Mumbai Court July 2002 Judgments

Ganjam Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Panther Investrade Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR330; [2004]119CompCas766(Bom)

S.A. Bobde, J.1. Heard Mr. Thakkar, learned senior counsel for the inter-vener. Intervention application is allowed.2. The petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is moved by Ganjam Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd, the petitioner abovenamed, seeking, inter alia, a direction to the respondents, i.e., Panther Investrade Ltd. and Ketan Parekh to forthwith refund or furnish security in the sum of Rs. 25 crores paid to the first respondent, i.e., Panther Investrade Ltd. by the petitioner for the purchase of certain shares in terms of an agreement dated January 19, 2001, entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Admittedly, the agreement dated January 19, 2001, contained an arbitration clause being clause No. 7. The petitioner has made a statement that it intends to invoke the arbitration clause for deciding the dispute between the parties. In the meanwhile, it seeks interim protection.3. The transaction giving rise to the dispute appears to be as follows...

Dodsal (P.) Ltd. Vs. Foreign Exchange Regulation, Appellate Board

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]52SCL466(Bom)

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to FERA) takes exception to the judgment and order dated 2-4-1987 in Appeal No. 72 of 1980 passed by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board against the Order No. SDF (S) 1/ 61/72/79 dated 29-12-1979 of the Special Director of Enforcement against the penalty of Rs. 40,000. This first appeal raises the following substantial questions of law.1. What is the true and correct interpretation of the provisions of Sections 4(1), 5(1)(a), 5(1)(b), 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d) of the FERA 1947 ?2. Whether the permission of the Reserve Bank of India to execute contracts would include the permission to spend such money in executing such contracts as was necessary ?3. Whether a person is entitled to adjust and/or deduct and/or set off the amount due to him against the amount payable by him to a nonresident without the general or special permission of the Reserve Bank of India ?4. Whe...

Gautam Diagnostic Centre Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. The Commissioner passed his order in order to comply with the direction issued by the Tribunal in its order passed on 24.4.2001. The Tribunal by that order disposed of an appeal filed by the same appellant against the order of the Commissioner adjudicating on a notice issued to Gautam Diagnostic Centre. The notice proposed recovery of duty on a treadmill system with accessories imported by the appellant in 1988 and cleared without payment of duty in terms of exemption contained in notification 64/88. The notice alleged that the benefit of the exemption contained in notification was not available for three reasons - that the importer did not have facilities for housing indoor patients; a certificate from the Director General of Medical Services evidencing installation of the imported equipment had not been produced; and the condition contained in the notification requiring free treatment of not less than...

Star Industrial and Textile Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant was a manufacturer of jet dyeing machines, made in conformity with the specifications of the intending buyers. The components that form these machines comprise parts that the appellant manufacture in its factory, and those it purchased from others, and until 1.11.1988, included items that were necessary for the erection and installation of these machines. It is stated by the counsel for the appellant that these dyeing machines, after being assembled out of these components, were tested for proper performance and thereafter dismantled for ease of transportation to the customer's premises where they were again assembled and erected. These machines are stated to be more than 10 metres in length. By its letter of 1.11.1988, it informed the jurisdictional Superintendent as follows: "For Jet Dyeing Plant/equipment we have been paying Excise Duty for despatches upto 22.8.1988 on all items manufactured by us, bought out items in assembled condition and bought out items suppli...

Ram Shridhar Chimurkar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ61CAT

1. This is an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the reliefs as under:- "(1) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 23.2.2000 of the Respondent No. 2 being illegal and unconstitutional. (2) Hold and declare that the limitation incorporated in the definition of family suffers from vice of arbitrariness and discrimination and the words "before retirement" in Clause (ii) of the definition "Family" under Rule 54 (14)(b) to be ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and the same should be struck down. (3) Further hold and declare that the applicant is deemed to be the adopted son of late Shri Shridhar Chimurkar as held by the Supreme Court of India in Vijayalakshmamma's case as discussed above. (4) Direct the respondents to pay the arrears of pension from April, 1998 with interest till date; and (5) Any other relief as may be deemed expedient and necessary in the interest of justice." 2. The applicant was the son of Shri Prakash Narayanr...

Neeta Anand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ186CAT

1. The applicant in this case, who is a Teacher with the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (K.V.S., in short) was working at Baroda and had made a request in terms of the policy of request transfers, of the KVS, for a transfer to the places of her choice. The places of choice were indicated by her in the application, a copy of which is annexed at page 25 (Annexure R-1). The choices are given in terms of Station Codes, which were explained to us in Open Court, admittedly as follows: Bangalore, Mumbai, Pune, Chandigarh and Delhi in that order. The applicant received a transfer order dated 1.4.2002, posting her to Kendriya Vidyalaya Colaba No. 2 Mumbai. It is alleged by the applicant that, although she took charge on 9.4.2002, and even took classes she was not allowed to perform her duties with effect from the next day i.e. 10.4.2002. Fearing that she would be transferred, she approached the Tribunal by filing the present O.A. on 16.4.2002. The applicant thereafter received a modified order o...

Hariram Pandurang Gaikwad and anr. Vs. Balbhimrao Krishnajirao Kadam a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR352

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, dated July 15, 1988 in M.R.T. S.H. I 18/86 (TNC. B 42/86).2. Briefly stated the land in question is bearing Gat No. 813 admeasuring 3.75 H. situated at village Kadlas, Taluka Sangola, District Solapur. The petitioners were tenants in the suit land since the time of original landlady Smt. Satvashiladevi Vijayraje Pawar. The said landlady was widow on the tillers day i.e. 1-4-1957. As a consequence of that the petitioners' right to purchase stood postponed. However, the said landlady died on 4-7-1971. According to the petitioners they were not aware of the death of the landlady as she died at Athni in the State of Karnataka and they had no intimation in that behalf. It is only when the mutation entry in respect of the suit land was changed on 10-12-1979 and the heirs of the original landlady were brought on record, the pe...

Vasaudev Gangaram Sharma and ors. Vs. Popatlal Prabhudas and Sons

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR572; 2003(2)BomCR859; 2003(1)MhLj569

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Small Causes Court, Bombay at Bombay Bench at Bandra dated 10th October, 1997 in Appeal No. 752 of 1986 in Execution Application dated 27-6-1985 in R.A.F. Suit No. 842/6916 of 1964.2. Briefly stated, the predecessor of the petitioners was tenant in respect of the land situated at Goregaon bearing Survey No. 100 Hissa No. 2 Part, Survey No. 101, Hissa No. 3 Part and Survey No. 102 Hissa No. 1 of Mouje Pahadi, Taluka Borivali, Bombay Suburban District. The respondent had filed suit for possession of the demised premises on the ground of default and bona fide requirement against the predecessor of the petitioners under the provisions of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, being R.A.E. Suit No. 842/6916 of 1964. The said suit was decreed ex parte. As a consequence of ex parte decree the plaintiff took the possession of the demised pre...

Ashok Daga Patil Vs. Daga Yadav Patil and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR997; 2003(1)BomCR166; 2003(1)MhLj686

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 1st March, 2002, passed by the trial Court rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint filed by the petitioner on the ground that the facts which are sought to be introduced by way of amendment and the relief based on such facts having been barred by law of limitation, the petitioner is not entitled to amend the plaint as proposed by the petitioner.3. While challenging the impugned order, it was sought to be contended that issue of limitation can very well be raised in the suit itself and the amendment could not have been refused on that count in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Ragu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan and Ors. reported in 2001 (2) SCC 472.4. Undisputedly, the suit is for partition of the property filed by the co-owner. By the proposed amendment, the petitioner has sought to ad...

Popatlal Prabhudas and Sons Vs. Indu Electric Industries and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR69; 2003(1)MhLj949

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. It is not necessary to advert to all the events which have given rise to the filing of the present writ petitions. Suffice it to point out that an order was passed in favour of the original respondent No. 2 on his application, being Notice No. 145 of 1968, by the Appellate Court in Appeal No. 328 of 1978 and 201 of 1979. The relief granted in favour of the original respondent No. 2 was to get compensation, damages and mesne profits at Rs. 16,66,500/-. In the circumstances, the petitioners herein against whom the said order was passed, filed present Writ Petition No. 3536 of 1985 challenging the said order. Whilst this writ petition was pending, the original respondent No. 2 died on 19-1-1989. Thereafter, application was filed by the petitioners to bring the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 2 on record which was granted. This fact is not in dispute. As a consequence of that order the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 2 were.added as r...