Mumbai Court June 2004 Judgments

The Superintending Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Vs. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005ACJ1024; 2004(5)BomCR37; [2005(104)FLR607]; 2004(4)MhLj997

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This Appeal arises under Workmen's Compensation Act. The deceased Vishwas S. Dhongade was employed with the Appellants since 1966. Although designated as. a clerk, he was required to work as a meter reader which involved visiting the premises of the consumers and reading the meters at various locations. These locations included residential houses, farms and factories in the area. The area consisted of several villages within a range of 20 to 25 kms. The deceased applied for leave which was sanctioned upto 31.5.1989. On 26.5.1989, since the deceased had returned early from the sanctioned leave, the deceased reported for duty on 26.5.1989. He was served with an order of transfer which the deceased was aware was going to be issued to him. On receipt of the transfer order, the deceased suffered a heart attack in the premises of the appellant. Efforts to revive him failed. The heirs of the deceased that is the Respondents herein filed application under the Workmen's Com...

Kumawat Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Vs. Sambhaji Gurappa Kapashe

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR234; 2004(6)BomCR201; 2004(4)MhLj137

D.G. Karnik, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Vth Additional District Judge, Kolhapur dismissing the petitioners Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1986.2. The respondent is a tenant in respect of a property bearing CTS No. 320 'C' Ward, Kolhapur more particularly described in paragraph No. 1 of the plaint. By an indenture of a sale dated 1th June 1978, the petitioner purchased the suit property and became the landlord of the respondent. According to the petitioner at the time of the purchase, the respondent was in arrears of rent for several years. While according to the respondent, he had paid rent upto end of November 1977. after the purchase, the petitioner issued a notice of demand demanding arrears of rent from 1.1.1969 at the agreed rate of Rs. 10/- p.m. Within one month of the receipt of the notice of demand, the respondent sent to the petitioner the money order of Rs. 250/- which covered the rent from 1st December 1977 since whe...

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramjilal Prabhudayal Agrawal and Murlidha ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ402; 2004(4)MhLj300

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard the Public Prosecutor and Mr. Agrawal for the accused. This is an appeal by the State against acquittal of the accused under Section 7(1) r/w. 2(ia)(a)(m) punishable under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. However, apart from arguing on merits, Mr. Agrawal for the accused contended that the date of the offence in this case is 6.11.1982 when the Food Inspector took samples from the shop of the accused., that way is more than 22 years old case. Complaint was filed against the accused in 1983 vide Criminal Case No. 114 of 1983 and after facing prosecution for 7 years, accused came to be acquitted by the then Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Solapur, by judgment dated 21.3.1988. This appeal was filed in 1988, and it is coming for hearing after 16 years for no fault of the accused. Therefore, according to Mr. Agrawal, when the accused is acquitted for the offence allegedly committed in 1982, then after 22 years this Court should not interfe...

Smt. Kamalabai Rau Dhangar (Since Deceased Through Her Legal Heirs Lee ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR189; 2005(1)BomCR947; 2004(4)MhLj780

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and order dated 12th November 1987 in Revision No. MRT-KP-181/84 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Camp Kolhapur. Briefly stated, the Petitioner claims to be the owner in respect of land bearing Survey No. 610 admeasuring 36 gunthas situated at village Wadange, taluka Karveer, district Kolhapur. Proceedings under Section 326 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act were commenced in the year 1960 but were dropped on the finding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Against the said decision, the tenant carried the matter in appeal. The appellate authority, in turn, remanded the matter for further enquiry by its decision dated 29th February 1964. While the remand proceedings were pending, in the meantime, action under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was commenced wherein the suit land stood attached...

Gram Sudhar Samiti Vs. Panchayat and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR739; 2004(4)MhLj309

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner Gram sudhar Samiti, Mahadulla, Tahsil - Kamptee, District - Nagpur through its President Shri Ramkrishana Dhengre and its Secretary Shri Madhukar Dhengre are challenging basically the Notification dated 18th June, 1986 which was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette on 31st July, 1986. It appears that by the aforesaid Notification, an area approximately 92.34 hectors, which is a part of Mahadulla village, has been now carved out and annexed to Koradi village.2. The petitioner contends that a substantial portion of their village has been carved out and has been annexed to Koradi village which has caused serious hardship to the villagers of that area. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, specially Section 4(2) in that behalf. Section 4(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 reads as under :Section 4 : Declaration of village. - (1)..........(2) ...

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Langkawi Shipping Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR568(Bom); 2005(2)BomCR458; 2004(4)MhLj969

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The petition challenges the award passed by the Arbitration Tribunal, comprising of three learned Arbitrators pursuant to Clause 29 of the Charter Party Agreement dated 19th July, 2001.2. The relevant facts are few. On 18th June, 2001 there was a strike at the port of loading. On 18th July, 2001 a fire broke out close to the port of loading affecting the flow to the terminal. It is pertinent to note that the charter party agreement which is the subject matter of the present proceeding was entered into only thereafter on 19th July, 2001. The respondent carrier tendered a notice of readiness on 9th August, 2001 to the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner was provided with a berth only on 13th August, 2001 at 0948 hours. There is no dispute as to the quantification of the respondent's claim. Mr. Kotwal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent however sought to challenge the award on two legal grounds.3. Firstly, he submits that the Arbitrator...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Laxman Ramchandra Parandwal Since Deceased by ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR283; 2005(2)BomCR439; 2005(1)MhLj534

V.C. Daga, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31st March, 1987 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Raigad; Alibag passed in Land Acquisition Reference No. 88 of 1981, on two grounds, firstly, that no reference could have been entertained by the Reference Court as the claimants did not raise any objection in reply to the notice issued under Section 9(3)(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act' for short). Secondly, that additional component of compensation @ 12% in the sum of Rs. 48,722.40 could not have been granted in favour of the landowner as the Award was made by the Collector prior to 30th April, 1982. In support of first submission, reliance was placed on the Apex Court judgment in the case of Land Acquisition Officer-cum-DSWO v. B. V. Reddy and Sons, (2003) 3 SCC 463, whereas in support of second contention reliance was placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kashiben Bhikabai v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, : [2002]...

Vatsalabai Wd/O Vishwanath Nakhate and anr. Vs. Madhaorao Laxmanrao Th ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR681; 2005(1)MhLj980

A.H. Joshi, J.1. This is a second appeal filed by legal heirs of original defendant No. 1. The suit was decreed and the decree has been confirmed by the first appellate Court.2. The suit pertained to claim for delivery of possession of agricultural land Survey Nos. 62 and 63/1 of Nimgavhan. It was suit by the original plaintiff Madhaorao Laxmanrao Thakare on the basis of the claim that he is the owner of the suit property being the legal heir and adopted son of Ahilyabai who was widow of Laxmanrao Thakare.3. According to the plaint, the suit lands were let out to the defendant No. 1 for the period upto 1-3-1957 and it is alleged that the defendant No. 1 sub-let Survey No. 105/2 to the defendant No. 2 soon and after the lease period was over, the defendants re-delivered the suit lands in possession of the owner Ahilyabai who thereafter cultivated the land personally. Thereafter Ahilyabai was dispossessed sometime at the end of April, 1957.Consequent upon the death of the original owner ...

Dr. Samiro Mascarenhas, Medical Practitioner and Anr. Vs. Mr. Valente ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)106BOMLR506

N.A. Britto, J.1. The appellants herein were the plaintiffs in RCS No. 23/85 and their suit came to be dismissed, on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction, by order dated 1 11th July, 1990 of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Visco-da-Gama. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal to the District Court and the learned Additional District Judge, by his judgment and order dated 30.6.97 dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs have now approached this Court in second appeal against the said judgment and order of the learned Additional District Judge, dated 30.6.972. At the time of admission, the appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law as framed by the plaintiffs, namely in para (13-A), (B), (C), (D), (E) and (H). But at the time of arguments, Shri Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel of the plaintiffs, has fairly conceded that the questions at (13-B), (D), (E), and (H) are matters which have got to be decided by the Trial Court and cannot be decided by this Court in th...

Joitkumar B. JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs imposed on the applicant herein under Section 112 of the Customs Act, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, who has held the applicant liable to penalty on the ground that he was keeping and purchasing goods such as watch movements and mobile phones which, he had reason to receive, were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act.3. The applicant's submissions that insofar as watch movements are concerned, they were purchased by him from one M/s. Rishab Industries who, in turn, purchased them from M/s. Shivshakti Enterprises and, therefore, they were lawfully purchased, and the further contention that the mobile phones were purchased from M/s. Time Land Trading Co.and, therefore, they were validly and legally acquired by him, can be gone into in detail only when the appeal is taken up for hearing, having regard to the fact that both these arguments have been considered by the Comm...