Mumbai Court July 2004 Judgments

Ramavtar Ramasahaya Khatod Vs. Baban Gurunath Pathari

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR745; 2005(1)BomCR255; 2005(1)MhLj932

D.G. Karnik, J.1. By the petition, the petitioner-tenant challenges the judgment and order dated 19th August, 1991 by which the VIIth Additional District Judge, Thane allowed an appeal of the landlord and passed a decree for possession.2. The respondent is an owner and landlord of the property bearing House No. 33 Telipada, Bhivandi, District Thane. The petitioner is a tenant of the respondent occupying commercial premises bearing gala Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises) situated in the said house. At the time of letting the suit premises required extensive repairs and it was agreed that the petitioner would carry out the repairs and the amount spent would be recovered by the petitioner by deducting to that effect was executed between the parties in October, 1973. According to the respondent, the petitioner was in arrears and had not paid the rent from 1st December, 1977 till 31st August, 1978. Therefore by a notice dated 13th September, 1978 the respondent term...

Mrs. Sujan Suresh Sawant Vs. Dr. Kamlakant Shantaram Desa

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom446; 2005(1)ALLMR397; 2005(1)BomCR763

V.C. Daga, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit filed by appellant-Mrs. Sujan Suresh Sawant ('the plaintiff' for short) against the respondent - Dr. Kamlakant Shantaram Desai ('the defendant' for short), to seek dissolution and accounts of the partnership firm run under the name and style, 'Dr. Desai's Late Dr. Navalkar Memorial Maternity and General Hospital', Dadar, Mumbai.The Facts:Summary of the facts giving rise to the present litigation is as follows:2. One Dr. V.N. Navalkar during his life time was running his own Nursing and Maternity hospital known as 'Radhabai Nursing Home' in the building known as 'Nana Nivas', 813 183AB, Baburao Parulekar Marg, off Gokhale Road (South), Dadar, Bombay-28.3. Dr. V.N. Navalkar died intestate on 1st August 1976 leaving behind his brother Shri Sitaram N. Navalkar as his sole legal heir entitled to inherit his estate.4. Shri Sitaram Navalkar, being a retired person, not acquainted with the discipline of medicine, had no experience of running hospi...

Smt. Rambhaben and Rashikbhai Madhabhai Koli Vs. Bachubhai Sukhabhai a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2004)ACC527; 2005ACJ621; 2004(6)BomCR176; 2004(4)MhLj348

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The First appeal challenges the award of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation to the extent that it grants compensation of only an amount of Rs. 73668/- while denying the claim for penalty and interest. The compensation has been granted on the basis that the deceased workman had completed 40 years of age and not 35 years as claimed by the applicants before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation.2. The deceased, 'who was the husband of Appellant No. 1 and the father of Appellant No. 2, died in a motor vehicle accident on 14.7.1984. He was driving the truck owned by Respondent No. 1 which was insured with Respondent No. 2. According to the appellants, the age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 35 years and his monthly wages were Rs. 1000/-. After the accident, the appellants claimed compensation from Respondent No. 1 who did not bother to pay any amount to them. Neither did Respondent No. 2 as the insurance company pay any amount to the deceased....

Smt. Kausalya Sampat Vs. the Vasant Sahakari Bank Ltd. (Now Known as V ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR557; 2004(6)BomCR651; (2005)107BOMLR796; 2004(4)MhLj795

S.U. Kamdar, J. 1. The petitioner is challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 134 (2A) as amended by the Amending Act Maharashtra, 41 of 2000. Under the provisions of the Sub-section (2A) it is provided that no application for revision shall be entertained against the recovery certificate issued by the Registrar under Section 101 unless the applicant deposits with the concerned society, fifty percent, of the total amount of recoverable dues.2. These provisions of Sub-section (2A) of Section 154 are challenged by the petitioner in the context of the facts which are briefly enumerated as under:-3. A firm known as M/s. Gajanankrupa Enterprises availed of the loan facilities from the 1st respondent Bank. The petitioner before the Court was a partner of the said 2nd respondent firm. It is the case of the petitioner that with effect from 20.8.1991 the petitioner retired from the said firm and thus ceased to be a partner any further. However, it is an admitted posi...

Krishna @ Kisan Rajaram Karve, Vs. Dinkar Anaji Kumbhar (Since Decease ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR764; 2005(1)BomCR750

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. All these three writ petitions can be disposed of by common Judgment, as they are between the same parties in relation to the agricultural land bearing Survey Nos. 230/3-B(part) and 230/4-A/2, which has been subsequently farmed into Gut No. 1294, situated at village Pandare, taluka Baramati, district Pune. Petitioner Krishna alias Kisan Rajaram Karve and others are the landlords in respect of the suit land. It is not in dispute that Dinkar Anaji Kumbhar was inducted in the suit land as tenant. It is also not in dispute that the landlords issued notice for possession of the suit land under Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act for personal cultivation on 25th August 1956. Thereafter, the landlords instituted proceedings for possession of the suit lands an that ground, which proceedings culminated with the order of possession of half portion of the suit lands to be handed over to the landlords. That order was passed on 3rd March 1959. Pursuant ...

Harischandra Vithoba Narawade and ors. Vs. Smt. Vatsalabai W/O Narayan ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)MhLj897

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 137 of 1975, on the file of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Osmanabad, challenge the judgment and decree passed by learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Osmanabad, vide his judgment dated 30-10-1980 and confirmed by District Judge, Osmanabad, vide his judgment and order dated 13-3-1986, while dismissing the Regular Civil Appeal No. 95 of 1981 filed by the defendants/present appellants, (Now onwards, parties shall be referred as 'plaintiff and 'defendants' for the purpose of convenience.)2. Plaintiff Vatsalabai had approached Civil Court by Regular Civil Suit No. 135 of 1975 instituted on 19-8-1975, seeking a decree for partition and separate possession of her xh share in the property, as also past mesne profits. She approached the Court With following averments. Sadhu was the common ancestor, who had two sons, namely, Baba and Vithoba. Plaintiff Vatsalabai is daughter of Baba, Whereas, defendants are legal hei...

Kamleshsingh Harnamsingh Chowhan Vs. Gangasingh Motisingh Chowhan (Dec ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom35; 2005(1)BomCR290; 2005(1)MhLj493

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By consent of parties this suit itself is taken up for final disposal. It was agreed between the parties that no oral evidence is necessary to be led by either of the parties for deciding the suit. It was also agreed between the parties that for deciding this suit only document that needs to be considered by the Court is the deed dated 29-3-1949. Parties are also agreed that though in the suit various reliefs are claimed, only relief that the plaintiff is now pressing is the appointment of the Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 made by the original Defendant No. 1 Ganga singh as a person on whom the property devolve in terms of the above referred deed should be cancelled.2. The facts that are necessary and relevant are, admittedly the suit property is a building called 'Harganga Mahal' situated at Dadar, Mumbai. That property was admittedly owned by one Parvatibai. Parvatibai had one son by name Motisingh. Motisingh had two sons namely Harnamsingh and Gangasingh. Gangasingh wa...

The National Federation of Blind Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR740

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The facts of this petition indicate total inaction on the part of the respondent Government when it comes to the physically handicapped. This is so inspite of land mark legislations being enacted by the Parliament known as the Disabled Persons (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights And Full Involvement Act), 1995.2. Prior to two decades or so, a section of people who physically handicapped, i.e. either visually impaired or polio stricken or handicap suffered by virtue of various accidents have always been looked at as an insignificant and not useful segment of the population. In the last 20 year or so, a great stride has been achieved the world over by virtue of principles of upliftment implemented either through employment or self-sufficient vocations. This is an important development and new vistas in providing moral booster to this class of the society which has been mentally disturbed by virtue of the fact that they are suffering from certain handicaps, the ment...

Morarji Gokuldas Spg. and Wvg. Vs. Commissioner, Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 filed by the appellant to dispense with the pre-deposit order of the confirmed duty of Rs. 4,05,621/- under Section 11A and equivalent amount of penalty under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and to grant stay of the operation of the impugned Order-in-Appeal No.PD/186/M-4/2003 dated 16.09.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-IV and to waive further recovery of the same, pending disposal of the appeal.2. The assessee was engaged in the manufacture of doubled yarns, out of single yarns on which duty was paid at spindle stage. The process of doubling of yarn amounted to `manufacture' resulting in a new and distinct product coming into existence. It is exempted from payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 35/95-CE dated 16.03.1995. A proviso is added to this vide new Notification No. 84/95-CE dated 18.05.1995, according to which the exemption to the processing of dou...

Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT352Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The appeal is against imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the ground that the appellants misdeclared the impugned Gasket and claimed classification under sub-heading 8484.90 whereas according to the department the correct classification would be under Heading 8485.90. We, however, find that the impugned goods which were initially taken into bond for warehousing have been subsequently cleared for home consumption paying duty applicable to project imports under Heading 98.01.2. In view of the fact that the final classification has been done under Heading 98.01 and duty has been paid as applicable to project import goods, we are of the opinion that the dispute relating to classification under competing entries 8484.90 and 8485.90 is of no relevance and the confiscation, imposition of redemption fine and penalty are not warranted. As such, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeal with consequential benefit to the a...