Mumbai Court February 2003 Judgments

Ravindra Mutneja, Vs. Bhavan Corporation a Partnership Firm, Registere ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR521; 2003(5)BomCR695

F.I. Rebello, J. 1. The appellants herein have preferred this Appeal against the order dated 19.12.2001, whereby a learned Judge of the City Civil Court dismissed Notice of Motion No. 2932 of 2001 in S.C. Suit No. 3752 of 2001, taken out by the appellants herein. The learned Judge found in favour of the appellants that the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA) was applicable. The learned Judge also found in favour of the appellants that the new structure is an extension to the old building Puspha Castle. However, on the ground of balance of convenience considering the delay in the plaintiffs approaching the Court, dismissed their Motion. It is that order which is the subject matter of the present Appeal.2. In this appeal, Motion for Interim relief was taken out on 25.9.2002 and an order was passed that pending hearing and final disposal of appeal there would be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer Clause (a) of Civil Application No. 1063/2002. The order also sets ...

Barses J.A. D'Douza Vs. the Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Brihan,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR594; 2003(6)BomCR846; 2004(1)CTLJ506(Bom); 2003(4)MhLj451

D.G. Karnik, J. 1. This appeal came up for hearing on admission on 14th January, 2003 when the learned counsel for the parties agreed that the appeal should be heard finally at the stage of admission itself and was accordingly adjourned for final hearing. Appeal then came up for final hearing on 22nd January, 2003 and after hearing for sometime was adjourned several times for settlement. As the settlement was not possible, hearing was continued and concluded today.FACTS 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by reference to their original status in the suit. The plaintiff is the owner of several properties bearing C.T.S. Nos. 150, 150/1 to 6, 151, 152, 152/1 & 2 together admeasuring about 6,251.30 sq. metres and more particularly described in Clause 1 of Exhibit A to the plaint which are hereafter referred to as the suit properties. The plaintiff is also the owner of some other properties in respect of which separate agreement/s were executed between the parties bu...

Vidarbha Labour Law Practitioners Association Vs. State of Maharashtra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR254; 2003(6)BomCR468; 2003(3)MhLj664

V.C. Daga, J. 1. This petition is in the nature of public interest. The petitioner is an association, known as the Vidarbha Labour Law Practitioners Association, Nagpur ('the petitioner Association' for short). The petitioner, association of the practicing Lawyers, being interested in the administration of justice, has preferred this petition claiming locus standi to file the petition based on the law laid down by the Apex Court in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India : [1982]2SCR365 , to seek adequate judiciary infrastructure for the Labour and Industrial Courts at Nagpur and in other parts of the Region.2. The factual matrix as stated in the petition reveal that even though the Labour and Industrial Courts are established long back, and building to house these forums, was constructed in the year 1988, but in the past 15 years, no attempt was made by the Public Works Department (PWD) of the State either to maintain the said building or to provide necessary infrastructure therein; so as to mak...

Sharad MittersaIn Jain, Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004(101)FLR410]; (2004)IILLJ369Bom; 2004(1)MhLj776

J.G. Chitre, J.1. Both the applications are being decided by a common judgment and order because they are revolving around the same cause of action, that is, not depositing the amount of provident fund deducted from the employees by the public limited company where those employees were employed. In both the applications, the applications are assailing the propriety, legality and correctness of the order passed by the J.M.F.C. Sangli who entertained the complaints filed by Shri J.B. Doiphode, Provident Fund Inspector against the applicants in the said Court alleging that they had committed the offence punishable under provisions of Section 406 of IPC.2. Few facts need to be stated for unfolding the issue in debate. The applicants happened to be the directors of M/s. Madhav Nagar Cotton Mills Ltd., District Sangli. They deducted the amount from the pay, salary and wages of the employees who were coming under the purview of the provident Fund Act. It was alleged by Shri Doiphode that the ...

Pooja Granites and Marbles Ltd. Vs. Ispat Finance Ltd. and

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2004)BC329; 2003BomCR(Cri)1767; 2004(1)MhLj554; [2004]52SCL588(Bom)

J.G. Chitre, J. 1. Both these petitions are being decided by a common judgment and order because the point around which they are revolving is the same and the facts are similar.2. The petitioners are hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the order by which the learned Magistrate issued the process against them for attending the Court in respect of the cases initiated against them in context with the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for convenience). These two petitions are dealing with two criminal prosecutions initiated against the petitioners in respect of two cheques one is for the sum of Rs. 25 lacs and the other is the cheque for the sum of Rs. 3,30,000/-. Both the cheques were drawn on the same day i.e. 5.1.1996 and both the cheques were submitted by original complainant - the respondent No. 1 in Punjab National Bank on 5.7.96. Punjab National Bank presented those cheques to Samata Sahakari...

Central Bank of India Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-l ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR250; 2003(6)BomCR771; (2004)ILLJ1110Bom

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Taken up for finalhearing with the consent of the parties.2. In the Departmental proceedings, initiatedagainst the Respondent no.2-employee, charges were provedagainst him and the result thereof was issuance of anorder of discharge of the respondent no.2 from service.This order of discharge dated January 2, 1990.3. An appeal, at the instance of the Respondentno.2, before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of thePetitioner-bank, resulted into rejection thereof. Thisorder passed by the Appellate authority is dated20.11.1990.4. After about four years gap, it was for thefirst time, the Respondent no.2 approached the AssistantLabour Commissioner(Central), Nagpur, challenging theorder of Discharge from service. The proceedings beingfor conciliation and the conciliation having been failed,the matter was referred to the Central GovernmentIndustrial Tribunal, Jabalpur, for adjudication.5. On having been noticed, the Respondent-bankappeared before the learned Presid...

Sau. Ujwala Anilkumar JaIn and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Thro ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)105BOMLR158a

Naresh H. Patil, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith.2. Through this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a writ of this Court to quash and set aside impugned order passed by the District Supply Officer, Dhule dated 20.11.2002, in pursuance to the order dated 4.10.2002 passed by the respondent No. 2, the Honourable Minister, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Government of Maharashtra and the respondent No. 3 Desk Officer, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Government of Maharashtra, granting retail dealer's kerosene licence as a 'Khas Baab' (special case) in favour of respondent No. 7 Sau. Anita (Kalpana) Bhagwan Chaudhari. The petitioners also pray for issuance of directions to the respondents to continue to supply quota of kerosene allotted to them earlier and to restrain the authorities from reducing the quota of kerosene as allotted to them for the month of November, 2002.3. The petitioners contend that they were running f...

Gujarat Cancer and Research Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 1.45 crores approximately and penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. The duty has been demanded, and penalty imposed, on the finding of the Commissioner that the applicant, a hospital, did not comply with the condition relating to the treatment of the specified minimum number of outpatients and in-patients.2. Counsel for the applicant says that although there has been a shortfall in the treatment of outdoor patients to the extent of 2% or so in some of the years, this has been more than made up in the remaining years. He says that the condition relating to the treatment of inpatients has also been complied with in substance. He further contends that the hospital is a charitable trust, and the predominant part of its income is by way of grants from the Government of Gujarat.Four officials of the Government of Gujarat and two officials of the Government of India are members of its governing body. A request has been made to the Government of G...

N.R. Agarwal Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT351Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, details of which are set out herein below, arise out of a common order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting four appeals filed by the applicants against four adjudication orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise.2. The credit has been disallowed on input and capital goods, for the reason that the applicants availed modvat credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods although no duty was payable on the final products, i.e., newsprints, thus contravening the provisions of Rule 57C(1) and Rule 57R(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 respectively.4. We find that prior to commencement of manufacture of newsprint in July, 1998, the applicants vide their letter dated 15/05/1998 informed the jurisdictional Range Superintendent that nil rate of duty prescribed for the newsprint falling under Chapter heading 48.01 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 was not applicable prior to their reg...

Power Build Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant imported a consignment of 40 load cells, seeking clearance at Air Cargo Complex in Mumbai. The advance licence that covered the import of these goods, as well as other documents, had been registered by it in the Bombay Custom House. In accordance with the normal procedure, therefore, the Custom House issued to the Air Cargo Complex a release advice referred to as TRA indicating the balance in the licence available after taking into account the debit already made to it against the import made. The release advice was expressed in terms of rupees, and took into account the exchange rate that prevailed on the date of its issue of US$ 1 = 35.40. As a result, the department concluded that the goods were not entirely covered by the licence, there being a shortfall to the extent of Rs. 4,460/-. The goods of this value were therefore levied to duty, denying the benefit of the exemption contained in notification 128/94. The importer cleared these goods after payment of duty, an...