Mumbai Court February 2005 Judgments

Sharad D. Khadepau and anr. Vs. Dena Bank and ors.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

1. This miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellants/ original defendant Nos. 2 (a) and 2 (b) being aggrieved by the order dated 3rd December, 2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai on exhibit Nos. 16 and 23 in Original Application No. 382 of 200 1. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application made by the respondent No.1 bank for taking on record heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant Nos. 2 and 4. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.2 Dhansukhlal PanalaI Khadepau, who had expired on 17th August, 2001.2. Few relevant facts, which are required to be stated are as follows: The respondent No.1 Dena Bank has filed suit in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay being suit No. 1140 of 1998 against six defendants praying joint and several decree against them for an aggregate sum of Rs. 76,23,255.app. with interest etc....

Bank of BahraIn and Kuwait B.S.C. Vs. G.S.L. (India) Ltd. and ors.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

1. This miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellants/original applicants bank of Bahrain & Kuwait B.S.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 25th July, 2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the D.R.T.-II, Mumbai on exhibit Nos. 27 and 31 in Original Application No.637/2001. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer stayed the further proceedings against the defendant No. 1 until decision of the appeal bearing No. 306 of 2002 pending with AAIFR. being aggrieved, the bank has filed the appeal in this Appellate Forum.2. I have heard Mr. Colabawala for the appellant bank and Mr. K.K. Jain for the respondent No.1. I have also gone through the proceedings and relevant provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and in my view, the learned Presiding Officer's interpretation of Section 22 of SICA, was not correct.3. Few facts, which are required to be stated are as follows: Original Application was filed by the applicant bank against the d...

Trident Shipping Agencies Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)98TTJ(Mum.)881

1. The present appeal has come up out of CIT(A) order No. CIT(A) OOC-1 DC. 1(3) IT 182/03-04, dt. 21st Oct., 2004, on the following grounds of appeal: (i) Regarding addition of Rs. 13,26,78,581 made under Section 68 of the IT Act; (ii) Addition of Rs. 3,64,235 on account of entertainment under Section 37(2); (iii) Addition of Rs. 4,06,762 representing the medical cost of treatment of wife of CEO; and Both the parties were heard regarding the issues raised in this appeal and its legal implications.2. The facts of the case, briefly, are that the appellant-company, M/s Trident Shipping Agencies Ltd. (TSAL), were shipping agents for a foreign company called M/s Nedlloyd Lines (NL) of Rotterdam. In terms of the agreement entered into between the two companies effective from 1st Feb., 1986, the appellant-company was to act as the agent of Nedlloyd covering the territories of Bombay, Western India, Pune, Ahmedabad, Indore, and Kandla, and Northern India covering Delhi, Ludhiana, Kanpur, Vara...

Nishad Sadashiv Pawar and ors. Vs. Dnyanasadhana College, (Through Hon ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR101

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.It is not necessary to set out the facts in detail in view of the order to be passed. It appears from the record that the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were appointed as Assistant Teachers. They belong to non-B.C. category. Petitioner Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have been appointed as Shikshan Sevaks. The Petitioner No. 3 belongs to O.B.C. The Petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 to N.B.C. Their appointments were approved. Subsequently the approval was cancelled. They approached this court and the matter was remanded back for consideration. On remand, the Deputy Director of Education for the reasons set out in his order has rejected the case of the Petitioners for being treated as regularly appointed Assistant Teachers/Shikshan Sevaks.2. The Petitioners in Ground (c) have raised the following contentions : 'The Petitioners submit that the college has a total of 39 teachers which includes the Petitioners. 16 of these teachers including one of the Petitioners belong to the res...

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Divisional Controller ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR552; 2005(4)BomCR761

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is the statutory body established under the provisions of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Act and the petitioner No. 2 is the Divisional Controller under the petitioner No. 1 at Palghar Depot. The respondent employee was in the employment of the petitioner Corporation as a Driver. At the relevant time he was attached to the Vasai Depot. On 15.6.1988, when he was driving the bus bearing No. NWQ 6957 going from Vasai to Malvan and at about 11.15 p.m. after passing Khed, he was driving the bus in the ghat sections near village Asurde, the bus met with an accident and in the said accident the bus plunged into the valley and went down about 60 ft. and a woman passenger died and five other passengers sustained injuries. The bus also sustained heavy damages. The Depot Manager - Chiplun Depot, visited the scene of the accident and on the basis of his report, the respondent was charge-sheeted on 10.9.1988 alleging the acts of misconduc...

Shantabai Bhairu Gurav Vs. Smt. Sindhutai Janakrao @ Laxman Nalage and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR214

ORDERD.B. Bhosale, J.1. Heard Mr. Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 22.6.2004 passed below Exhibit-63 filed in R.C.S. No. 5600 of 1995 by which the respondent-defendant's application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner has been allowed. The operative part of the order reads thus: 'Application which is Exh.63 is granted and Adv. Shri G.T. Awate is appointed as C.C. to all the work mentioned in the application. Adv. of the defendant is directed to deposit amount of Rs.500/- (Rs. Five Hundred Only) as C.C. Ref. CC is directed to do the C.C. work after giving notices to both the sides and submit the report on or before 1.7.2004'.3. It appears that in 1995 also a similar application was filed (Exhibit-26) by the respondents and that application was either not pressed or no orders therein were passed by the Court. It is clear from the impugned order that the Court ...

Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay and an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(191)ELT148(Bom)

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Hindustan Lever Limited manufactures soaps and detergents in its factory at Sewri at Mumbai. The company uses a raw material by the name of Sulphuric Acid which is an Organic Surface Active Agent (OSAA). Sulphuric Acid is made by the process of sulphonation of 'Linear Alkyl Benzene' with Sulphur Trioxide. The resultant chemical is an acid which is a chemical intermediate that is used in the manufacture of detergent powders and bars. The article is toxic and by itself is not capable of being used as a detergent in washing clothes, floors and utensils. In other words, Sulphuric Acid is to be used as raw material in the eventual manufacture of soaps and detergents. The Petitioner imports raw materials and chemical intermediates including Sulphuric Acid within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai against the payment of octroi duty. 2. At the material time between 1989 and 1992 to which this dispute relates Entry 18 of Schedule H to the Mumbai Mun...

Maharashtra Power Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dabhol Power Compan ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)4CompLJ50(Bom)

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This is a notice of motion taken out by the plaintiff. The fads that are necessary and relevant for deciding this notice of motion are that the plaintiff is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is a shareholder of defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 is a private unlimited company incorporated and registered in India on 29.4.1993. The shareholding of Dabhol Power Company [DPC] is as follows:(i) Enron Mauritius Company, (Defendant No. 6)A Mauritius company and a subsidiary of EnronCorporation, USA (Defendant No. 5): 65.85%(ii) Capital India Power Mauritius,A Mauritius company and a subsidiary of GE, USA(Defendant No. 3) 10%(iii) Energy Enterprises Mauritius Company,A Mauritius company and a subsidiary of Bechtel,USA (Defendant No. 2) 10%(iv) Maharashtra Power Development Company,An Indian company and wholly owned subsidiaryof Maharashtra State Electricity Board 14.15% 1.1 Initially, defendant No. 6 was holding 80% shares of the defendant No. ...

Tejaswini D/O Anandrao Tayade and anr. Vs. Chandrakant Kisanrao Shirsa ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)MhLj137

S.T. Kharche, J.1. This petition takes an exception to the common judgment and order dated 10-6-2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 53-A/2000 filed by the petitioner-wife claiming enhancement in maintenance allowance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Criminal Revision No. 60/2000 filed by the respondent-husband for quashing entire order of maintenance, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the criminal revision filed by the wife and allowed the criminal revision filed by the husband and set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class on 30-11-1999 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 507/98 directing the husband to pay maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month to wife. However, so far as the order regarding grant of maintenance to petitioner No. 2 Rahul, who is the son of petitioner No. 1 is concerned, it has been confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.2. Brief facts are required to b...

Mukund Shrivastava Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra Housing an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR905; 2005(3)MhLj174

S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus to set aside the promotion of respondent Nos. 4 to 12 from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Deputy Engineer in supersession to the petitioner, to direct respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to promote the petitioner to the rank and post of the Deputy Engineer on and from July, 1991 and to restrain respondent Nos. 1 to 3 from promoting the petitioner's juniors to the said post of Deputy Engineer.2. Respondent No. 1 is the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, Bombay. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the Chief Officer and Deputy Engineer of respondent No. 1 respectively.3. The petitioner, a graduate Engineer, joined the services of respondent No. 1 on 6th April, 1981 as a Junior Engineer on probation of one year. He was posted to the office of the Executive Engineer, redesignated as an Assistant Engineer with effect from 6th April, 1981 by an order dated 18th February, 1987 and placed under the appropriate revised pay scal...