Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

Modistone Limited Vs. Modistone Employeers' Union and Anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR607; 2001(3)BomCR436; (2001)2BOMLR851; [2001(89)FLR867]; (2001)ILLJ1598Bom

P. S. Patankar. J. 1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 27th November, 1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1021 of 1998. these Letters Patent Appeals are filed. L.P.A. No. 6 of 1999 has been filed by the Modistone Ltd. (hereafter, referred to as 'Company) while L.P.A. No. III of 1999 is filed by the Modistone Employees' Union (hereinafter, referred to as 'Union') as wages were denied to the workers from the date of alleged lockout i.e. 8.10.98 till 1.3.99 in these Letters Patent Appeals, mainly, the following points arise :-(1) Whether the lockout was justifiable or not can be gone into by the Industrial Court under item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. 1971 (hereafter referred to as 'M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act')? And (2) What is the effect of the Company being before the B.I.F.R. and declared sick on 15.4.98 under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 19...

Shri Rajan Ramnath Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2001Bom361; 2001(4)BomCR522; (2001)2BOMLR102; 2001(3)MhLj202

ORDER1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. By consent, the Petition is taken up for hearing. We have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.2. The Petitioner, an elected member of the Roha Municipal Council (hereinafter referred to as 'Council' only), has challenged the order dated 16th February, 2001 issued by the Respondent No. 2, viz.. the Collector, Alibag, under Section 44(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') thereby, disqualifying him as a member of the Council.The last election of the said Council was held in 1996 and the Petitioner was elected as Councillor. The Petitioner was also elected as a Member of the Education Committee constituted under Section 63 of the said Act. This committee consist of 10 Members. The election of the Petitioner and other elected members of the...

Harish A. Sadarangani and anr. Vs. M/S. Reliance Textiles Industries L ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002ACJ745; 2001(3)ALLMR410; 2001(4)BomCR275; (2001)3BOMLR222; 2001(2)MhLj913

R. M. Lodha, J. 1. This first appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for Greater Bombay on the ground of inadequate compensation awarded to the claimants (appellants herein).2. Shri Atmaram P. Sadarangani (since deceased), Shri Harish A. Sadarangani and Ashok A. Sadarangani (for short 'claimants') made claim application in the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for Greater Bombay against the present respondents for compensation in the sum of Rs. 1 lac by way of general and special damages with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. thereon from the date of filing of this application till realisation and costs for the death of Smt. Maya Atmaram Sadarangani in the motor accident. On 19.5.1987 at about 3.30 p.m. or so, Smt. Maya Sadarangani along with others were walking along chowpatty from the south north direction. When they reached Thakkar restaurant, a motor car bearing registration No. MFC-1278 came from behind with speed and ...

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Vs. Nashik Workers Union and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR586; 2001(4)BomCR205; (2001)3BOMLR459; [2001(90)FLR624]

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Apart from the merits of the matter, on behalf of the Respondents, a preliminary objection was raised that the Petition should be dismissed, relying on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation, etc. v. United Labour Union & Ors., on the ground that the Appropriate Government was the Central Government. In the instant case the complaint was filed by Respondent No. 1 before the Labour Court on the ground that the Appropriate Government is the State Government. It is, however, contendedthat in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Air India Statutory Corporation (Supra) the Appropriate Government in the case of the Petitioner herein would be the Central Government. If the Appropriate Authority is the Central government then the complaint itself is not maintainable and consequently the complaint should have been dismissed on that count alone. Before addressing myself to the said issue, which needs to be decided, a few facts ma...

Vijay Prabhakar Salunke Vs. Kamini S. Dadarkar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)3BOMLR702; 2001(2)MhLj955

V.C. Daga, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. None for the Respondent No. 1 inspite of service though Respondent No. 1 is the only contesting respondent.3. When the matter was called out for final hearing on 25.1.2001 none appeared for the respondent No.1. In order to afford a reasonable opportunity to respondent No.1, though it was not necessary in view of proper service, however this Court by an order dated 25.1.2001 directed the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner to issue telegraphic notice to respondent No. 1 intimating the next date of hearing.4. Accordingly, notice was issued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He intimated next date of hearing as 31.1.2001. Accordingly, the matter was called out for final hearing on 31.1.2001.5. Even on 31.1.2001, none appeared for respondent No. 1. Therefore, learned Counsel for the petitioner was again requested to issue fresh notice by Speed Post. Accordingly. 2nd notice was issued to respondent No.1. An affidav...

Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002ACJ992; AIR2001Bom310; 2001(3)ALLMR400; 2001(4)BomCR239; (2001)4BOMLR725; 2001(3)MhLj479

B. P. Singh, C. J.1. The question, which arises for consideration in the instant writ petition is whether this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, should issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Central Government to refund to the petitioners a sum of Rs. 3,56,69,671, which has been collected from the petitioners over a period of time by mistake, in view of the fact that the Circular under which the charges were initially made leviable had been withdrawn. While the petitioners contend that payment of the charges having been made, and collected, under a mistake, the petitioners are entitled to maintain this Writ Petition praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the amount charged in excess, the respondents contend that the petitioners cannot maintain the instant writ petition for the reliefs prayed for, and must necessarily seek a remedy under the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 for adjudication of such a claim f...

New India Assurance Company Vs. Balu Ganba Dorage and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002ACJ1093; 2001(2)ALLMR534; 2001(3)BomCR780

R.M. Lodha, J.1. By this first appeal the insurer viz. New India Assurance Company challenges the award dated 6-4-1992 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Pune against them.2. Mr. A.K. Chaphekar, learned Counsel for the appellants insurer assailed the award passed by the Tribunal only on one ground namely, that the insurer-appellant was not liable under the policy of insurance since the driver of the autorickshaw which was insured with the insurer-appellant held no driving licence to drive the said vehicle.3. The brief facts of the case are as under :The respondent No. 1 herein is the original claimant and he filed claim application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune praying for compensation in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the opponents viz. Shri Janardan S. Waichal (respondent No. 2 herein-original opponent No. 1), New India Assurance Company (appellant herein-original opponent No. 2). Mrs. Seeta Babaji Bhondekar (respondent No. 3 herein-original opponent No. 3)...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S Master Tobacco Company

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(134)ELT419Tri(Mum.)bai

1.Masters Tobacco Co(India), the respondent to this appeal, as a job worker for VST Industries Ltd. manufactured cigarettes from cut tobacco manufactured by VST Industries Ltd and cleared without payment of duty under the provisions of Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules. Duty was demanded from VST Industries Ltd on 646 kilograms of tobacco sent under this procedure, and not received by the respondent. VST Industries Ltd paid the duty demanded at the rate applicable to tobacco. The rate of duty at Rs.50/- per kilogram was applied by invoking notification 356/86. This notification granted exemption beyond this amount to "cut tobacco for use in the manufacture of machine rolled cigarettes".2. Subsequently notice was issued to the respondent alleging that the duty was required to be paid on the tobacco at 210% ad valorem, the rate that would apply if the benefit of the notification were not to be applied. The notice contended that the notification would not be available for the reason ...

Aarti Drugs Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Exicse,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC472

1. Aarti Drugs Ltd has its factory at Tarapore. It manufactures in this factory methyl nitro imidazole (MNI for short), which it cleared on payment of duty. The manufacturer took Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of these goods for the purpose of paying duty on the MNI. As a result of the various processes involved in the manufacture of this commodity, mother liquor consisting of a solution of ammonium sulphate in water, containing traces of nitric acid (one of the chemicals used in manufacture) emerges as a by product. The manufacturer obtains ammonium sulphate (still containing traces of nitric acid) by removal of water from the solution. The appellant cleared this ammonium sulphate without payment of duty under notification 8/96 which unconditionally exempted it from duty.2. A notice issued on 31.3.1997 alleged that since the manufacturer clears ammonium sulphate, one of its final products, without payment of duty, the provisions of Rule 57CC woul...

Sandoz (India) Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of the appeal on the ground that the issue has been settled under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme 1998, producing in support a certificate issue by the designated authority....