Mumbai Court February 2004 Judgments

Success Engg R.K. Export, More Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These stay applications are being disposed of by this common order.Nobody appeared other than for M/s C. Jivram Joshi & Sons and Shri Sunil Choudhary for which Mr Mondal, the learned Consultant appears.2. Heard Mr Mondal, the learned Consultant and Mr Bablani, the learned Jt CDR, and considered the materials on record and it is found: (a) Since the other appellants have not cared to pursue the applications, in spite of the matter being adjourned- earlier to enable their advocates on record to bring the relationship--between the firms on record, it appears that the appellants are not interested in pursuing their stay applications. The stay applications of all applicants other than M/s C. Jivram Joshi & Sons and Shri Sunil Choudhary, are therefore required to be dismissed. However, to enable them to pre deposit the amounts as determined against them, a period of eight weeks is granted. The amounts should be deposited and balance thereof should be reported on 6.4.2004, These s...

Unique Coordinators Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR693; 2004(93)ECC99; 2004(165)ELT396(Bom); 2004(2)MhLj532

V.C. Daga, J.1 Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the parties.2. The petition in directed against the order dated 17th October, 2003. It appears that the appeal was heard on 28th November, 2002 and the order appears to have been passed practically after one year. No reasons are to be seen in the order. This order is a subject matter of challenge on the ground that the order suffers from non-application on mind, non-consideration of material on record and that the order is not only perfunctory but passed in a most casual manner, as such unsustainable in law.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner took us through the impugned order passed by the CEGAT and brought to our notice that no findings on merits of the case are recorded by the CEGAT which, according to the petitioner, exhibits complete non-application of mind on the part of the CEGAT. In the submission of the petitioner, all this, has happened because of delayed delivery of judgment on the part of the CEGAT...

The Chairman/Secretary, Shri Shrinath Panipuravatha Sahakari Sanstha V ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR177; 2004(5)BomCR728; 2004(3)MhLj908

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Counsel for the Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. These two petitions are directed against a judgment and order dated 9th September 2002 passed by the Co-operative Appellate Court sustaining in appeal an award of the Co-operative Court at Pune. The Co-operative Court directed the two Petitioners in these two writ proceedings to pay an amount of Rs. 14,02,766/- to the First Respondent together with interest at the rate of 16% p.a., from 15th January 1990 until realisation. For convenience of reference, it would be expedient to refer to the Petitioner in Writ Petition 282 of 2003 as the Co-operative Society, the Petitioner in Writ Petition 3548 of 2003 as the Bank and the First Respondent in both the said petitions as the contractor.3. An agreement was initially entered into on 30th January 1988 between the Co-operative Society and the Contractor which was thereupon followed by an agreement ...

Shri Somsingh Chandrasingh Thakur Vs. the Head Master, Capt. R.M. Oak ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR401; 2004(2)MhLj980

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service through Counsel. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. This Petition is directed against a judgment and order of the School Tribunal dated 23rd June 2003 dismissing an appeal filed by the Petitioner challenging his reversion from the rank of Head Master to Assistant Teacher. A notice was issued to the parties for final disposal of the matter on 18th September 2003. All parties have been served and the matter has been accordingly considered for final disposal at the stage of admission by consent.3. The Petitioner belongs to the Thakur Community which is a Scheduled Tribe. On 2nd July 1982 the Petitioner was appointed as a teacher in the Secondary School conducted by the First and Second Respondents. On 3rd December 1984, the Petitioner was promoted as an Assistant Head Master. At that stage when the Petitioner came to be promoted, there was only one post of Assistant Head Master which was an iso...

Mr. Mangilal S. Mundada Vs. Mrs. Mangala M. Mundada

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom266; 2004(2)ALLMR289; 2004(2)BomCR692; II(2004)DMC346; 2004(2)MhLj721

D.G. Karnik, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the interim order passed by the Family Court, Pune below Exhibit-5 in P.A. No. 213/03 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month as interim alimony to the respondent wife, pending final disposal of her petition for restitution of conjugal rights.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and respondent are not living together for a period of over 30 yrs and the petition for restitution of conjugal rights has been filed by respondent wife malafide only with a view of claiming alimony. The learned counsel submitted that the main petition for restoration of conjugal rights suffers from delay and latches and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Assuming that the original petition is liable to be dismissed that would not bar the Court from granting interim alimony. Under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court is entitled to pass an order of alimony even when the or...

Shaikh Badarunnisa Begum Shaikh Abbas Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004(101)FLR1105]; 2004(2)MhLj407

Ranjana Desai, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a declaration that a complaint under Section 13(1) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 ('the said Act' for short) is maintainable before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. She has also prayed that necessary directions be issued to the concerned Magistrate to entertain and try her complaint.2. The petitioner was working as Headmistress of Urdu High School run by respondents 1 and 2 at Osmanabad. Her services were terminated on 2-3-2002 in view of the enquiry conducted by the management. The petitioner filed Appeal No. 30 of 2002 in the School Tribunal at Aurangabad ('the Tribunal' for short), challenging the legality of the said order. The said appeal was allowed; the termination order was quashed and respondents 1 to 3 i.e. the State of Maharashtra, President of Shams Education Society, Rais Galli, Osmanabad and Secretary of the said Society respectively were ...

Bama Kathari Patil Vs. Rohidas Arjun Madhavi and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR290; 2004(3)BomCR509; 2004(2)MhLj752

D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.2. Apart from the fact that the impugned order is an interlocutory order, I am not inclined to entertain the petition because, in my opinion, the order does not cause any injustice to the petitioner.3. By an application dated 20th October 2003, the petitioner (original defendant No. 1) made a prayer for recalling the plaintiff for further cross examination on the ground that the 'agreement' dated 14th August, 1986 was exhibited after the cross examination of the plaintiff was concluded. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the document was not exhibited at the time of cross-examination, the defendant No. 1 did not cross examine the plaintiff on that document. Since the document has been exhibited after the cross examination of the plaintiff was over, he should be given an opportunity of cross examining the plaintiff regarding the said document. Exhibiting of an document is an administrative act. It is true that a ...

Bhagwan Tukaram Dange and Tukaram Daji Dange Vs. the State of Maharash ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004CriLJ1943; I(2004)DMC786

V.G. Palshikar, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed on 9-3-1999 by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions case No. 11 of 1999 convicting the accused under Section 302, 498 read with 34 of IPC and sentencing them to suffer R.I. for life, the appellants have filed this appeal on the ground mentioned in the memo of appeal as also verbally canvassed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused/appellants.2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the defence and the learned Prosecutor we have scrutinised the evidence and have reappreciated the evidence on record.3. The prosecution story as disclosed by the reappreciation of the evidence stated briefly is that the accused No. 1 is the husband of the victim and the accused No. 2 is the father of accused No. 1. Both of them used to ill-treat the victim for not fulfilling their financial demands and there is evidence on record to show that they were physically harassing the vict...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Smt. M.i. Solkar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR652; 2004(4)BomCR109; [2004(102)FLR591]; 2004(3)MhLj33

ORDER1. Heard Mr. Karnik for the petitioner and Mr. Walia for the respondent.2. This petition by Union of India through the Commissioner of Customs seeks to challenge the orders dated 16th October 2002 and 29th July 2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai granting family pension to the respondent who is a widow of an invalidated employee of the Central Government.3. The facts leading to this petition are as follows :--(a) The respondent is the widow of a former employee from the office of the Commissioner of Customs. He was working as a Greaser at Dapoli under the Ratnagiri Customs Division of the Commissionerate at Pune. He was invalidated on 31st August 1998. The deceased husband of the respondent was not granted any pension on the ground that on the date of invalidity he had put in service of 2 years 7 months and 21 days. The fact that he was invalidated was never disputed. Though there were other questions such as absence from duty and with respect to past servic...

Raosaheb Fulcand Jadhav @ Gosavi Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2004)DMC142

P.V. Kakade, J.1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.1.2000 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 35 of 1997 wherein the appellant was convicted for Commission of offence of murder of his wife and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and also to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for six months.2. We heard Mr. Dalvi, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Bhosale, the learned A.P.P. for the State at length.3. The facts giving rise to the present case, in brief, are thus--4. The accused is charged that on 13.8.1996 at about 10.00 p.m. in his house situated in Ward No. 10, Gavali Lane, in Kolhapur committed murder of his wife Rekha by pouring kerosene on her person and by setting her on fire. The parental house of deceased Rekha was located at Jaysinghpur. She along with her husband was staying at Ichalkaranji. The accused as well as the deceased belonged to 'GOSAVI' community. They used...