Mumbai Court November 2005 Judgments

Sohansingh Assasingh and anr. Vs. Jasvantsingh Bisansingh Sohal and an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2006)ACC554; 2006ACJ1125; 2006(1)ALLMR109

V.G. Munshi, J.1. First Appeal No. 110 of 1992 is directed by appellant (claimant), under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded (Ex Officio Commissioner), on 7.1.1992 in W.C.F.A. No. 9 of 1987. 2. The important facts of the case may be briefly stated as under: Appellants (original claimants) are the parents of the deceased Palsing. He then worked as a cleaner on the truck bearing No. MTG 1884 and, his monthly salary was Rs. 300. The said truck was owned by respondent No. 1 and was insured with respondent No. 2. The said truck met with an accident on 20.1.1987. One Gurunam Singh was driving the truck. When the truck reached near Narsi Road junction, it met with an accident. The deceased did sustain severe injuries and succumbed to those injuries, on the spot. The appellants (original claimants), therefore, holding the respondents, owner and insurer of the said truck, liable claimed t...

Citizens Forum Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)MhLj133

S.A. Bobde, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith.The learned Counsel for the respective respondents waive service of rule. Heard by consent of parties finally.2. The issue involved in this petition concerns the safety and convenience of the citizens of Nagpur.3. In short, the issue pertains to existence of open manholes, electrical poles and transformers which are located either on the carriage-way of the widened roads or on some pavements. These have been referred to as 'public utilities' in the affidavits. This situation has arisen from an excellent program which was successfully implemented by the respondent-authorities as a part of an Integrated Road Development Project, hereinafter referred to as 'IRDP'.4. It does not take much to realize the gravity of the problem of open manholes, electrical poles and transformers on the road and even pavements. These are potentially hazardous obstacles and it appears that the Municipal authorities have remained apathetic to the situation. Hence, thi...

Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. the Petroleum Employees Union and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR245; (2005)107BOMLR1125; (2006)ILLJ916Bom; 2006(1)MhLj671

R.M. Lodha, J.1. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 hereinafter to be referred to as the petitioners filed the writ petition before this court praying therein that the workers listed in Exhibit 'A' be declared to be treated as direct and regular employees of the present appellant hereinafter to be referred as respondent No. 1. The petitioners also prayed that the respondent No. 1 be directed to absorb these workers with effect from their actual date of entering into the service. The aforesaid prayers were founded on the ground that by the notification dated 9th December, 1976 issued by the Central Government under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 the employment of contract labour for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings has been prohibited. It appears that during the pendency of the writ petition by further notification dated 8th September, 1994, the Central Government prohibited the employment of contract labour in respect of other occup...

Pen Shikshan Mahila Samiti Vs. Mrs. Shradha Shriram Thakue and Shri D. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR748; 2006(1)MhLj780

V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.7.1990 passed by the School Tribunal, Pune, setting aside the order of termination and directing reinstatement of the respondent No. 1 with backwages.The facts:2. The facts giving rise to the present petition in nutshell are that respondent No. 1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher vide order dated 4.6.1987 for the Academic Year 1987-88 with a specific condition that without assigning any reason her services can be terminated at any time during the academic year; if her services were found not necessary.3. The respondent No. 1 after joining the duty as per appointment order executed an undertaking in favour of the management agreeing therein that her services would be liable to be terminated without any prior intimation and/or without assigning any reason. She agreed not to object to such action of the management.4. The respondent No. 1 during the period of her employment was served with two memos; one date...

Gurumaharaj Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and ors. Vs. Jalindar Mahadeo Ked ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR477; 2006(2)MhLj748

Deshpande A.P., J.1. The learned Single Judge of this Court, Justice A.B. Naik, disagreeing with the view expressed by another learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Bed Shikshan Mandal, Sangamner and Anr. v. Poonam Rameshwar Joshi and Anr. reported in : 2002(4)MhLj848 has made a reference and hence, the matter is placed before this Division Bench.2. In the case of Bal Shikshan Mandal the school management had dismissed the employee and aggrieved thereby, he had filed an appeal before the School Tribunal, Solapur under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the MEPS Act' for the sake of brevity). The School Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground that the employee was not granted reasonable opportunity of being heard in the inquiry stood vitiated having not been conducted in conformity with the procedure laid down under Rules 36 and 37 of the Maharashtra Employees Private Schools (C...

Shah Mohammad Noor Khan Vs. Jan Mohammad Vali Mohammad Since Deceased ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom224; 2006(3)ALLMR107; 2006(2)MhLj23

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. In these proceedings under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a judgment of the learned trial Judge in the City Civil Court in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, has been called into question. The suit has been decreed as a result of which the respondent has been held to be entitled to the restoration of possession of premises consisting of Stall No. 7 situated on the Ground Floor at Chimna Butcher Street, Null Bazar, Mumbai-400003.2. The father of the petitioner was the original owner of the suit premises consisting of a stall admeasuring 4' x 5'. The owner expired in or about 1960. It is undisputed that from 1960 the respondent was in possession of the premises and conducted business from the stall. According to the respondent, he was inducted as a licensee and carried on business independently for a period of 45 years dealing in woollen clothes and umbrellas. The case of the respondent was that he was inducted on a licence ...

Shishir B. Desai and anr. Vs. Ceat Financial Services Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2007)BC727; 2006CriLJ1540

ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Not on board. Upon mentioning taken on board. By consent heard alongwith the Writ Petitions which arealready notified today.2. Heard counsel for the parties.3. Rule. As short question is raised, rule made returnable forthwith by consent.4. Mr. D'Lima waives notice for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Nikam, APP waives notice for respondent-State.5. By this petition, it is prayed that Criminal Case, No. 889/S/2002 filed against the petitioners/accused No. 4 and 5 pending on the file of 12th Court at Bandra, Mumbai be quashed. It is not in dispute thatpetitioners are Directors of the Accused No. 1 company. However, the petitioner No. 1 Is a practicing Solicitor and Petitioner No. 2 Chartered Accountant by profession. It is their case that they have no concern with the day to day affairs of the company. It is not in dispute that petitioners are not signatories to the cheques. Relying on the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd.v. N...

Brij Kumar S/O Madanlal Sethi and ors. Vs. Bimla Rani Wd/O Ramkrishan ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR339; 2006(3)BomCR857; 2006(2)MhLj470

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In this Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, the revision applicants i.e. original defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 have challenged the order dated 16-7-1996 passed by the 10th Additional District Judge, Nagpur, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 268 of 1996, holding that the appeal under Section 96 as filed by present revision applicants against the judgment and decree dated 6-4-1996 delivered by 6th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, in Regular Civil Suit No. 406 of 1981, was not maintainable as the trial Court had decided the suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and as such revision alone was the only remedy. The revision applicants have in the alternative also made the prayers to set aside the said judgment of trial Court dated 6-4-1996, if it is found that the appeal was rightly held to be not maintainable.2. The present respondents-non-applicants No. 1A to 1D are legal heirs of origin...

Jaguradevi Shatrughna Rajbhar and ors. Vs. M.B. Edujlee Cassinath and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2006)ACC624

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard finally the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The only controversy in this case is of non-grant of interest as referred to in paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment. The undisputed position on record is basically of provisions of Section 4-A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which provides that where any employer defaults in paying the compensation due under the Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall direct that the employer shall in addition to the amount of arrears pay a simple interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum or at a higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the landing rates in a Scheduled Bank as may be specified by the Central Act. After considering the rival contentions it is clear that the claimants are entitled to the statutory interest as provided under the Act as of right. Therefore there is no question of non-granting of such interest. There is no reason made out much less discussed by the Trial ...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Mecnair Exports Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. A brief history of the case is called for Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai in his order dated 11.7.97 ordered that no case has been made out against the respondents before him and dropped the proceedings against him. The issue pertained to disposal of goods imported under DEEC without approval. The revenue preferred an appeal against this order. The Tribunal in its order No. C-415-23/WIB/2002, dated 30.1.2002 [2002 (143) E.L.T. 167 (Tri. - Mumbai) disposed off the Revenues' appeal. While doing so the Tribunal observed as follows: It is not possible to confirm the finding of the Commissioner that the conditions of notification have in substance been complied with. Doubtless, the export obligation has been fulfilled. However, the evidence on the basis of which he concludes that the goods which were imported by the respondent company were utilised in the manufacture of products that it exported, is not, in our view, sufficient to confirm his conclusion. The statement of Shahzade Alam, ...