Mumbai Court July 2003 Judgments

Suresh S. Bhamre, Police Inspector Vs. Devendra Purushottam Shinde, Po ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR540; 2003(6)BomCR611; 2003(4)MhLj856

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Rule. Mr. P.M. Pradhan, learned counsel, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 in writ petition. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, Assistant Government Pleader, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in writ petition. In the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith.2. This petition is filed by the petitioner against an order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, on 21st April, 2003 in Original Application No. 17 of 2003.3. The said application was filed by respondent No. 1 herein. The action impugned in that petition was an order of transfer passed against him.4. Along with Original Application No. 17 of 2003, there was another Original Application No. 7 of 2003 filed by another petition. In the said application also, an order of transfer was challenged.5. The Tribunal, after considering the contentions of the parties, dismissed Original Appl...

Suresh Maruti Ghule Vs. Madhavrao Dattatraya Kalbhor and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom19; 2003(5)BomCR226

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard.2. Rule.3. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.4. As short question is involved, the matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent.5. This petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai Bench, Pune at Pune dated 17th May, 2003 in A.O. No. 92 of 2003. Briefly stated, the elections to the Managing Committee of the respondent No. 4 society was held some time in July, 2000 where after Respondent No. 1 was elected as Vice Chairman. Along with Respondent No. 1 one Mr. Kanchan was elected as Chairman of the Society. The first meeting was held on 31.8.2000, when the newly elected body took over the affairs of the Society. Later on, on 7.9.2000 the Managing Committee passed a resolution authorizing Chairman or Vice Chairman to be the first signatory and Managing Director or Secretary as the Second signatory to operate bank accounts of the Respondent No. 4 Society. That arrangem...

Shri Bhagwanji Karsanbhai Rathod Vs. Shri Surajmal Anandraj Mehta

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2003Bom387; 2003(4)ALLMR85; 2003(5)BomCR228; 2004(1)MhLj62

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Rule.2. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.3. As short question is involved, matter taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent.4. This writ petition takes exception to the Judgement and order passed by the 8th Additional District Judge, Pune dated 7th March, 2002 in Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2002. The Petitioner claims to be owner of suit flat consisting of six rooms with attached W.C. and bath room in Building known as Shrikrishna Apartment situated at S. No. 557/8 final plot No. 473/30 Gultekdi, Pune. The Petitioner's father instituted a suit for possession against Respondent being Civil Suit No. 1044 of 1986. This suit was decreed against respondent and respondent was ordered to deliver possession of the suit premises. Against that decision, Respondent unsuccessfully carried the matter in appeal and latter before this court by way of writ Petition as well as appeal before Apex Court. To put it differently, decree for possession against Respondent came...

Suresh Pandurang Patkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR120; 2003(4)MhLj11

ORDERD.D. Sinha, J. 1. Heard Shri P. C. Madkholkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Khubalkar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Prashant Shende, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was nominated as a Board Member of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board, Amravati Division, Amravati vide gazette notification published in the official gazette dated 9-9-2002 vide order dated 4-9-2002. The petitioner was appointed in the category of Lecturer in Junior College. The petitioner is sought to be removed by the order dated 9-6-2003 without observing the principles of natural justice and without issuing show-cause notice and, therefore, the action on the part of the respondents is illegal and bad in law,3. It is contended that no show-cause notice was issued nor any explanation was called before order of removal was passed. The order ...

Empire Machine Tools Vs. K.C. Singh and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(6)BomCR615; 2004(165)ELT146(Bom); 2003(4)MhLj786

J. P. Devadhar, J.1. In these three petitions, the challenge is to the order-in-original passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay, wherein the goods imported by the petitioners have been confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, with option to redeem the same on redemption fine and penalty. Since the facts in these three petitions are similar, for the sake of convenience, we have taken the facts in Writ Petition No. 1985 of 1991. The decision in Writ Petition No. 1985 of 1991 will govern all the three writ petitions. 2. Bharat Dynamics Limited is a Government of India Enterprise and is engaged in the manufacture and testing of Guided Weapons having semiconductor devices for the 'Defence' of India. For the manufacture of Semiconductor Devices which are ultimately used for manufacture of weapons, the said Government of India Enterprise was required to import from Japan 'Metallurgical Microscope having magnification equal to or greater than 400'. The said Enterpris...

Vitthal S/O Dewaji Chavan Vs. Medical Council of India and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR198; 2004(2)BomCR158; 2003(4)MhLj974

D. D. Sinha, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. P. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bhangde, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Mr. Kilor, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent No. 2, Mr. A. C. Dharamadhikari, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties and heard finally.It will be appropriate to consider the facts and circumstances relevant for adjudication before we consider the legal issues involved in the present Writ Petition.2. The petitioner has passed his M.B.B.S., examination from the Nagpur University in the year 1973 and has obtained Master's Degree (General Medicine) in the year 1979 from the Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur, under the Nagpur University. The petitioner was selected by the Divisional Board in October, 1977, and was appointed as a Lecturer in Medicine at Nagpur in the Govt. Medical College, as it then was. The said appointment of the ...

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. D.N. Vidhate and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR152; 2003(5)BomCR482; 2004(1)MhLj202

R.M.S. Khandeparker, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. This notice of motion is taken out under section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called as 'the said Act' by the employee who is the respondent No. 1 in the Writ Petition No. 840 of 2003, filed by the employer-Corporation. It is the contention of the employee that since the time of issuance of the order of dismissal from service i.e., from 19-1-2001, the employee has not been employed in any establishment and that in view of issuance of the rule in the said writ petition and grant of stay of the implementation and operation of the Award dated 1-11-2002, under which the employee was directed to be reinstated with full backwages, the employee is entitled for subsistence allowance in terms of section 17B of the said Act during the pendency of the writ petition. According to the employee, the last drawn wages, as on December, 2000, were Rs. 12,038/- per month, but in terms of...

Prakash Watkar (Dr.) Vs. Dr. Smt. Sadhana W/O Shashikant Waikar and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR573; 2004(2)BomCR845; 2004(1)MhLj195

R.J. Kochar, J.1. The appellant, Assistant Director, Ayurved Department, is a Government servant, who is working under the Director of Ayurved, and who in turn works under the control and supervision of the Director and Secretary, Medical Education and Research. He has approached this Court by filing the present appeal against the impugned Judgment and Order dated 28-3-2003 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Contempt Petition filed by the Respondents against the appellant complaining against him that he was guilty of committing contempt of this Court by wilfully disobeying the orders dated 20-12-2002 and 23-2-2003. The learned Judge was pleased to find the appellant guilty of committing contempt of the Court by wilfully disobeying the aforesaid orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition, which was filed by the respondents. The learned Judge was pleased to convict the appellant and impose sentence of imprisonment for a period of three months and fine of Rs. 1000/-.2. ...

Shri Ramchandra K. Koli Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this Appeal, Shri Ramchandra K. Koli is challenging the imposition of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on him under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.2. I heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant and Shri R. Chandan learned D.R., for the Revenue. On receipt of information, Custom Officer searched a vessel No. KRJ 4386 on 10/09/1993 which was occupied by Mohd. Mofis Hamid and Nabi Ahmed. The search of the vessel resulted in the recovery of foreign currency US $ 6165 and Indian Currency Rs. 35,000/-. Shri Mohd. Mofis deposed in his statement dtd. 11/09/1993 that he alongwith other persons had approached a shop with the intention of purchasing the foreign goods; that the occupants of the ship declined to entertain them. Smt. Dayawanti K. Koli, in whose name the said vessel was registered, deposed in her statement dated 15/09/1993 that the said vessel is used by the Appellant on payment of Rs. 500/- to 1000/- per use. The Appellant in the statement dated 23/11/1993 admitted his involveme...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Stearling Pigments and Chemicals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this appeal filed by Revenue, the issue involved is whether modvat credit is available to the respondents, M/s. Sterling Pigments and Chemicals.2. Shri R. Chandan, learned J.D.R. submitted that the Assistant Commissioner under order-in-original No. 219/95 dated 30.11.1995 dis-allowed the modvat credit of the duty paid or inputs as the dealers who had issued the invoices were not registered with the department and the invoices were not be bearing printed serial nos. and they were not authenticated duly by the authorized signatory; that the Commissioner (Appeals), however, allowed the appeal on the ground that there was no allegation in the Show Cause Notice or in the order-in-original that the inputs covered by the invoices had not been received and utilized in the respondents factory in the manufacture of final product. The learned D.R. submitted that as per the provision of Notification No.32/94 (NT) dated 04.07.1994 the dealers who issued the invoices were required to be regis...