Mumbai Court August 2003 Judgments

Priyanka Balmukund Khodke Alias Kum. Pingla Keshavrao Parate Vs. State ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR559

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Rule. Mr. R.D. Rane, learned Additional Government, Pleaders, appears and waives services of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.2. In the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.3. This petition is filed by the petitioner for a writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside an order dated October 21, 2002 passed by the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, respondent No. 2 herein (Committee for short). A further relied is prayed restraining the Deputy Controller of Rationing (Establishment), respondent No. 3 herein, from giving effect to or taking any action in pursuance of an order passed by respondent No. 2 herein.4. The case of the petitioner is that she belongs to Halba Community, Scheduled tribe. The certificate was issued on July 27, 1988 by the Executive Magistrate, Nagpur. On the basis of the said certificate, she applied to the Maharashtra Public ...

Sadhana Rajendra Karkud Alias Sadhana Ramadas Shinde Vs. State of Maha ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR578; 2003(4)MhLj859

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Rule. Mr. R.D. Rane, learned Additional Government Pleader, appears and waives services of notice of rule on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. K.S. Bapat, learned counsel, appears and waives services of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 3.2. In the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.3. This petition is filed by the petitioner for a writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside an order dated September 30, 2002 passed by the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Pune Division, Pune, respondent No. 2 herein ('Committee', for short). A further relief is prayed restraining the Pune District Central Co-operative Bank, respondent No. 3 herein, from giving effect to or taking any action in pursuance of an order passed by respondent No. 2 herein.4. The case of the petitioner is that she belongs to Mahadeo Koli Tribe, which is recognised as Scheduled Tribe under the Presidential...

Mrs. Suniti Ashok Sarathi Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secret ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR484; 2004(1)BomCR574

C.K.Thakker, C.J. 1. Rule. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 Mr. K.K.Waghmare, learned counsel, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.5. 2. In the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 3. This petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside an order dated 5th July. 2002 passed by the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Pune Division, Pune, with further direction to the Committee to consider the case of the Petitioner de novo after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. A prayer is also made to declare that the caste certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate, Pune City, in favour of the petitioner on 4th August. 1980 be declared legal, valid and subsisting. Interim relief is also prayed...

Prabhakar Dattatraya Telgu Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its Secret ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR488; 2004(1)BomCR571

C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. Rule. Mr.C.R. Sonawane, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr. G.S.Hegde, learned counsel, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.3. 2. In the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 3. This petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside an order dated September 15, 2001 passed by the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Pune respondent No.2 herein, and by directing Deputy General Manager, State Transport Corporation, Pune, respondent No.4 herein, to withdraw and/or cancel an order of termination dated 24th September, 2002 by reinstating the petitioner on the post of Head Art with all consequential benefits including back wages. 4. Notice was issued on December 3, 2002 and was made returnable in the third week of January, 2003. Interim relief was ...

Dr. Narendra Bhiwapurkar Andha Vidyalaya Vs. Shobha Laxman Pachkawade ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004(101)FLR103]; 2004(1)MhLj10

S.A. Bobade, J.1. Heard Shri Saboo, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Shri Kothale, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, and Shri Deopujari, A.G.P. for State.2. The petitioner, who is Secretary of the Andh Vidyalaya, Amravati, has challenged the order of the School Tribunal dated 23rd August, 1988. By the impugned order, the School Tribunal has set aside the termination of the respondent No. 1 and directed her reinstatement as a maid servant in the services of Andh Vidyalaya, Amravati.3. Mr. Saboo, the learned counsel advanced firstly, submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the School Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.E.P.S. Act' for short), in view of the fact that Andh Vidyalaya, Amravati (hereinafter referred to as 'school' for short) is not a school contemplated by the provisions of the Act.4. The Andh Vidyalaya...

Rainbow Agri Industries Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR741; (2003)185CTR(Bom)482; [2004]266ITR38(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. R.V. 'Desai, Sr. Counsel for the Revenue waives service on behalf of the respondents. By consent of parties petition is heard on merits.2. The case of the petitioners in short is that the petitioners themselves by mistake while giving their office address in the Form No, 36, have given it as 'Raheja Centre' instead of 'Raheja Chambers'. Both buildings are located in the same area known as Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. It appears that typographical error had crept in the Form No, 36. It was a mistake committed by the typist while typing Form No. 36, This has resulted in non-receipt of notice of hearing of appeal issued by the Tribunal, with the result, the petitioners could not appear before Tribunal when the appeal was called out for final hearing. Tribunal heard appeal ex parte. The appeal came to be dismissed on merits by a reasoned judgment, and order dt. 8th Aug., 2001. The petitioners herein (Appellant before Tribunal) came to know ab...

Parashram S/O Kashiram Sakhare Vs. Vatsalabai W/O Harshay Sharma Dead,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR755

S.T. Kharche, J. 1. By this second appeal, the original plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree dated 18.9.1987 passed by the appellate Court in Reg. Civil Appeal No.173 of 1983 allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 25.7.1983 in Reg. Civil Suit No.55 of 1977 by which the claim of the plaintiff for possession was decreed and the defendant no.1 was directed to deliver the possession of plot no.1 admeasuring 30 x 40 feet in Ward No.15 within the municipal limits of Achalpur, after removing the structure standing thereon.2. Brief facts are as under : The agricultural land admeasuring 5 acres 20 gunthas was originally owned by Smt.Rukhminibai Deshmukh. The said land was purchased by virtue of registered sale-deed dated 22.8.1956 by 110 persons for construction of their houses. The plaintiff was one of them. The said land was converted into non agricultural use and subsequently a lay-out for residence in the said land was drawn. The distribution of the p...

Fresh Labs and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri. V.S. Nankani, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of M/s. Fresh Labs, Shri. B.J. Shah, M/s. Prakashal Exports, M/s. Alpine Chemicals, M/s. Amee Agency and M/s. Ratilal Hemraj. Shri J.C. Patel, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of M/s. Orbit International. Shri Anil Balani, Ld.Advocate appeared on behalf of Shri Yogesh Korani, M/s. Mahavir Export & Import Co. and M/s. Nikita Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Shri Virag Gupta, Ld.JDR appeared for the Revenue. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that M/s. Fresh Labs are engaged in the business of manufacture of tooth paste (TP and shaving cream (SC) which the appellants export either directly or sell the same to merchant exporters. The appellants alia, entered into contracts to manufacture TP/SC with merchant exporters' viz. U.K. Paint Industries Ltd., Vam International Ltd., Dolphin International Pvt. Ltd. and Phoenix Overseas Ltd., (the Licensees). The Licensees were issued six Advance Licenses as under:- 2. The Licensees completed the e...

Thomas Dias of Bombay Vs. National Textile Corporation (South Maharash ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)BomCR390; 2004(1)MhLj526

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the Award dated 14-8-1998, passed by the Industrial Court in the Reference (IC) No. 37 of 1987. The Reference has been rejected on two counts; firstly, that in view of the Section 3(5) of the Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of the Management) Act, 1983 and taking over of management of the textile undertaking by the custodian in exercise of powers under the Ordinance dated 10-10-1983, all existing agreements stood terminated and therefore based on the earlier contracts the petitioner would not be entitled to claim any benefit, and secondly, that the petitioner has not established that there is any loss caused to the employees consequent to the changes brought about. 3. Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and considering the decision of the Apex Court in N.T.C. (South Maharashtra) Ltd. and Ors. Etc. v. Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh and Ors. Etc., reporte...

Virendra Bhanji Rathod and ors. Vs. Anand Vihar Co-operative Housing S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR843; 2004(3)BomCR401; 2004(1)MhLj656

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.2. The petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 13-11-2000. passed by the revisional authority, namely the Secretary (Co-operation) as well as the judgment and order dated 2-5-1997, passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies in Revision Application No. 217 of 1996. The contention of the petitioners is that in view of the order dated 10-10-2000 in Writ Petition No. 4 of 2000, passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the revisional authority, namely the Secretary (Co-operation) was entitled to entertain the revision application at the instance of the petitioners and having not done so, has illegally refused to exercise his jurisdiction. On merits, it is the contention of the petitioners that in view of the fact that the respondent-society had not followed the prescribed procedure to terminate the rights of the heirs or the legal representatives of the original member, namely, late B.N...