Mumbai Court April 2004 Judgments

Rajendraprasad Gupta @ Munnabhai @ Rajubhai Surajlal Gupta Vs. R.S. Sh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)MhLj801

R.S. Mohite, J.1. The aforesaid group of 16 Criminal Writ Petitions, are filed on similar background of facts and raise a single common law point. All the petitions are therefore being disposed off by this common judgment and order.2. Undisputed facts in all these petitions are that the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai issued an order of detention against the detenus on behalf of whom these petitions have been filed under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as MPDA Act). Along with the orders of detention the detenus were served with the grounds of detention. Admittedly the orders of detentions were approved by State Government in accordance with Section 3(3) of MPDA Act.3. Consequent to their detention, the detenus made representations to the State Government and Chairman of the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board after considering the matter placed before it, as also r...

Patru S/O Kanuji Ghodmare Vs. Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrut ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)MhLj1055

C. K. THAKKER, C.J.1. In all these Letters Patent Appeals, a common question of law has been raised. It is, therefore, appropriate to decide all the appeals by a common order.2. All the above appeals were filed by the appellants being aggrieved by judgments and orders dated (i) 28th October, 1999 in Writ Petition No. 350 of 1998, (ii) 24th April, 2002 in Writ Petition No. 1683 of 2000, (iii) 3rd October, 2002 in Writ Petition Nos. 2499 of 2001, 4042 of 2001, 4259 of 2001, (iv) 7th October, 2002 in Writ Petition Nos. 2088 of 2002 and 2972 of 1999 and (v) 17th October, 2002 in Writ Petition No. 2708 of 2002 respectively passed by single Judges of this Court.3. All the above writ petitions came to be instituted by the appellants-petitioners against orders passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committees invalidating and cancelling caste certificates issued in their favour. All Writ Petitions (except Writ Petition No. 350 of 1998; LPA No. 184 of 1999) were dismissed by the learned single Judge upho...

Anil Harish Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR322; 2004(3)MhLj1044

A.P. Shah, J. 1. The petitioners are the owners of commercial units on 5th, 6th and 7th floor of Arun Chambers, Tardeo, Mumbai. The 1st respondent is the State of Maharashtra. In or about 1968 the 1st respondent was in need of accommodation for housing Industrial Court and Labour Court and the offices of Wage Board. By letter dated June 1, 1968 of the Secretary, Labour and Industrial department addressed to the President of Industrial Court, Mumbai directed him to take from the then owners Ishwardas Haridas Bhatia an area of 24,684 sq. ft. in Arun Chambers at the monthly rent of Rs. 1.60/- paise per sq. ft. on the terms and conditions recorded in the said letter. The proposed lease was for a period of 5 years with the option to the Government to renew for another 5 years. However, it is an admitted position that no lease was executed in writing although several drafts of lease deed were exchanged between the parties. The 1st respondent is thus occupying the said premises without any wr...

Sicom Ltd. Vs. Harjindersingh and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom337; IV(2004)BC350; 2004(5)BomCR304; [2005]123CompCas653(Bom); 2005(1)CTLJ299(Bom)

ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This summary suit is filed on the assertion that the plaintiffs had advanced term loan, corporate loan and short term loan to one Overseas Cables Limited, of which all the 4 Defendants herein are Directors. Various documents were executed in respect of the said transaction. The Defendants stood guarantors for the said transaction and executed four separate continuing guarantee deeds. The said Overseas Cables Limited failed to repay the loan amounts, for which demand was raised by the Plaintiffs on 17th March 2001 and also on 13th November 2000 and, once again on 17th November 2000, As no response was received from said Overseas Cables Limited, the Plaintiffs invoked the guarantees against the Defendants on 12th June 2001. As the Defendants failed to comply with the demand raised by the Plaintiffs, which was founded on the conditions of the agreements arrived at between the parties, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit for the following reliefs :'(a) tha...

Matyabai @ Parbatabai W/O Dhundilal Kutarhe and ors. Vs. Godabai W/O G ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR769; 2004(4)MhLj85

S.T. Kharche, J. 1. By invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15th September, 1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1987 whereby the appeal came to be allowed and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 27th February, 1987 was set aside and it was declared by the appellate Court that the Will deed dated 10-9-1976 alleged to have been executed by Sumanbai, has not been duly proved and consequently the respondent-plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share in the entire suit property and directing the partition of the same by metes and bounds by sending precept to the Collector.2. Relevant facts are required to be stated as under :The genealogical tree of the parties has not been disputedFandu = Sumanbai(Died in 1970) (Died on 28-2-1985)| -----------------------------------------| | |Godabai Matyabai Tarasanbai = Bakru(Pltff.) (...

Manjulabai Wd/O Shalikram Gohate and ors. Vs. Bhagirathibai Wd/O Ganes ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)MhLj50

S.T. Kharche, J. 1. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22nd December, 1989 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1988 whereby the appeal has been dismissed with cost and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 31st December, 1987 was confirmed whereby the counter-claim of the plaintiff was decreed and declared that she is owner to the extent of 1/2 share of the suit house purchased by virtue of the sale deed (Exh.47) dated 3-1-1972.2. Relevant facts are required to be stated as under :The genealogical tree of the parties is not disputed. It is as under: Dhyana | |--------------------------| Netram = Saraswatibai Ganeshrao = Bhagirathabai (Dead) [P- 1(f)] (Dead) (Defdt.) | |------------------------| Shalikram = Manjulabai Vitthal (Died) [P-l(a)] P-2 | |----------|------------|-------------|Prakash Gopal Wanmala Dipmala[...

inventa Fischer Gmbh and Co. Vs. Polygenta Technologies Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR125(Bom); 2005(2)BomCR364

Dharmadhikari S.C., J. 1. This petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 1996 Act) to challenge an award dated 21st October, 2003 passed by International Court of Arbitration in Case No. 1107/03/D.K. There are certain alternative prayers but for the purpose of deciding the issue before me it is not necessary to advert to the same.2. In paras 9 and 10 of petition this is what is stated :-'9. The petitioner submits that the present petition under Section 34 of the Act is maintainable against the impugned award because the agreements between the parties are clearly governed by the law of India. The award in question, therefore, is a domestic award and/or an award under Part I of the Act, although made in Geneva under the I.C.C. Rules. The law declared by this Hon'ble Court in N.T.P.C. and Singer clearly supports the present petition. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhatia International case has clearly held that Part I of the Act ap...

S.C. Chandwani Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the Secretary, Ministr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)106BOMLR647

1. A few facts may be noted :2. The petitioner was working as Appraiser at Bombay Customs, petitioner was served with a charge-sheet in the year 1974 pursuant to which an enquiry was held and punishment was imposed by way of reduction by two stages in the time scale of pay by order dated 3rd November, 1977. The petitioner preferred an appeal. It is the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the appeal, the period of punishment expired in the year 1979. On 9.2.1984, the President of India issued a notice asking the petitioner to show cause why punishment earlier imposed should not be enhanced. The petitioner showed cause. However, inspite of showing cause, the Hon'ble President was pleased to enhance the punishment from reduction of two stages in pay scale, to remove by way of compulsory retirement by order dated 12th February, 1985.3. The petitioner aggrieved, preferred a writ petition before this Court, On the Central Administrative Tribunal being constituted the petition ...

Shri Appa Ganpati Jadhav Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 4 an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR775; 2004(5)BomCR607; (2004)106BOMLR579

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner by the present petition challenge the notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act under the provisions of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rehabilitation Act') for resettlement of displaced persons of Urmodi Project in village Atil, Taluka and District Satara. It is the case of the petitioner that after receipt of notice under Section 4(1), objections were raised by filing reply and documents were also relied upon. The respondent after considering the objections raised and documentary evidence produced by the petitioner was pleased to observe that out of Gat No. 1243 only H 1 R 23 land be acquired and H 2 R 11 be dropped from acquisition. The case of the petitioner is that he came to know about the declaration dated 20th March, 1998 as it was published in Daily Aikya on 6th April, 1998. The said declaration also specified that the respondent-S...

Sterlite Industries (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants as job worker convert copper cathodes supplied by M/s. Crompton Greaves into copper rods. The Commissioner (A) in his order disallowed Modvat Credit of Rs. 3,57,003/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 35,000/-. The appellants during the mont of Feb. 1996 had not cleared any final product on payment of duty but had manufactured continuous cast copper rods under job work and cleared the same under provisions of Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. They were issued a Show Cause Notice denying Modvat Credit of Rs. 3,57,002.75/- under 571 and it sought to impose penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as they were alleged to have contravened the following provisions: "i) Rule 57C of the rule in as much as the assessee have used the inputs on which modvat under Rule 57A was availed in the manufacture of final product which were exempted form the payment of excise duty. ii) Rule 57A of the CER 1944 in as much as assessee have raised and utilised irregul...