Mumbai Court June 2004 Judgments

Malhari Gangaram Kale Deceased Through Lrs. and Babu S/O Malhari Kale ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR746; 2004(4)MhLj577

A.H. Joshi, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court wherein the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the decree of the trial Court where the plaintiff's suit for delivery of possession of suit land admeasuring 4 acres 13 gunthas out of Survey No. 77, was decreed.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for setting aside the alienation made by father. The findings of facts being concurrent on the point of alienation being done for legal necessity and as to the deceased father of the plaintiff not being addicted to vices and, therefore, the debts not being immoral, etc., are held in favour of the defendant concurrently.3. The alienation was set aside only on the ground of being violative of Section 47 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The concurrent findings of facts as to alienation being for legal necessity, was not challenged by the plaintiff in first appellate Court, as well consequently before this Court. The concurre...

M.R. Gawai Enterprises Vs. Vidarbha Urban Co-operative Bank Limited an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR857; 2005(1)BomCR276; 2004(4)MhLj707; [2005]57SCL290(Bom)

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Mr. Mardikar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Thakkar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Kaptan, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.2. The short question, which falls for our consideration in the present case, is whether the action taken under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, by respondent No. 1 is valid in view of the Law laid down by the Apex Court in Mardia Chemicals Limited and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : AIR2004SC2371 . Mr. Mardikar, learned counsel for petitioner, states that in the instant case notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the said Act is issued to the Petitioner on 9th September, 2003. The petitioner filed Objection to the said notice on 7th November, 2003. However, the said objection has neither been considered by respondent No. 1, nor there is any r...

Sheshrao S/O Suryabhan Barhate Vs. Sadanand S/O Purshottam Tapswi and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)MhLj697

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard Shri Patil with Shri Muley, learned Advocates for the petitioner and Shri Naik, the learned Advocate for respondents.2. Rule.3. Shri Naik waives service.4. As the challenge in this petition involves purely legal question to be decided, the parties were heard at length so as to decide the petition at admission stage itself. Hence, the rule was taken up for hearing forthwith.5. It appears that there was a dispute between the Respondents and one Shri Ganpat Pandurang Chavan and the dispute landed in the Court of law. The Respondent No. 1 addressed a notice on 24th August, 1998 to Shri Chavan, through Shri S. S. Barahate, the present Petitioner, who was an Advocate for Shri Chavan. However, the notice did not stop on making allegations against Shri Chavan but indeed it proceeded to level some slanderous allegations against Shri Barahate, Advocate. Consequently, Shri Barahate filed Special Civil Suit No. 531 of 1998 on or about 9th October, 1998 before the learne...

Rashtriya Kamgar Sanghatana and anr. Vs. Gkw Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR182; (2005)ILLJ322Bom

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. Two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been instituted before the Court against an order dated January 21, 2004 of the Industrial Court at Mumbai. The order of the Industrial Court arose out of a complaint of unfair labour practice filed under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 read with Item 9 of the IV Schedule. Briefly stated, the contention of the workmen was that there has been a failure on the part of the employer to pay the earned wages of the workman for the period commencing from February 2002 and that therefore, this constitutes an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV ('failure to implement award, settlement or agreement'). The Industrial Court issued a declaration that the employer had committed an un...

Netaji Krishnaji Pawar Vs. M.D., Ajinkyatara Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR432; (2005)ILLJ526Bom

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This Petition challenges the order of the Industrial Court passed in the Revision Application filed under the MRTU & PULP Act and the order of the Labour Court in a complaint filed under Item 1(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Labour Court and the Industrial Court have held that the Petitioner is not an employee as defined under Section 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act.2. The Petitioner was working with the Respondent since November 6, 1987 on a monthly salary of Rs. 2648/-. He was appointed as an Agricultural Overseer. It appears that certain allowances and increments which the Petitioner was entitled to were not paid to him and, therefore, he demanded the same from the Respondent. A show-cause notice was issued to the Petitioner under the standing orders framed for the sugar industry under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act (for short, 'BIR Act'). A charge sheet was issued against the Petitioner since the explanati...

Malu Shripati Gadekar and ors. Vs. Raosaheb S/O Sadashiv Gadekar Throu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)MhLj999

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Agricultural land in Survey No. 24 (Gat No. 33) and Survey No. 25 (Gat No. 34), admeasuring about 34 Acres and 29 Gunthas and 16 Acres 28 Gunthas, respectively, of village Vasangaon, was owned by Shri Raosaheb Gadekar. Shri Shripati Gadekar, resident of the same village, was tenant on the said land and declaration of ownership under Section 38E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Hyderabad Tenancy Act) came to be made in favour of Shripati on 1st February, 1957. Finalisation of the said declaration, by the Tahsildar, was on 30th January, 1960, whereas ownership certificate was issued on 11th April, 1961 in respect of land admeasuring 17 Acres and 14 Gunthas from Survey No. 24 and 4 Acres and 16 Gunthas from survey No. 25. Appeal against this declaration and ownership certificate was moved by Raosaheb belatedly and the same was dismissed on 28th March, 1970. His revision bearing No. 240/BN/1969 was also dismisse...

Air India Limited Vs. Sashikala Jarav (Ms.) and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2005(105)FLR1106]; (2005)IILLJ14Bom

D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution arise out of an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai on a reference to adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Court has arrived at the conclusion that the order of termination that was passed against the First Respondent stands vitiated. The First Respondent who was at the material time an Air Hostess in Air India has been directed to be reinstated without back wages. The First Respondent was employed as a Trainee Air Hostess with Air India on February 17, 1983. She was granted leave for a period of 31 days between June 1, 1988 to July 1, 1988 and was permitted to leave station in order to enable her to join her husband who was then posted at Muscat. On the request of the First Respondent, the period of leave was extended until August 15, 1988 on medical grounds. With effect from September 2, 1988, the First Respondent was sanctioned mater...

Village Panchayat of Calangute, Through Its Sarpanch Vs. the Deputy Di ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR420; (2005)107BOMLR576

S.A. Bobde, J.1. Petitioner panchayat has challenged the judgment and order dated 30.3.2004, by which the revision application by the panchayat against the order of the block development officer dated 15th April, 2004 has been dismissed.2. Apparently, the respondent No. 4 applied for water connection. This respondent filed an appeal before the block development officer as he was refused a no objection certificate for his residential house. The appellate authority, i.e. the block development officer, acting as the appellate authority, granted the prayer of respondent No. 4 and directed the panchayat, the petitioner herein, to grant N.O.C. within 30 days.3. The panchayat preferred a revision before the Dy. Director of Panchayats, North Goa, at Panaji. This revision has been dismissed on the ground that it cannot be entertained at the instance of the panchayat. The revisional authority has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Village panchayat of Velim v. Shri Valentine S.K.F...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Manali Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT315Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of cosmetic products falling under Chapter 33 an entity called "Dr Smyle Prickly Heat Powder" was claimed under Heading 3003.10 and documents for such a claim and payment of duty under that heading were filed. The department took an objection inasmuch as the correct classification of the said entity would be 3304.00 attracting more duty that what was paid. The product was made on job work basis for M/s Kopran Pharmaceuticals Ltd. A Show Cause Notice was issued, samples were drawn and got tested. The Assistant Collector classified the product under Heading 3304.00. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manisha Pharma Plasto Pvt Ltd v. Union of India 1999 (112) ELT 22 (Del) and classified the product under Heading 3003.10 and allowed the appeal. Hence this appeal by Revenue on the grounds: i) the judgment of the Delhi High Court was limited only to a product 'Nycil Prickly Heat P...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Saibaba Ship Breaking Co. and H.B.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Revenue is in appeals. The respondents are assessee under the Central Excise Act, 1944. They were issued a notice to recover duties on excisable goods obtained by breaking of old ships, imported by them, in an area which is opposite and outside the premises registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise confiscated the excisable goods seized and imposed a fine of Rs. 2.00 lakhs in lieu of confiscation and confirmed the demand of Rs. 218337 and imposed penalties on the importers and partners. Being aggrieved by this order, the Respondents took up in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who dropped the case, after coming to the conclusion: i) the Show Cause Notice did not ask the respondents to produce the goods physically which were released provisionally for confiscation. ii) The goods seized were lying in the premises though unregistered but were not in a condition that the bona fide could be doubled to exist that they have bee...