Mumbai Court September 2004 Judgments

Shri Vasant Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. State of Maharashtra,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR366; 2005(2)BomCR247; 2005(1)MhLj1119

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The Petitioner who was working as a lecturer in English in Respondent No. 3-College affiliated to Respondent No. 4 University has retired or a junior lecturer after filing of this writ petition some time in May 1999. He filed this Petition in the year 1991 seeking a pay protection since he had been absorbed in the college affiliated to Respondent No. 4 University after earlier putting service in a college affiliated to Bombay University and since he apprehended at the time of filing of the Petitioner that he may not be continued with Respondent No. 3-college and the post would be given to somebody else. From the Petition in it appears, that he had two-fold grievances. Firstly, that he may not be absorbed in the senior college and that a post in the senior college would be given to somebody else and secondly his salary ought to be protected. He had prayed for an interim relief that the post in senior college ought not to be furth...

Board of Trustees of Port of Mumbai Vs. Gurumukh Sevakram Raijuria and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR620; [2005(105)FLR850]; 2005(1)MhLj826

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Since the common question of law and facts arise in both the petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1980 of 1999 is a Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai (hereinafter called as 'the Corporation') whereas the petitioner Shri Dnyandeo Maruti Lande in Writ Petition No. 1327 of 2000 is the workman employed in the Corporation (hereinafter called as 'the workman'.)3. The Corporation challenges the award passed on 17th August, 1991 by the Central, Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Mumbai, in five References bearing Nos. CCIT 39, 40, 41, 42 and 45 of 1993 in relation to the action of dismissal of the workmen by the Corporation. By the impugned award, the Tribunal has held that though the materials on record undoubtedly disclose the com- mission of misconduct alleged against the workmen, yet the order of dismissal passed against them cannot be sustained 'on technical grounds, viz. non-ex...

Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran and anr. Vs. Lark Construction Pvt. Ltd ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom161; 2005(1)ALLMR479; 2005(3)BomCR440; 2005(1)MhLj953

V.C. Daga, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17-7-2004 passed below Ex. 39 in Spl. Civil Suit No. 14 of 2003 by the Civil Judge, SD., Panvel, whereby original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were restrained from recovering and withholding the amount of Rs. 14,36,730/- alleged to be due and payable to the plaintiff by the defendants against the work carried out at Chandrapur and Mangaon, with further direction to release the said amount in favour of the plaintiff, subject to furnishing solvent surety within a period of two weeks. The parties to the appeal are hereinafter referred to in their original capacity.Factual Backgrounds:2. The factual backgrounds giving rise to the present appeal reveals that the respondent No. 1 is the original plaintiff; whereas appellants are defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The respondent No. 2 is the State of Maharashtra, represented by the Collector, Raigad and Principal Secretary, Water Supply and Sanitation, Mantralaya, Mumbai.3. The plaintiff filed a ...

Namdeo Shamrao Waghmare Vs. Ramdas Shripat Waghmare

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR677; 2005(2)BomCR829

Lavande A.P., J.1. Heard Mr. S.R. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.V. Gupta, the learned Counsel for the respondent.2. By this appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment, order and Decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Buldhana dated 11-4-1988 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 85/85 dismissing the appeal filed 'by the present appellant against the judgment, order and decree dated 30-1-1985 passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Chilkhli in Regular Civil Suit No. 224 of 1983.3. Briefly, the facts which are relevant for disposal of the present appeal are as follows:The respondent herein who is the original plaintiff filed the above mentioned suit against the appellant herein who is the original defendant for specific performance of contract and for possession. The respondent claims specific performance of contract in respect of the property bearing No. 7/1, admeasuring about 1 acre and 10 gunthas owned and possessed by the present appellant. Accordin...

Chandrakant Lalsingh Hajari and ors. Vs. Murtizapur Taluka Sahakari Sh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR151; 2005(3)BomCR380

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioners - landlords challenge the concurrent orders dated 31-3-1989 passed by Rent Controller, Murtizapur, and dated 16-3-1991 passed by the appellate Rent Controller Authority, rejecting their prayers for permission to terminate the tenancy of respondent under Clause 13(3)(iii), (iv), (vi) and (vii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as Rent Control Order, 1949). However, in this writ petition, the landlords have restricted their challenge only to two grounds mainly Clause 13(3)(iv) and (v) i.e. securing alternate accommodation and change of user.2. The necessary facts giving rise to filing of petition can be summarised as under :In July-August 1987, the petitioners appeared to have filed the application under above mentioned clauses of Rent Control Order seeking permission to issue quit notices to respondent-tenant which is a r...

Pandit Waman More Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2005)DMC655

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The appellant-accused has been convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 and Section 498(A)(b) of the I.P.C. as, after trial the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan, found him guilty of killing his wife deceased Usha Pandit, on 8th November, 1996, in his house, by pouring kerosene and then setting her on fire.2. We have heard the Advocate for the appellant and A.P.P. for the State. We have noted the grounds, as raised in the memo of appeal, as well as, the oral submissions made by the parties. We have perused the record and after re-appreciating the evidence, we are of the view that no case is made out by the appellant to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.3. On 8th November, 1996, at about 4.45 p.m., the appellant-accused poured kerosene on the person of his wife Usha Pandit and set her on fire, which resulted into her death. While she was admitted in the hospital, her dying declaration was recorded (Exhibit-13). The deceased had ...

Bhauji Bhagwan Awari and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR285; (2005)107BOMLR641

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.1.1992 delivered by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur in Ceiling Appeal Nos. 87/1990 to 91/1990. These ceiling appeals were filed by the present petitioners separately and in it the order impugned was one passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajura dated 8.10.1990. By this order dated 8.10.1990 learned Sub-Divisional Officer declared the transfer of disputed land purchased by the petitioners from surplus holder as invalid and also cancelled the mutations which were effected due to these transfers. Necessary facts in this respect briefly stated are:The present respondent No. 2 Bhalchandrarao owned vast land at various places including the village of petitioners by name Charli. Petitioner No. 1 purchased the land admeasuring 1.80 hectare out of Survey Nos. 228/1 and 228/2 situated at Charli in Gat No. 400 from respondent No. 2 by registered sale...

Shri Octaviano Teogono Alcacoas Vs. Smt. Rosa Milagrina A. Esmeana Mor ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR758; (2005)107BOMLR936

N.A. Britto, J.1. This is defendant's second appeal, arising from Special Civil Suit No. 63 of 1987.2. This second appeal was admitted on a substantial question of law which reads as follows:Whether the District Court lacked jurisdiction to pass the impugned judgment, in view of Article 317 of the (Portuguese) Civil Procedure Code?3. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose off this appeal.4. The plaintiff and the defendant in the said civil suit were husband and wife, having married on or about 20th January, 1975. The plaintiff wife filed the said suit for dissolution of their marriage under Article 4(4) of the Law of Divorce (Decree dated 3rd November, 1910) and by virtue of subsequent amendment got another ground of divorce incorporated, under Article 4(5) of the said Law of Divorce.5. The said civil suit came to be dismissed by judgment/decree dated 31st August, 1998 of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco-da-Gama.6. The plaintiff is stated to have filed an appeal...

Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Appellants herein hold Central Excise Registration Certificate for the manufacture of Sulphur and Petroleum products such as Motor Spirit, HSD, LOD, LSHS etc and Organic Chemicals falling under Chapter 25, 27 and 29 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 respectively.2. A show cause notice dated 03/08/98 was issued to them for contravention of the provisions of Rule 57C read with Rule 57A or the Central Excise Rule 1944 inasmuch as they had manufactured; (i) Low Sulphur Heavy Stock (hereinafter referred to as "LSHS") classifiable under CETA sub-heading 2713.00 and cleared the same at "NIL" rate of duty to M/s TATA Electric Company Limited, Trombay under Notification No. 75/84 CE dated 01/04/94 upto 22/07/96 and under Notification No. 8/96 CE dated 23/07/96 during the period from 23/07/96 to 31/08/96 for manufacture of electricity; (ii) Long Residues (hereinafter referred to as "LR") falling under CETA sub-heading 2713.30, which is an intermediate product and cla...

Kuwait Airways Corpn. Vs. Ccex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT686Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. It is seen from the impugned order that the Maruti Car Bearing No. MH OL-R-5433 has been confiscated under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and a penalty of Rs. 50 Lakhs has been imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of the said Act. The appellant has filed the appeal challenging the said confiscation and imposition of penalty. The ld. Counsel for the appellant has inter alia submitted that the ld. Commissioner has failed to appreciate that the appellant in their reply dated 28 April 1998 have clearly submitted that Mr.Yusuf was appointed by Internal Security Ministry of Kuwait and. his salaries and other emoluments and benefits were paid directly from the coffers of the Ministry of Kuwait and that he was not their employee nor they were in any way concerned with him. His acts are in his personal capacity and the appellant were neither aware nor involved in his activities. He also submitted that the seized currencies, Hens and Monkeys were owned either...