Mumbai Court February 2005 Judgments

Shri Dnyaneshwar P. Gharat Vs. the General Manager, Best Undertaking

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR772; 2005(2)MhLj517

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The undisputed facts leading to this petition to be briefly stated are as under:-The petitioner joined the employment of respondent i.e BEST Undertaking on 10.4.1980 as a conductor. He was issued a charge sheet for unauthorised absence of 55 days during the period from April 1991 to March, 1992, on 20.4.1994, explanation submitted by him was not found satisfactory and therefore, a domestic enquiry was ordered. He participated in the enquiry, submitted his defence statement on or about 14.7.1994 and the Enquiry Officer in his report held that the charge of remaining absent without leave was duly proved. By an order dated 10.8.1994 he was dismissed from service by way of punishment and his appeal submitted under the service Rules came to be rejected on 13.9.1994. He, therefore, preferred second appeal under the service Rules and that also came to be rejected on 25.11.1994. He, therefore, challenged the order of dismissal by filing an application before the Labour Co...

Suresh Mohaniraj Thakur Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2005)DMC767

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The appellant was charged, tried and convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302, however, acquitted of an offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code (IPC). Therefore, this appeal against the order of conviction. 2. As per the prosecution on 11/11/1993, the appellant, during the quarrel with Changunabai (the deceased), poured kerosene on her from the stove and set fire. The burn injuries were 70%. The neighbours came and extinguished the fire. The defence of the appellant was that, he was not present on the spot at the time of incident, and when he came, found that the deceased was burning. He tried to extinguish the fire, therefore, he suffered 5% burn injuries. The deceased was hospitalised. In the hospital a Special Judicial Magistrate (P.W.11) (Kisanlal Bora) (SEM) was summoned and a dying declaration (Exh.22) was recorded on 11/11/1993, which was scribed by one Shri S.B. Deshmukh, P.W. 8 and not by the SEM, as he forgot to bring his spectacle. In...

Shri B.B. Hugar, Superintendent, Central Excise and Customs Preventive ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005BomCR(Cri)752

1. The respondents were charged, tried, but acquitted of the offence under Sections 18, 25, 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [for short 'NDPS Act']. Therefore, present Appeal against acquittal by the appellant. 2. As per the prosecution, on 9th October, 1988, on information, a raid was conducted by the Officers of the appellant-Central Excise & Customs Preventive, Pune, of the premises, comprising of two rooms, having its Municipal House No.7 and owned by respondent No.2, in village Phaltan, and found 1.340 kgs. of 'ganja' under the sofa, and opium, weighing 52 gms., in the pocket of respondent No.1. After receiving the information, completed the formalities, including issuance of an authorisation under Section 41(2) of the NDPS Act by the competent authorities only in the name of respondent No.2, without mentioning the house number. The detail and purpose of the raid was explained to the Panchas. The Panchas were also searched. Nothing was found in th...

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. Pwt Projects Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom195; 2005(3)ALLMR734; 2005(2)ARBLR507(Bom); 2005(3)BomCR668; 2005(3)MhLj252

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. The Petitioner/Municipal Corporation of the Gr.Bombay by this petition filed under Section 24 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 challenges the award made by the sole-arbitrator dated 10th November, 2002 directing the Petitioner to pay certain amounts with interest to the Respondent. Admitted position is that the Petitioner had entered into a contract pursuant to a global tender floated by the Petitioner in February, 1998 for supply, delivery, erection and commissioning of a 455 MLD Water Treatment Plant and construction of Associate Civil Works at Panjrapur. That contract had an arbitration clause. The arbitration clause provided for appointment of single arbitrator by consent of parties or appointment of three arbitrators, one by the Corporation and other by the Respondent and third arbitrator by the President of the International Chamber of Commerce. But in the present case a single arbitrator was appointed by consent of the parties. The arbitration clau...

Vithal Bakula Kokate Vs. Podar Mills Unit of National Textile Corporat ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR80; [2005(106)FLR351]; (2005)IILLJ888Bom; 2005(2)MhLj561

1. The petitioner who was engaged by the first respondent as a Super Senior Assistant retired from service on completing the age of Sixty. The application filed by the petitioner under Sections 78 and 79 of The Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, has been dismissed by the Labour Court and that order has been confirmed in appeal (BIR No. 84 of 1998) by the Industrial Court. Both the Courts have come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not an 'employee' as defined in Section 3(13) of the BIR Act and consequently, the Court would not have jurisdiction under the provisions of the Act to entertain the application.Section 3(13) of The Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, defines the expression 'employee' as follows :--'(13) 'employee' means any person employed to do any skilled or unskilled work for hire or reward in any industry, and includes -- (a) a person employed by a contractor to do any work for him in the execution of a contract with an employer within the meaning of Sub-c...

Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Vs. Pam Pharmaceuticals and Allied Ma ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR657; [2005(106)FLR158]; 2005(2)MhLj815

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. This petition is directed against an award of the Labour Court of 16th September, 2001 in a reference to adjudication Under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman in question, S. B. Bhatkar, was employed in the service of the respondent as a Borer. On 3rd July, 1989, a bandh was declared in Mumbai at the instance of a political party. According to the management, an understanding was arrived at with the members of the Committee of the Trade Union in the establishment that since the bandh had been declared on 3rd July, 1989, that day would be treated as weekly off to the workmen instead of 5th July, 1989 which was a normal weekly off. In the meeting it was also decided to change the shifts of the workers on 4th July, 1989 as the change in shift was a procedure which took effect the day after the weekly off. This was notified by a notice by the management. It is alleged that on 3rd July, 1989, from 3 p.m., the chargesheeted workman was instrum...

Jayshree Wd/O Narayan Mhaske Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR382; 2005(3)MhLj492

M.G. Gaikwad, J.1. Rule. By consent of parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final hearing and decided finally.2. Petitioner (the widow of the deceased employee) has preferred this writ petition, challenging the action of the respondents refusing to grant family pension to her and seeking directions to grant family pension to her.3. Deceased Narayan Tikaram Mhaske was the husband of the petitioner and was appointed as part-time servant (i.e. Washerman) in the Primary Health Centre, Kannad, on fixed pay of Rs. 30/- per month, by an order dated 1st April, 1971. Thereafter, he was taken on regular establishment by order dated 23rd June, 1983 as a Peon in Class-IV category in the pay scale of Rs. 200-3-230-5-255-5-280. Because of his unauthorized absence from duties, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him and he was made to retire compulsorily by order dated 19th May, 1993 passed by the disciplinary authority, the respondent No. 2. His abovesaid...

Smt. Janaki N. Morajkar Vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR824; (2005)107BOMLR803

A.P. Lavande, J.1. By this appeal the appellant takes exception to judgment and award dated 15th May, 2003 passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No. 321/95 rejecting the reference sought by the applicant in respect of the land acquired by Konkan Railway Corporation.2. By Notification dated 13.3.91 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act which was published on 16.5.91 an area of 2594 sq. metres bearing Challa No. 4/6 of P.T. Sheet No. 271 belonging to the Communicate of Aquem was acquired. The applicant is the tenant of the Communicate in respect of the said land. The Land Acquisition Officer made his award, awarding Rs. 6.75 per sq. m. in respect of the acquired land. An amount of Rs. G.35 sq. m. was paid to the applicant being tenant of the land and 0.40 per sq. m. was paid to the Communicate for the said land. Being aggrieved by the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer, the applicant herein sought reference under Section 18 of...

Tapi Textiles Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Both these appeals have been filed against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who has dismissed the same for non-compliance of Order dated 27.07.2004 under provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. The Jt. Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Nagpur, has confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,27,420/- on 3143.296 on Polyester yam found short and appropriated a sum of Rs. 75,526/- already paid vide TR6 challan dated 22.10.2002 against the demand confirmed and imposed equal amount of penalty. He has also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000- on Shri Kamal Lalchand Chug, Proprietor of M/s. Jannat Fabric.3. In the instant case, on physical verification of the polyester texturised yarn, it was found short in the Mill of the appellants; as such confirmation of the demand of duty and penalty apart from confiscation of the seized goods were ordered. Hence, both these appeals along with stay applications.4. The Id. counsel appearing for the appellants relied upon the followi...

Vijayjyot Seats Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ccex and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT542Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The issue involved is whether the appellant is entitled to avail the credit of AED (GSI) prior to 1/4/2000. By virtue of Clause 88 of Finance (No. 2) Act 2004, CENVAT credit Rules, 2002 were amended as under: - "88. Amendment of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. - (1) In the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), in Rule 3, in Sub-rule (6), in clause (b), the Explanation shall stand amended and shall be deemed to have been amended retrospectively in the manner as specified in the Second Schedule, on and from the corresponding date mentioned in column (3) of that Schedule and, accordingly, notwithstanding anything contained in any judgement, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority, any action taken or anything done or purported to have been taken or done under the said Explanation shall be deemed to be, and to have always been, for all pur...