was at the time when the incidence with which we are concerned, on 17.5.1994 was looking after the affairs of the company at Mumbai, in the absence of his father at Delhi. Rajkumar Sharma, appellant in appeal C/471/96-Bom, was the Manager of the Vashi office of this Company.2. The events is narrated in the show cause notice and the Commissioner's order leading to these appeals are as follows: On 17.5.1994 the truck driven by Kuldeep Singh was parked outside the office of the transport company at Vashi. Its driver met Lankeshwar.Kuldeep Singh was accompanied by Lankeshwar, who came and met Rajkumar Sharma, the Manager. Lankeshwar told Sharma that the goods were to be sent to Delhi. Sharma apparently agreed in principle and asked for documents relating to the goods. Lankeshwar promised to produce the documents a...