Mumbai Court October 2005 Judgments

Mirza Fuwaz S/o Muqaddar Baig Vs. Principal, R.T.M. Nagpur University' ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR679; 2006(3)BomCR346; 2006(2)MhLj287

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.2. Heard Mr. Haq, Learned Counsel, for the petitioner and Ms. Khan, Learned Counsel, for the respondents.3. The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was given admission in the first year law course at S. P. College of Law, Chandrapur for the Academic year 2002-03. The petitioner appeared for the first semester examination (winter) of 2002, however failed in the said examination and again appeared for the first semester examination in summer 2003 and again failed. It is contended that thereafter the petitioner did not submit any examination form and in the year 2005 has applied for admission at Dr. Ambedkar Law College, Nagpur, for first year LL.B. Course and was granted admission by the Law College and the petitioner paid the fees on 12-7-2005.4. Mr. Haq, Learned Counsel, states that the Principal of the College issued the impugned communication dated 19-8-2005 and the petitioner was informed t...

Omprakash Jagannath Agrawal and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR180; 2006(3)BomCR911

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. By this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India the petitioners are challenging the order dated 7-2-1994 of respondent No. 2/3 acting as Collector of stamps. By said order, said authority has found that as the earlier hypothecation deed dated 5-2-1994 executed by petitioner No. two in favour of a Co-operative Bank was not sufficiently stamped, a subsequent Mortgage deed executed by petitioner No. 1 in favour of said bank as collateral security could not be treated as such under Article 40(c) and was therefore liable to be charged with full stamp duty. As per interim order dated 12-4-1994 while issuing the rule in the matter, this Court directed respondents to accept stamp duty of Rs. 8000/- and to register mortgage deed.2. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband while petitioner No. two is the wife. It is the allegation in petition that petitioner No. 2 is sole proprietor of business establishment under the name and style M/s. Agarwal Bicchaya...

Dr. Sujoy Das Vs. State

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ1148

ORDERN.A. Britto, J.1. The applicant, a part time General Surgeon working for E.S.I. Hospital in Margao, Goa has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash and set aside the process issued against him under Section 304-A, I.P.C. for having caused the death of Ganpati Keni.2. The undisputed facts are as follows: The said Ganpati Keni, 26 years of age, was examined by the applicant on 25.3.03 and the examination disclosed that the said Ganpati Keni was having right inguinal hernia after the anesthetist certified the said patient was fit to undergo surgery, the said patient was advised admission on 26.6.03 for operation/surgery on 27.6.03. After admission the patient was pre-operatively examined by Dr. Martha Fernandes and on 27.6.03 the said patient was operated by the applicant under spinal anesthesia for right hernioplasty and after about half an hour the patient was shifted to the ward. At about 2.30 p.m. the...

Smt. Jayashree Ashok Goregaonkar Vs. Kanta Chandrakant Mhatre and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR71; 2005(6)BomCR531; (2005)107BOMLR1104

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties. By this Chamber Summons, Defendants 1 to 4 pray that the Plaint be rejected on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action as also being barred by Law of Limitation in terms of Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').2. Briefly stated, the present Suit is for partition filed by the daughter-in-law of Revati Goregaonkar. The genealogy of the family, which is agreed between the parties, is thus: STATUS OF HEIRSLate Ganpatrao K. Mhatre - Saraswati---------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | |(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)Maltibai Shamrao Chandrakant Sumati Naik Revati SuryakantP.Paralkar Expired Exp : 1990 Exp : 1936 Goregaonkar Exp :1997Exp : 1982 1 Kanta (w) Exp : 1984 sulochana(D : 1) (w)(D : 4) (1) Maltibai P. Paralkar (Daughter)|----------------------------------------| | |Vasant (D : 5) Madhav (D : 6) Leela (D : 7)| |Radhika--...

Bhushan and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2006)DMC112

S.P. Kukday, J.1. Rule, made returnable forthwith with consent of parties. Learned APP waives service for respondent No. 1. Mr. Kutti, learned Counsel waives service for respondent No. 2. Heard both sides.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that respondent No. 2.-Leena married petitioner No. 1-Bhushan s/o Subhash Naphade on 5.2.2005. During that period, she was taking education and was appearing for the examination of 3rd year B.E. (Electronics) at Pune. After the marriage, her husband and other petitioners were demanding forty tolas of gold, Scorpio car, furniture, etc. The demands could not be satisfied by parents of respondent No. 2, therefore, respondent No. 2 was subjected to ill-treatment. When she could no longer endure ill-treatment, respondent No. 2 left her matrimonial house on 17.7.2005 and started living with her parents. She then filed a complaint against the petitioners with City Chowk Police on 11.7.2005, on the basis of which, offence pun...

Bombay Hospital Trust Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT374Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This five-member Bench has been constituted "to reconsider the decision rendered in the case of Lady Amphthil Nurses Instns. v.Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - reported at 2002 (150) E.L.T. 776 (Tri.-LB), pursuant to the referral order dated 8-4-2005 of the three-member Bench, to which the matter was originally referred to by the Division Bench that heard the appeal initially (vide referral order dated 1-7-2005). We have heard at length Shri E.P. Barucha, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants and Shri R.K. Pardeshi, learned D.R.for the Department. Both of them have argued the matter extensively and have painstakingly taken us through various case laws relevant to the case. Brief Facts of the Case 2. The appellants were issued two show cause notices dated 29-9-98 and 17-3-99 proposing confiscation of medical equipments, spares and accessories earlier imported by the appellants duty free under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-88, and collectively valued at Rs. 8,24,78,36...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who has set aside the order of the Assistant Collector confirming a duty demand of Rs. 43,602.25 on 23 products which he held to be classifiable under Chapter Heading 30.03 and liable to pay duty @ 10% vide Sr. No. 4 of Notification 8/94, denying the benefit of nil rate of duty claimed by the respondents herein. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Astra Pharmaceutical P. Ltd. to hold that the symbol found on the label (along with the name of 'Zandu') is only to identify the manufacturer and not the product and is therefore in the nature of a house mark and that will not render the ayurvedic medicine in question as a patent or proprietary medicament.2. We have heard the learned SDR and perused the records; none appeals for the respondents in spite of notice.3. The adjudicating authority has examined the labels of the products and found that the respondent has me...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Prime Machines Coop Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides & considered the material in these two appeals which are filed by Revenue and cover the same issue.2. The respondents are manufacturers of Man Made Metallic Yarn and were clearing the said goods under the benefit of the Exemption granted to Handicrafts vide Notification No. 76/86/CE, dated 10-2-86 on the basis of clarification issued vide Circular No. 56/2/95 CX, dated 25-5-95.Thereafter the goods were suddenly held to be not covered as Handicrafts & in the facts of this case the department visited the factory only on 11-12-97 in spite of CBEC circular No. 280/114/96/CX, dated 19-12-96 withdrawing the clarification on exemption of handicrafts to the subject goods. The CCE(A) noting this fact as also that notice was issued to the appellants only on 11/98 i.e. beyond the period of 6 months, therefore following the decisions of this Tribunal and Hon'ble Apex Court, set aside the demands on the basis of grounds of limitation. Revenue is therefore in appeal in b...

Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited Through Its Manging Direc ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR235; 2006(2)BomCR661; (2005)107BOMLR1023

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioner had employed the respondent as a compounder in the sugar factory. Initially, he was appointed as a probationer on 18th July, 1988. He was paid a consolidated salary of Rs. 800/- per month. Since the respondent was not being paid the correct wages, he filed complaint being complaint (ULP) No. 156 of 1996 alleging an unfair labour practice under items 5 and 9 of ScheduleIV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The main complaint of the respondent was that he was not being paid wages in accordance with the wage scale fixed by the Wage Board constituted for the sugar industry.2. The Industrial Court condoned the delay in filing the complaint. The Industrial Court found that it was continuous cause of action and therefore, the complaint was maintainable. The Industrial Court, after recording the evidence, has come to the conclusion that unfair labour practices under items 5 and 9 had been committed. On a consideration of the evidence, the Industrial Court was of the vi...

Kishor Kirtilal Mehta Vs. the Asst. Charity Commissioner and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR467; 2006(2)BomCR100; (2005)107BOMLR1117; 2006(1)MhLj144

ORDERS.A. Bobde, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith.The learned Counsel for the respective respondents waive service of rule.Heard by consent.2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29th September, 2004 of the Asstt. Charity Commissioner addressed to the trustee, Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, hereinafter referred to as the 'Trust' to take appropriate steps since, in the opinion of the Asstt. Charity Commissioner, the petitioner cannot continue to be the trustee of the Trust. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the trustees have on 6.10.2004 at 10 a.m. removed the petitioner from his position as a permanent trustee of the Trust. The impugned order is challenged primarily on the ground that it has had adverse civil consequences on the petitioner and has not been preceded by a notice to the petitioner to show cause against the impugned order.3. The learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader appearing for the Asstt. Charity Commissioner does not dispute that there was no notice given to ...