Mumbai Court June 2003 Judgments

Auto General Vs. Engineering Workers' Union

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR864; 2003(4)MhLj428

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the partiesPerused the records.2. The petitioners are challenging the judgment, and order passed by theIndustrial Court on 8-4-1999 allowing the complaint filed by the respondentmaking grievance of unfair labour practices under Item 9 of Schedule-IV of theMaharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair LabourPractices Act, 1971, hereinafter called as 'the said Act' on the part of thepetitioners and further claiming of back wages to the tune of Rs. 69,597/-. Thechallenge is three-fold. Firstly, that without going into the issue as to theobligation of the workman to report to the duties pursuant to the Award forreinstatement and without any material on record disclosing attempt on the partof the workman to join the duties, the Industrial Court has arrived at theconclusion that there was refusal on the part of the petitioners to allow theworkman to join to her duties on or after 1-6-1990; secondly, that the workman...

V.R. Walvekar and anr. Vs. Gopal Narayan MaraThe and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR418; 2003(4)MhLj478

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.Perused the records. 2. The petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 30-11-1999, passed by the Industrial Court in Revision Application No. 18 of 1997,partly allowing the revision application and quashing and setting aside the orderpassed by the Labour Court on 19-2-1996 in Complaint No. 333 of 1987. By thesaid order dated 19-2-1996, the complaint filed by the respondent alleging thatthe petitioner-company was engaged in unfair labour practices under Item 1(a),(b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule-IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of TradeUnions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter calledas 'the said Act', was dismissed by the Labour Court on account of failure on thepart of the respondent to prove the allegations therein. By the impugned order,the Industrial Court, while setting aside the said order, has held that thepetitioners have committed unfair labour practices under It...

infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Limited Vs. Sun Earth Ce ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR649; 2004(1)BomCR401; [2003]117CompCas747(Bom); 2004(2)MhLj203

S.A. Bobde, J.1. This is a plaintiffs motion for appointment of the receiver of the leased equipment.2. The plaintiffs have leased equipment to the defendants under an agreement dated December 17,1999. Relevant clause No. 2.4 of the agreement reads as follows :'2.4 Upon expiry of the period or on earlier termination of this agreement, the lessee shall at its own cost and expenses, forthwith deliver or cause to be delivered to the lessor the equipment, at such place and time as may be directed by the lessor, in good repair, order and condition (subject to normal wear and tear).'3. It appears that the defendants have not paid any lease rental after January, 2002. Hence the plaintiffs have filed this suit, inter alia, for repossession of the leased equipment described in exhibit A to the plaint, for an injunction and for appointment of the court receiver.4. Mr. Kadam, learned counsel for the defendants resisted the continuance of the suit and passing of any order for appointment of the re...

Vithal Vishwambharrao Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR1021; 2004(1)MhLj600

D.S. Zoting, J.1. Heard Mr. R.M. Borde, learned Counsel for the land-owners (original claimants) and Mr. V. K. Jaju, learned A.G.P. for the State of Maharashtra2. The group of 11 appeals arises out of common judgment and Award passed in land reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. Out of the 11 appeals, 7 appeals have been preferred by the land owners (original claimants), whereas the remaining 4 appeals have been preferred by the State of Maharashtra (original respondent).4. The particulars as regards the land reference, giving rise to these appeals, may be stated in a tabular form, as under:--L.A.R. No.No. of appeal preferred by land-ownersNo. of appeal preferred by State of Maharashtra37/1983F.A. 60/198310/1983F.A. 61/1988 33/1983F.A. 62/198838/1983F.A. 64/198340/1983F.A. 106/198811/1983F.A. 107/198835/1983F.A. 108/198835/1983F.A. 99/199238/1983F.A. 100/199237/1983F.A. 101/199233/1983F.A. 102/19925. Out of the above appe...

Prakash Shivajirao Deshmukh and ors. Vs. Shivajirao Ramchandrarao Desh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)MhLj939

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Heard Advocate Shri R.M. Borde for petitioners and Advocate Shri S.B. Agrawal for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Respondent No. 1 is absent, although served.2. The revision petition challenges judgment and order dated 11-10-1993 delivered by Civil Judge (J.D.), Tuljapur, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2/1993, thereby allowing review petition filed by original defendant Nos. 2 to 4/respondent Nos. 2 to 4, setting aside thereby Judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 21/1982 by his predecessor on 30-12-1992.3. Regular Civil Suit No. 21/1982 was filed by present revision petitioners against four defendants and present respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in the suit. (Henceforth parties shall be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 2 to 4 for the sake of convenience).Plaintiffs had filed suit for declaration in respect of sale deed dated 9-12-1971 executed by defendant No. 1 - Shivajirao in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 that the ...

Anilkumar Raghunathrao Chandorikar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR226; 2004(2)BomCR229

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition arises out of an order passed by the respondent No. 2 Committee invalidating the petitioner's caste claim of belonging to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe and the order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad on 28-2-1989 confirming the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee.2. The Tahsildar at Udgir issued a caste certificate in favour of the petitioner on 26-3-1979 stating that the petitioner belongs to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe and a similar certificate was issued to the petitioner by the Executive Magistrate, Aurangabad on 2-3-1985. On completion of his graduation in 1979, he came to be appointed as Industries Inspector under the Directorate of Industries, Bombay, against a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe. He was also promoted to the next higher post, by giving him the benefit of reservation available to Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner's tribe claim, based on the certificate issued by the Tahsildar Udgir and Executive Magist...

Manek Brothers Through Vs. Shankar D. Vibhute and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR398

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners. None present for the respondent, though served.2. The petitioners are challenging the Award dated 21-4-1998, passed by the Labour Court at Mumbai in Reference No. 372 of 1988 directing the petitioners to reinstate the workman with full back wages and continuity in service. The challenge is restricted to the issue of direction to pay the fullback wages.3. It is the contention of the petitioners that inspite of clear evidence produced by the petitioners in relation to the fact that the workman was gainfully employed with the other establishments during the period of enquiry and proceedings before the Court and from the time of termination of his services, the Labour Court has refused to take note of such evidence in breach of the procedure and without any justifiable reason and, therefore, the impugned award, as far as it directs the payment of back wages, needs to be set aside.4. Upon hearing the learned Advocate ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Asia Textiles and Zenith Weaves

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC244

1. The above appeals involve a common issue and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. Both the respondents here in are engaged in the manufacture of texturised/crimped yarn falling under Chapter heading 54.03 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Small Scale Notification No. 1/93 dated 28/02/93 was amended by Notification No.90/94 dated 25/04/94 incorporating the goods falling under above mentioned chapter heading as "specified goods" for the purpose of S.S.I benefit which was claimed by the respondents. Subsequently, vide Notification No. 23/94-CX (NT) dated 20/05/94, Rule 56A was deleted from the Central Excise statute and modvat benefit was extended to the product covered by chapter heading 54.03 by Notification No. 24/94 dated 20/05/94. The department was of the view that since the Notification No. 1/93 was effective from 01/04/94, clearances from this date should be computed and not only from the date when the assesses/respondents opte...

Picasso Home Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are manufacturer of exigible goods (Electrical appliances) on which they affix their brand names & consequent to certain requests made by M/s. United Teleshopping & Marketing Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as UTSC), a marketing agency engaged in sales of goods through television programmes. They started affixing a sticker on 'The Outer Cartons" of the packages being removed which had marking 'As seen on UTS' or 'As seen on TSN'. On the other packing material, the brand names of the appellants were affixed. They were issued a show cause notice which proposed to deny them to benefit of small scale exemption, availed under the provision of Notification 8/98-CE dtd.02/06/1998, in view of provisions of Para 5 thereof, as the sticker was considered to be a brand name/trade name of another person.2. The lower authority, after considering the replies, concluded that the benefit of the small scale exemption notification was not available and it was ordered that...

Wockhardt Life Sciences Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT736Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in these appeals is the classification of two products, that the appellant manufactures, Povidone Iodine Cleansing Solution USP and Wokadine Surgical scrub.Both of these products have identical composition, the only difference being that Wokadine is a branded product, whereas the other is generic.The composition of these products per 1000 litres is as follows: (ii) neutromix S-60 and anomic detergent (active content 58%) - 250 kilogram) 2. The label indicates that the product contains povidone iodine 7.5% w/v. the appellant claimed classification of these products as medicaments in chapter 30.03 of the Central Excise tariff, the branded product being in sub heading 10 and the other in sub heading 20. The department has sought to classify these goods in heading 3402.90 as a cleansing agent or a washing preparation. This is the classification that has been determined by the Commissioner (Appeals) or the adjudicating authority in the orders impugned befo...