Mumbai Court October 2004 Judgments

Dalamal Tower Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. and anr. Vs. Municipa ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR843; 2005(1)MhLj547

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 24-3-2004 passed by the respondent-BMC and the demand for payment made pursuant to the bills - Exhibits R. S-1 to S-8 annexed to the petition being contrary to the provisions of law, illegal, and in excess of the powers conferred upon the authority under the provisions of law comprised under the Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, hereinafter called as 'the said Act.'3. The facts of the case are that the petitioners are the owners of the property having therein a building by name 'Dalamal Tower', situated in Plot No. 211, Backbay Reclamation, Municipal 'A' Ward No. 1315 (127), Nariman Point, Mumbai. The building comprises of a basement, ground plus fifteen upper floors having two enclosed garages in the basement and 274 units of which 199 are self-occupied by the members of the petitioner-society wh...

Oswal Petrochemicals Through Its Dy. General Manager (Finance) Mr. K.K ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR224; 2005(2)BomCR84; (2005)IILLJ142Bom

R.S. Mohite, J.1. This Letter Patent Appeal filed by the Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'Original Respondent No. 2') against the Respondents of whom the Respondent No. 2 is Hotel Labour Union (Red Flag) (hereinafter referred to as 'the original complainant').2. The brief facts of the case are as under :(a) That the Carbide Chemicals Company' which was the unit of 'Union Carbide India Limited' was running a factory which was manufacturing petrol-chemicals and had an attached canteen.(b) That by a Notification dated 20.12.1965 issued by the Industrial and Labour Department, the Government of Maharashtra, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 79(1) of the of the Maharashtra Factory Rules, 1963 directed that Rules 79 to 83 of the said Rules would come into force in respect of factories specified in Schedule appended to the notification which included 'Carbide India Limited, Anik, Trombay, Bombay. By virtue of this notification read with Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948...

Punnakatu Chery Joseph Thankappan Vs. Pyarali Hirji Hamid

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR11; 2005(2)BomCR786

R.S. Mohite, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the appellant, defendant, (hereinafter referred to as the defendant') against the respondent, plaintiff ('hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff'), impugning the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 8.10.1998 in First Appeal No. 352 of 1986, by which order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay in S.C. Suit No. 3615 of 1963, thereby allowing claim of the plaintiff for possession of the suit premises.2. The brief facts of the case are as under:a). That the suit premises consists of a flat bearing Flat No. 7-92(5), situated on the 3rd floor in a building known as Printing House, 24A and 28D, Police Court Lane, Fort, Bombay. It is an admitted position that the suit premises were owned by one Charles Neukon. It is also an admitted position that one Ramswamy was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises by th...

Vaishali Aromatic (India) (P) Ltd. Vs. Deogiri Nagri Sahakar Bank Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2005)BC233; 2005(2)BomCR155; (2005)3CompLJ114(Bom)

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The petitioner served a statutory notice dated 27 July 2002. In the said notice, it is stated that the balance outstanding as on 6 December 2001 was Rs. 1,90,16,803. Mr. Naidu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the company does not deny the fact that an amount in excess of Rs. 80,00,000 is due to the petitioner. 2. Mr. Naidu however, submitted that the amount of Rs. 1,90,16,803 stated in the statutory notice is not accurate. He, therefore, submitted that the company petition is not maintainable. The argument is not well founded. There is nothing in Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 that warrants the view that merely because the amount stated to be due in the statutory notice is not the exact amount actually due to the petitioner, a petition for winding up is not maintainable.3. Mr. Naidu relied upon the judgment of a learned single judge of this court in Shantilal Khushaldas and Bros. v Smt. Jayabala Suresh Shah : 1994(1)MhLj432 . Assuming the judgment...

Chandrakant Ganpatrao Deshkar and ors. Vs. All India Reporter Ltd. and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR173

Kamdar S.U., J.1. The present appeal is challenging an order and judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5-1-2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 4174 of 2000. The present appeal raises a question of law pertaining to interpretation of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said I.D. Act). Some of the material facts in the present case are as under: -2. On 27-1-1989 an application was filed under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act by the appellant. By the said application the appellant claimed wages in accordance with Palekar Award and Bachwat Award. It is his case that he is entitled to the difference in wages as per the findings of the wage board.3. On 8-1-1999 an application was filed to engage a lawyer by the respondent herein. The appellant however objected to the said application by filling his say on 7-2-1999. By an order and judgment dated 7-7-2000, the 3rd Labour Court rejected the said application because of refusal by the appellant to ...

Nagorao Onkar Tayade Vs. Ranjana Nagorao Tayade

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR218; 2005(2)BomCR185; II(2005)DMC17

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. Very small issue falls for consideration of this Court, hence, Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of parties.2. The challenge in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India is to the order dated 2-4-2004 passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola in Special Civil Suit No. 143/2003. By the said order, the learned trial Court has rejected the application, Exhibit-19 which was preliminary objection to the tenability of suit filed by present petitioner/husband. Necessary facts in this respect can be briefly summarized as under:3. The above mentioned RCS 143/2003 is filed by present respondent, a divorced wife of petitioner, under Section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act read with Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maintenance. By the said application, she has stated that she is married with petitioner and their marriage took place on 27-2-1994. By prayer clause, she has asked for a...

Chandrakant S/O Ganpatrao Deshkar and ors. Vs. All India Reporter Ltd. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2005(105)FLR300]; (2005)IILLJ290Bom; 2005(1)MhLj1027

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present appeal is challenging an order and judgment of the learned single Judge dated 5-1-2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 4174 of 2000. The present appeal raises a question of law pertaining to interpretation of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said I.D. Act). Some of the material facts in the present case are as under :-2. On 27-1-1989 an application was filed under Section 33-C(2) of the ID. Act by the appellant. By the said application the appellant claimed wages in accordance with Palekar Award and Bachawat Award. It is his case that he is entitled to the difference in wages as per the findings of the Wage Board.3. On 8-1-1999 an application was filed to engage a lawyer by the respondent herein. The appellant however objected to the said application by filing his say on 7-2-1999. By an order and judgment dated 7-7-2000, the 3rd Labour Court rejected the said application because of refusal by the appellant to g...

Indian Silk Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Maha ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR520; 2005(2)MhLj930

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. The petitioners challenge the action on the part of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in seeking to demand the electricity charges on monthly average basis for the period from 8-12-1993 to 18-9-1995 by issuing supplementary bills, firstly on 18-10-1996 and subsequently on 21-12-2001, being arbitrary, mala fide and illegal. The challenge is three-fold : firstly on the ground that the respondents are not entitled to raise any supplementary bill for a period exceeding six months in view of the provisions of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, hereinafter called as 'the said Act', secondly that the respondents are not entitled to estimate the electricity consumption charges on average monthly consumption basis, and thirdly that the supplementary bill would result in crippling effect on the business of the petitioners.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioners receive electric supply to their premises at Todi Industrial Estate through thr...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Rajesh Aromatics P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The department has come in appeal against the allowance of credit, amounting to Rs. 17,166/- on fuel i.e. LDO consumed in the manufacture of job-work. By allowing the credit. the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded that he finds that as per Rule 57AD of Central Excise Rules, 1944 credit taken on fuel is allowed even though it is used in the manufactured goods. In this regard he has relied on the decision in the case of National Engineer Inds. Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2002 (52) RLT 1044 (CEGAT. Del) wherein the Tribunal has held that job work : LPG used as a fuel by job workers in processing of the inputs received under Rule 57F(4) credit not deniable to the job workers as fuel is specifically excluded under Rule 57C and Rule 57CC; though processed inputs are cleared to principal manufacturer without payment of duty. He has also reduced the penalty from Rs. 18,717/- to Rs. 1551/- imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.3. After hearing both sides and perusal of...

Advance Metal Powder Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The Commissioner (A) in the impugned order has held as under: I have gone through the records of the case and heard the appellants. There is no dispute that the subject goods are restricted under the Exim Policy and as such required a valid import licence. It is also not disputed that no such licence has been produced by the appellants. The thrust of the appellants' defence is that they are regular importers of the said item and were not aware of the change in the import policy. There are no mala fides from their part and it (sic, in) the absence of mens rea the goods cannot be confiscated. However, arguments of the appellants are not at all convincing. Since they are regular importers of the subject goods they are expected to be more conversant with import policy in this regard and as such plea for ignorance of law is irrelevant. Otherwise also ignorance of law is no excuse. Once it is established that the goods have been imported in violation of the Exim Policy ...