Mumbai Court August 2002 Judgments

N.P. Chhabaria Vs. Jyoti Wire Industries and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)1BOMLR23

J.G. Chitre, J.1. Mrs. Rama S. Pendkalkar for the petitioner None for other respondents except State of Maharashtra which has been represented by Ms. Kantharia. Therefore, this Court heard both the counsel appearing for the petitioner and the State of Maharashtra. 2. The Petitioner is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the order passed by the trial Court whereby a process was issued against him in context with some offences including an offence which is punishable under the provisions of Section 420 of IPC.3. After presentation of the complaint, at the time of taking the cognizance the trial Court has to advert its attention to the fats and circumstances indicated by the averments made in the complaint. It has to inform itself about the allegations made in the complaint. The facts and circumstances of the case differ from case to case. Therefore, the provisions of law have to be applied to such case presented before it by reading the allegations carefully. 4. M...

Benadict Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner ordering confiscation of 188 kilograms of oxytetracycline under Clause (d) and (m) of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 and of 24128 litres of base oil and 160 drums in which it was contained under Sections 118 and 119 of the Act, and imposing a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellant.2. The fact are not in dispute. A consignment imported by the appellant, declared to consist 24128 litres of base oil in 160 drums was on examination found to contain in 60 of these drums, tetracyclines kept in the oil in plastic bags. The appellant admitted in this statement before the officers of the Central Excise department that he had ordered import of the goods. He accepted that he had imported these goods including tetracyclines. He gave details of the instructions given to Kiran Dharamshi who said was a broker in such goods with regard to removal of the tetracyclines. It is essentially on the admissions contained in the statements that the...

Rajabhau S/O Mahadeorao Rahate Vs. Dinkar S/O Shantaram Ingole

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR40; (2001)1BOMLR87; 2002(3)MhLj921

V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This revision application raises a substantial question of law of large public importance regarding maintainability of a revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, after its amendment effective from 1st July 2002. The question whether a revision application pending before this Court as of that day are liable to be decided in accordance with the amended provisions of Section 115 or the amendments may not affect the pending revisions; what is the scope and extent of saving clause in Section 32 of the Amendment Act. These and analogous important questions occur with regularity in all cases that will come up for admission after 1st July 2002. In my opinion, therefore, it is necessary that the view of this Court at least on the interpretation of these provisions, is taken and made known to all concerned.2. Generally, it could be necessary to decide the scope and extent of the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to d...

The Government of Goa Through Its Chief Secretary, Secretariat and the ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR434; (2003)1BOMLR266; 2003(1)MhLj703

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By this Civil Revision Application, the State Government of Goa through its Chief Secretary, has challenged the Order dated 18th August,2000 passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, at Margao in Execution Application No. 3 of 1998, contending that the learned District Judge, South Goa in the said Execution Application has committed an error apparent on the face of it while directing the Applicant to pay interest as indicated in Para 6 of the Order. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners does not dispute the liability of the State to pay interest at the rate of 15% from 1st April 1996 to 8th April 1996. What is being disputed is the award of interest subsequent thereto, i.e. from 9th April 1996 to 7th January 2000. 2. The brief facts in the above matter are: A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 6th September, 1984. Finally an award was passed. The original Claimants were Respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and one Ana Conceicao Ant...

Press Trust of India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Press Trust of India Employees ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(1)BomCR567; (2003)1BOMLR109; [2003(96)FLR565]; (2003)ILLJ709Bom; 2002(4)MhLj653

R.J. Kochar, J.1. Rule. By consent the writ petition is heard forthwith.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an interim order passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint ULP No. 623 of 2002 filed by the employees union to challenge the order of transfer dated 6th June 2002 of one Shri S.P. Iyer, Senior Technician from Mumbai to Shimla. The respondent union has challenged the said order of transfer by filing the aforesaid complaint under Section 28 read with Section 30 and Items 3, 5, 7, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and PULP Act, 1971. According to the respondent union, the said transfer order amounted to an unfair labour practice mainly under Item 3 of Schedule IV of the Act. It was contended by the union that the transfer order was mala fide and was in the guise of following management policy and that it amounted to victimisation of the members of the said union. It was also contended that Shri Iyer was the General Secretary of the Union and that he was transferred at the inst...

Dilip Singh Parocha and ors. Vs. Mahalaxmi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR581; (2002)1BOMLR732; [2003(96)FLR1114]; 2002(4)MhLj554

R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Labour Court dated 13th November 1995 in application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 filed by the petitioners praying for determination and computation of the monies due from the respondent No. 1 society. According to the petitioners, they were entitled to get difference in minimum wages payable under the Minimum wages Act, 1948 and the actual wages paid by the respondent No. 1 society, wages in lieu of weekly offs, leave wages, national paid holidays and overtime wages. The application filed by the petitioners reflect that they are claiming the aforesaid monies due from 1961 onwards in their application dated June 1987. The petitioners appeared to have dared to file such a stale claim for the period from 1961 onwards as there is no statutory limitation under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. From such applications the employers must guard themselves and must preser...

Payal Electronics Vs. Arun Vasant Pawar and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR111; 2002(6)BomCR724; (2002)4BOMLR299; 2003(1)MhLj284

R.J. Kochar, J. 1. The petitioner employer is aggrieved by the Order dated 9-10-1995 passed by the Presiding Officer of 4th Labour Court in Application IDA No. 182 of 1994 filed by the respondent workman claiming overtime wages from 1-12-1988 till 31-12-1993 to the tune of Rs. 65,488/-. According to the respondent workman-Applicant during his employment he was required to do overtime work for two hours every day and he was therefore entitled to get overtime wages which was not paid by the petitioner employer.Writ Petition No. 6483 of 1995 decided on 16-8-2002. (Bombay)The respondent workman filed the said application after his dismissal from employment. The Labour Court considered the pleadings and evidence of both the parties and allowed the application filed by the respondent workman partly to the tune of Rs. 58,840/- towards the claim of the workman for overtime wages. The Labour Court has also awarded 15% interest per annum on the said amount from the date of filing of the applicat...

Marico Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Sarfraj Trading Co. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR408; 2002(25)PTC348(Bom)

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Plaintiff No. 1 carries on the business of manufacturing and marketing various products including edible oils. Plaintiff No. 2 was the erstwhile proprietor of the copy right in the artistic work as exhibited at Exh. A and Exh. B. Plaintiff No. 2 has now assigned those rights in favour of Plaintiff No. 1. The case of the Plaintiffs is that the defendants have infringed their copyright in the artistic work by marketing the goods under the trade mark 'Cocosagar'. The label and the artistic work on the containers used by the defendant is as displayed on the containers and sachets at Exh.F. It is further case of the plaintiff that due to excellent quality and the extensive publicity of their products, they enjoy good reputation and good will all over India as also abroad. The sales figures have been set out in Paragraph 9. The amounts spent on advertisement from the year 1997 to 2001 as set out in Paragraph 10. Plaintiffs have further pleaded that some time in the year 19...

Rama Dhondu Date Vs. Krishnaji Bhikaji Kadam and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR1029; 2003(4)BomCR365; 2003(2)MhLj664

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Both these writ petitions can be disposed of by common judgment since they are between the common parties and involve same question.2. Writ Petition No. 4667 of 1984 pertains to land bearing Survey Nos. 17 and 18 situated at Terao, whereas Writ Petition No. 5021 of 1984 pertains to land bearing Survey No. 298 Hissa No. 1 at village Terao. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were landlords of the said lands. The respondent No. 3 is the uncle of the petitioner herein in both these matters. It is the petitioner's case that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 granted the abovesaid suit lands to the petitioner's father and the respondent No. 3 under registered lease deed dated 31-8-1944 for a period of 5 years. It is not in dispute that Section 5 of the Act of 1948 (The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948) provided security from termination of lease upto a period of 10 years except on the grounds under Section 14 of the Act. As the persons in possession under such leases were trea...

Jainab Sale Mohammed Vs. M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)MhLj225

A.S. Aguiar, J. 1. The present Criminal Writ Petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu, challenges the order dated 11-10-2001 passed by the respondent No. 1 Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay in exercise of powers conferred on him under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (Amendment-1996) on. 2. The activities of the detenu necessitating the passing of the impugned order have been set out in the grounds of detention of the same date i.e. 11-10-2001 which have been served upon the detenu along with the detention order of the same date. The grounds of detention are set out in para 4(a)(i) and 4(a)(ii). The ground of detention No. 4(a)(i) reads as follows : '4(a)(i) On 21-4-2001, you approached Shri Sayyed Alvi and demanded hapta money. However, Shri Sayyed Alavi refuse to pay you hapta mone...