Mumbai Court June 2004 Judgments

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Tulshiram S/O Pandurang Mohod and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2005)ACC806; 2005ACJ764; 2004(6)BomCR741; 2004(4)MhLj362

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard. The small controversy revolving around the issue is whether the pending appeal filed under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, (for short Old Act) against the order passed on an application for claims under no fault liability, under Section 92A of the Old Act, is also governed by the Full Bench decision of our High Court, as reported in : 2004(3)BomCR186 , Divisional Controller, M. S. R. T. C, Jalgaon v. Bapu Onkar Choudhari, whereby it has been held that no appeal under Section 113 is maintainable against such order under, (no fault liability) awarded under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short New Act, 1988).2. One Tulshiram Pandurang Mohod, respondent No. 1 herein, had preferred an application under Section 92A of the Old Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 7500/- from the respondents 2, 3, 4, the present appellants herein. By an order dated 24th November, 1987 the learned Member of the Motor Accident Tribunal, Akola, the original...

Ramagiri Gurudattagiri Gosavi and anr. Vs. Aba Alli Mulani Since Decea ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR429; 2005(2)BomCR400; 2005(1)MhLj39

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune Camp at Kolhapur dated December 23, 1983 in Revision No. MRT-SS-406/1976 (High Court Remand) : Camp-Kolhapur. It is not necessary to reproduce all the events that have resulted in filing of the present petition. Suffice it to observe that the petitioners claim to be a Public Trust duly registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The petitioners claim to be the owners in respect of land bearing R. S. No. 1/1 admeasuring 5 acres 11 Gunthas. It is not in dispute that the respondents were cultivating the said land as tenant, since prior to the tillers day. It is in that backdrop, respondents filed application under Section 32-G of the Act before the appropriate Authority for fixation of purchase price of the suit land, being deemed purchasers. The said process ended in favour of the resp...

Yashwant Vasudeo Natu and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR314; 2004(6)BomCR203; 2005(1)MhLj417

V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner claims revision of his pay to the scale of Rs. 700 to 1600 with effect from 6-11-1997 on the ground that similar scale revision was granted to other similarly situated and therefore denial of the same to the petitioner amounts to false under Article 14.2. The Government of Maharashtra changed the pattern of secondary education in the academic year 1975-76 to 10 + 2 + 3, thereby reducing the college rail education period by one year. This resulted in several teachers being rendered surplus.3. On 15th May, 2000 therefore a Resolution was issued to consider the absorption of these people and protection of pay given to them after such absorption. By this Resolution, the surplus teachers were absorbed in Government services after they were divided into five categories. There is no dispute about the categorisation or absorption. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was duly categorised and this Resolution provided that w...

Ramesh S/O Mahadeo Meshram and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)MhLj762

P.S. Brahme, J.1. Heard Miss Nandita Dubey and Mr. Badar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Y. B. Mandpe, learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State.In regard to the incident that took place on 6th May, 1999 wherein both the appellants committed rape on prosecutrix a minor girl aged about 15 years P.W.1, the appellants were tried before the Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No. 54/1999 and the learned Sessions Judge by his Judgment and order dated 11-5-2000 convicted both the appellants for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer R.I. for a period of 10 years and also to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for 2 months. This appeal is directed against the said Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence.2. The prosecutrix - P. W. 1 who is daughter of Sukhdeo Khobragade (P.W. 6) resident of Village Tidaka, on the date of occurrence the prosecutrix had gone to the house of one Ra...

Bank of Baroda Vs. Avdoot Bhagwant Naik and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom224

1. The plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 86 of 1996 has filed the present appeal against the judgment/decree dated 31st December. 1998, of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco-da-Gama, decreeing the suit only partly against Defendant Nos. 2 to 4.2. Some more facts are required to be stated to dispose of the present appeal.3. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the suit.4. There is no dispute that defendant No. 1 was sanctioned and disbursed a loan of Rs. 6,50,000/- for the construction of a trawler to be known as 'Jai Ambe'. The said loan was repayable in sixty instalments of Rs. 16,250/- each. However, the admitted position is that not a single instalment was paid by defendant No. 1, as a result of which, the loan was recalled first by notice dated 22nd September, 1995 and then by legal notice dated 27th September, 1995, and thereafter the plaintiff filed the said suit for the recovery of Rs. 13,26,231/- with further i...

Narasu Appa Patil Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR92

R.S. Mohite, J.1. By this appeal the appellant (hereinafter called as 'the accused') seeks to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 13th November, 1991 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur In Sessions Case No. 65 of 1991, by which the Trial Court has convicted the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2.000/-, in default, to suffer further R. I. for one year.2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under :(A) That on 31st December, 1990, several persons including P. W. 1, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 had collected to cut the sugarcane crop from the field of one Gopal Shatuppa Patil in whose field the sugarcane crops had been partially cut earlier. P.W. 4 Jotiba Pawar, who was a slip-boy assigned by the sugar factory, informed the assembled persons that the sugarcane crops In the field of Gopal Patil should not be cut because the sugar factory was closed. On the next ...

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Tulsiram and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2005)ACC762; 2004(4)ALLMR319

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard. The small controversy revolving around the issue is whether the pending appeal filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short Old Act) against the order passed on an application for claims under no fault liability, under Section 92-A of the Old Act, is also governed by the Full Bench decision of our High Court, as reported in : 2004(3)BomCR186 , Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C., Jalgaon v. Bapu Onkar Choudhari, whereby it has been held that no appeal under Section 173 is maintainable against such order under, (no fault liability) awarded under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short New Act, 1988).2. One Tulshiram Pandurang Mohod, respondent No. 2 herein, had preferred an application under Section 92-A of the Old Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 7,500/- from the respondents 2,3,4 the present appellants herein. By an order dated 24th November, 1987, the learned Member of the Motor Accidents Tribunal, Akola, the origina...

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Tulshiram Pandurang Mohod and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 3(2005)ACC806

Mohta Anoop V., J.1. Heard. The small controversy revolving around the issue is whether the pending appeal filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short Old Act) against the order passed on an application for claims under no fault liability, under Section 92-A of the Old Act is also governed by the Full Bench decision of our High Court, as reported in : 2004(3)BomCR186 , Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C, Jalgaon v. Bapu Onkar Chaudhri whereby it has been held that no appeal under Section 173 is maintainable against such order under (no fault liability) awarded under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short New Act, 1988).2. One Tulshiram Pandurang Mohod, respondent No. 1 herein, had preferred an application under Section 92-A of the Old Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 7,500/- from the respondents 2,3,4 the present appellants herein. By an order dated 24th November, 1987 the learned Member of the Motor Accidents Tribunal, Akola, the original non-...

Cce Vs. Prevail Castings and ors.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(115)LC592Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. These five appeals have been filed by the Applicant Commissioner against a common order-in-appeal dtd.16/23.5.2000 passed by Commissioner (Appeals). It is seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the modvat credit and waived the penalty in respect of as many as 20 assessees. There is no explanation as to why only in the case of five assessees, the applicant Commissioner has come in appeal. Moreover, the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the credit on the ground that payment of duty of the impugned goods and proper utilization of duty credit have no been disputed. Further, in his common order he has come to the conclusion that since the defects found were of minor and technical nature, on the basis of the same duty credit cannot be denied. Consequently, he has also waived the penalties. I find that the applicant Commissioner has not made out a case requiring interference with the order in appeal nor he has explained why he has filed appeals only in respect...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Metro Steel Rolling Mills, Konark

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. All these appeals filed by the Revenue cover the same issue and are being disposed of by this common order.2. After hearing both sides, we find that the issue on merits in this case i.e. the applicability of Notification No. 206/63 and subsequent Notification No. 208/83 as regards ship breaking scrap used as raw material for rerolling is covered in favour of the assessees by the decision in L.G. Industries 2000 (148) ELT 43 as approved by the Supreme Court reported in 2003 (157) ELT A 209.3. As regards the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) and his dismissal of the Revenue's appeal filed before him, on the grounds that the original order was passed by the Additional Commissioner and the order or Revenue was a direction given to the Deputy Commissioner to file these appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) which were not permissible was as held by the Tribunal in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mill Co. Ltd. v. CCE 1999 (108) ELT 498. Therefore it was held and appeals filed by the Ass...