Mumbai Court June 2003 Judgments

Shri Vijay Kisan Karanjkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom60; 2003(4)ALLMR691; 2004(1)BomCR168; 2004(3)MhLj49

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Rule, Mr. R.M. Patne, Assistant Government Pleader, appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Mr. V.A. Thorat, Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. R.K. Mendadkar with Suresh S. Shah, appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 6.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and at their request, the matter is taken for final hearing.3. The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing and setting aside the decision of the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nasik, respondent No. 3 herein, dated May 12, 2003 (Exhibit-F) being illegal, unlawful and violative of natural justice and fair play.4. The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to Kunbi caste, recognized as Other Backward Class (OBC). Election of Bhagur Nagar Parishad was held on December 2, 2001. The petitioner contested the election as OBC candidate (Kunbi) an got himself elected as the President by securing maximum vote...

Madhavnath B. Tamboli Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through the Secret ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR190; 2004(2)BomCR836

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing forthwith.2. The petitioner joined the Indian Air Force on 4th February 1964 and was employed until he was discharged on 28th February 1985. The Certificate of Discharge issued to him in accordance with the provisions of Section 23 of the Air Force Act, 1950, sets out that the discharge was on the petitioner 'fulfilling the regular engagement'. The character and general behaviour of the petitioner during the services is recorded as 'exemplary' and the trade proficiency as 'exceptional'. 3. On 11th October 1985, the petitioner was appointed as Surveyor in the Revenue and Forests Department of the State Government and he joined duty shortly thereafter, on 18th October 1985. By a representation dated 16th September 1995 submitted to the Settlement Commissioner and Director of Land Records, the petitioner claimed that he was entitled under the Maharashtra Released Defence Services Personal (Fixation of ...

Rajashree Bokade and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)MhLj571

R.J. Kochar, J.1. All the above petitions are being disposed of by the common Judgment and Order as the issue involved in the petitions is the common one. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of theConstitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the communicationdated 9-3-2000 issued by the Registrar - respondent No. 2 refusing to grant renewal of Registration of the petitioners permitting them to act as Architects.The petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ to quash and set aside the said communication and directions to the respondent No. 2 to renew the registration of the petitioners by accepting the renewal fee as per the provisions of Section 23(3) of the Architects Act, 1972. 3. The petitioners, young lady architects, were conferred a Degree ofBachelor of Architecture by the Nagpur University. Respondent No. 3 - theCouncil of Architecture functioning under Section 3 of the Architects Act, 1972,had recognized the said Degrees confer...

Laxmikant Balkrishna Joshi Vs. Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR843; 2003(4)MhLj515

R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner, who was in employment with therespondent No. 2, as a Lecturer has filed the present petition under Article 226 ofConstitution of India, for an appropriate writ or direction against the respondentsto appoint the petitioner as Head of the Institute of Pharmacy known as 'Geetadevi Khaldelwal Institute of Pharmacy, Akola', and to give all the benefitsincluding the difference in salary from 1983 from the date of acceptance ofresignation of the then Principal Shri A. P. Hardas. The petitioner has also soughta direction against the respondents that they should comply with the provisions ofthe Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service), Rules1981 and the Act of 1978, and Pharmacy Regulations.2. The facts in the present petition are not in dispute and are in a verynarrow compass. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the institute videthe appointment order dated 8-8-1980 with effect from 21-8-1980. The post ofPrincipal fell vacant ...

Anil Dattatraya Ade Vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR320; 2004(3)BomCR72; 2003(4)MhLj866

R. J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner, a Lecturer by profession, employed in the respondent No. 2 - Institute is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed, by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati, and Aurangabad, on 16th January, 1986 in Appeal No. 43/1984 filed by him under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Non-Government Schools (Conditions of Service.) Regulation Act, 1977, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The learned Presiding Officer partly allowed the appeal. The petitioner's challenge to the legality and propriety of the order of termination dated 29-6-1984 was not accepted by the Tribunal, as it recorded a finding that the said order of termination was legal and valid, but the learned Presiding Officer granted relief of one month's salary (pay and allowances) in lieu of the notice to be paid by the respondent No. 2 within a reasonable time of two months, with further direction to the Government to deduct the said amount, if not paid from the grant-in-aid o...

In Re: German Remedies Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR405; [2005]125CompCas615(Bom); (2003)4CompLJ89(Bom); [2004]50SCL77(Bom)

D.G. Karnik, J. 1. The petitioner is a company incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and deemed to be an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. Three other companies namely Recon Health Care Limited, Zydus Pathline Limited and Zoom Properties Limited along with the petitioner are proposed to be amalgamated and merged with Cadila Health Care Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'transferee company') under a common scheme of arrangement (hereinafter referred to as 'the scheme'). On a petition filed by Zydus Pathline Limited - one of the transferor companies having registered office in the State of Gujarat, bearing Company Petition No. 28 of 2003, the High Court of Gujarat has approved and sanctioned the scheme. Similarly in Company Petition No. 61 of 2003 filed by Cadila Health Care Ltd. the transferee company having its registered office in the State of Gujarat, the High Court of Gujarat has approved and sanctioned the scheme. The r...

Narendra Dhudku Thakur Vs. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Commit ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR467; 2004(2)MhLj578

P.V. Kakade, J.1. The petitioner has moved this writ petition seeking to quash the judgment and order dated 2-1-1989 passed by the respondent No. 1. Scheduled Tribes Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Maharashtra State, Pune (hereinafter called as 'Committee'), and also the judgment and order passed by the respondent No. 1, Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Nashik, in Caste Appeal No. 177/1989, dated 31-3-1990, and to seek declaration that the petitioner is a member of Scheduled Tribe and, as such, entitled to the caste certificate to seek admission to the Medical College accordingly.2. The petitioner is resident of District Jalgaon and belongs to Scheduled Tribe, 'Thakur', and as such, he is said to be entitled to get certificate for the same. He passed his XIIth Standard (H.S.C. Examination) in the year 1989. While he was studying in XIIth Standard, he made an application to the Scrutiny Committee for verification of his caste certificate. The said application dated 4-10-1988...

N.R.C. Employees' Union Vs. N.R.C. Limited

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR825

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.Perused the records.2. The petitioners challenge concurrent judgments and orders passed by both the courts below dismissing the complaint filed against the respondents alleging unfair labour practice under Item No. 1(a & g) of Schedule IV of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act (hereinafter called as 'the said Act'). The complaint was dismissed by the Labour Court on 26-12-1996 and the revision application was dismissed by the Industrial Court on 30-8-1999. The impugned orders are sought to be challenged on three grounds. Firstly, that the Labour Court having found the domestic enquiry to be fair and just and the findings arrived therein to be not perverse, it could not have allowed the employer to lead further evidence in support of the charges and even if having allowed could not have relied upon the same while deciding the complaint and as both the courts have relied upon such evidence led by the respondents, the impugned orde...

P. Charia and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)LC39Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These stay applications and appeal are being disposed of by this common order applicable in the case of the present applicants only.2. After hearing the stay applications for some time, which were contested on the question of jurisdiction of the Additional Director General, DRI Mumbai to be a "proper officer" or not under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also by one of the appellants herein viz., P. Charia on the question of denial of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as his plea for adjournment of the hearing was not considered and he did not have adequate notice for the hearing fixed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla. It transpires that these appeals could be disposed of on these very short points. Therefore, after waiver of condition of pre-deposit and consent of both sides the appeals are taken up for further disposal.3. On the question of jurisdiction whether the officer of DRI following case laws were cited by the Ld. Advocates for the appellants:-Commiss...

Shivnath Rai HarnaraIn (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J) 1. After hearing both sides for sometime on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1,90,22,405/- confirmed on the ground inter-alia that export documents submitted by the appellants herein, who are Merchant Exporter did not constitute the proof of export in respect of removal of sugar from M/s. S.M.S.M.P. SSK Ltd., and M/s.Shree Shankar SSK Ltd., and that proof of export in respect of removal of sugar from M/s. Shree Shankar SSK Ltd., and M/s. Gadhinglaj Taluka SSK Ltd., Kolhapur, was not filed and penalty of amount equal to duty, we found that it was possible to hear and decide the appeal itself at this stage; hence after waiving the pre-deposit of duty and penalty, we proceed to hear and dispose of the appeal with the consent of both sides.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein had executed B-1 Bond dated 11/06/2001 with the jurisdictional Central Excise Officer for removal of sugar without payment of duty for e...