Mumbai Court June 2004 Judgments

Gordhandas Lalchnd Vs. Kubchand Tirthdas Tailor and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR163; 2005(2)BomCR470; 2005(1)MhLj396

V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition challenges the order dated 23.2.1999 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court, Mumbai, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5- obstructionists came to be allowed and the obstructionist notice came to be set aside.THE FACTS:The facts giving rise to the present petition in nutshell are as under:2. The petitioner is the owner of a property known as 'Sudama House' situated at Kandivali, Mumbai. Respondent No. 1 was his monthly tenant occupying a portion of an Otla (i.e. verandah admeasuring (6 x 3') by the side of shop No. 6 located in the said 'Sudama House'.3. The Respondent No. 1 was carrying on his tailoring business from the said Otla (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises') provided with electricity supply. He had paid rent till May 1964. He, thereafter, failed and neglected to pay any rent. Respondent No. 1 left Mumbai and went to Godhara (Gujarat), his native place sometime in the year 1963. He, while leaving ...

Raj Corporation and anr. Vs. the Bank of Baroda and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR740; II(2005)BC3; 2005(2)BomCR447; 2004(4)MhLj278

Palshikar, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioners M/s. Raj Corporation has challenged the order passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal as also the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, both rejected the application of the original Plaintiff, the present petitioner - for return of the suit for lack of jurisdiction in the Debt Recovery Tribunal.2. Suit No. 3233/96 was filed by the Respondent - Bank of Baroda on the Original Side of this court for exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The suit was valued at Rs. 12 lacs and odd. The claim included the debts due to the bank from the petitioner on various counts.3. The original defendants - present petitioners filedj1 an application before the DRT contending that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the suit, and therefore it is liable to be returned for presentation before the proper court. The main contention in this application was that the valuation of the suit as made by the plaintiff was incorrect....

Gangubai Bhagwan Salawade, Vs. Smt. Chimanabai Suryabhan Salawade,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR238; 2005(2)BomCR423; [2005(104)FLR158]; (2005)ILLJ107Bom; 2004(4)MhLj204

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This Petition challenges the order of the Industrial Court, Solapur acting as the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act (for short, 'the Act'). The Petitioner is the widow of the deceased Bhagwan Salawade, who was employed as an Helper with Maharashtra State Electricity Board (for short, 'MSEB'). The Petitioner No. 1 is the wife and Petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the children of the deceased. After death of Bhagwan Salawade on 1.5.1996, while in service, the Petitioners submitted an application on 30.5.1996 to the employer of the deceased claiming the gratuity amount payable to him. Since the nomination was made in favour of Respondent No. 1 who is the mother of the deceased, the employer deposited an amount of Rs. 65,615/- before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act.2. An application bearing No. 396 of 1996 was filed by the MSEB stating that there was a dispute regarding the person who should receive the gratuity the amount w...

Shri Vinodchandra Mathubhai Bhatt Vs. Shah Mallabel Castings Ltd.,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR744; 2005(2)BomCR958; (2005)ILLJ299Bom; 2004(4)MhLj166

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This petition is directed against the orders of the Labour Court allowing an application for restoring the complaint which was disposed of ex-parte and the order of the Industrial Court in the revision application filed against the order of the Labour Court. Both these orders show extreme non-application of mind and this may be due to incompetence or something more than meets the eye.2. The respondent No. 1 though served, has chosen to remain absent. On an earlier occasion when the matter came up for hearing, the advocate for the Petitioner was directed to give fresh notice since nobody appeared for the Respondent.3. The Petitioner joined service of Respondent No. 1 and was confirmed after four months. He was promoted thereafter. On 2.1.1978, the Petitioner was dismissed for service by Respondent No. 1. A complaint was, therefore, filed by the Petitioner under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act before the Labour Court, Bombay. Respondent No. 1 appeared an...

Veneet Agarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR439; 2004(5)BomCR542; [2005]126CompCas132(Bom); [2004]55SCL286(Bom)

F.I. Rebello, J.The principal relief sought for by the petitioner reads as under :--'That This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned SEBI (Stock-Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Rules, 1992 and Regulations, 1992 declaring it as unconstitutional.'The other reliefs sought for by the petitioner are consequential to the aforesaid principal relief.2. The challenge to the Regulation is principally based on the contention that the Regulation was not laid before each House of Parliament as mandated by Section 31 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the Securities and Exchange Act). It will therefore be essential to reproduce Section 31 of the said Act as the entire argument is placed on the requirement of the said section. Section 31 reads as under :--'Rules and regulations to be laid before Parliament.--Every rule and every regulation made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parlia...

Vijendrasingh Ladusingh Shekhawat Vs. Todi Industries Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR204; 2004(4)MhLj412

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The petitioner joined the respondents on 15th April, 1992 as an accountant and was confirmed on 7th August, 1992. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 11th September, 1995. The petitioner challenged the order of termination in a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 on the ground inter alia that the retrenchment compensation had not been correctly computed and that therefore the order of retrenchment was void. In the circumstances, it was alleged that the employer was guilty of an unfair labour practice under items 1(b), 1(d) and 1(f) of Schedule IV to the Act. The respondent employer denied in the written statement that the retrenchment compensation was not correctly computed.2. On 11th January, 1996 the petitioner made an application for production of documents. According to the petitioner, the employer did not produce those documents, but by a reply dated 15th April, 1996 ga...

Abdul Rahim Afzalsha Kazi Since Deceased by His Heirs and Lrs. Mahamud ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR782; 2005(2)BomCR436; 2005(1)MhLj108

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, dated December 3, 1984, in Revision No. MRT-NS-II-1/81 (TEN.B.37/1981). Present petition arises out of reference proceedings made by the Civil Court in the Civil Suit between the parties to this petition. Respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No. 77 of 1973 which was, in fact, instituted in the year 1968 against the petitioners for declaration and appropriate relief. One of the declaration claimed in the said suit is that document dated 15th February, 1957 is void and is not binding on the plaintiffs. The said document is stated to be effecting partition between the family members of the parties. Validity of the said document was put in issue. In response, the petitioners filed their written statement and asserted that the said document was not a partition deed, but a gift deed. Since the petitioners claimed that the document in question was a gift deed, th...

Mittal Court Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2010]320ITR414(Bom); [2004]140TAXMAN145(Bom)

ORDERD.K. Srivastava, AM All the aforesaid appeals filed by the assessee and cross-appeals filed by the revenue involve common facts and raise common issues. Hence they were heard together are being disposed of by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.Appeals filed by the assessee:(ITA Nos. 2649 and 2441 to 2443/Mum./02: Assessment years 1994-95 to 1997-98).2. We shall first take up the appeals filed by the assessee, a co-operative society, against the orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for the respective assessment years. The assessee has taken three grounds of appeal in all the appeals. First Ground of appeal is regarding taxability of transfer fee received by the assessee during the years under appeal as a result of transfer/sale of certain office premises by the existing members of the assessee-society to third parties (known as incoming members) in lieu of which the incoming members paid to the assessee-society certain charges/ fee described by the assessee-so...

Mukand Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant's appeal is directed against the impugned order-in-appeal, whereby their request for refund of Rs. 5,29,299/- was rejected. The appellants are sending certain materials such as, bright bars, coils, rods etc. to the job workers for the process of grinding , pickling, heat treatment, polishing, peeling, etc. These bars are received back from the job workers. The appellants did not receive the scrap that was generated during the said processes undertaken at the job workers' premises. Accordingly, in terms of Rule 57F (5), they made the payment of duly on the scrap by adopting the value of the prime material instead of adopting the value applicable to scrap sale. On realising the mistake, that they had made excess debit of duty on the scrap, they worked out the actual duty payable by them on the value of scrap based on the market value of scrap and sought refund of the said amount, which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and also by the Commissioner (Appeals). He...

Fairfield Atlas Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides on the application for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), we found that it was possible to take up the appeal itself for disposal at this stage; hence we proceed to do so with the consent of both sides after granting the prayer.2. The case of the importer by the appellants was examined by the Special Valuation Branch, Mumbai for determination of assessable value of goods under Section 14 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The adjudicating authority found that the appellants were related to the supplier. The adjudicating authority ordered finalization of the assessments on loading of invoice value by 25%. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was barred by limitation. After hearing both sides, we find that information was called for from time to time regarding relationship between the appellants and its...