Mumbai Court March 2005 Judgments

Valmiki Faleiro Vs. Mrs. Lauriana Fernandes and ors., Etc.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ2498

ORDERN.A. Britoo, J.1. These are complainant's revision applications arising from C.C. No. 284/P/2001 and against the common order of the learned Sessions Judge, Margao dated 22-7-2004 in Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 63, 64, 67 and 68 of 2003. Hence, this common judgment.2. Briefly stated, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the said criminal case put a public notice on 'Navhind Times' dated 13-5-2001 which reads as follows :--'Notice is hereby given to the public that one Mr. Valmiki Faleiro, resident of Margao and others who are developing and selling the plots through their Power of Attorneys, agents, etc. form the property surveyed between Nos. 251 to 522 including all sub-divisions of village Cacora, taluka of Quepem are not the owners of the said property. The actual owners and the holder of the said property as well as the property surveyed under Nos. 1 to 323 including all sub-divisions of village Xeldem and parts of adjoining villages Amona, Sirvoi, Avedem, Chalfi, Assolda, Cot...

Nandu Ram Nath Alornekar Vs. Kiran Vaigankar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2006)ACC651

A.P. Lavande, J.1. Heard Mr. Nachinolkar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 5. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 though served, absent.2. The appellant who is the original claimant in Claim Petition No. 16/96 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mapusa has filed this appeal on ground that the Tribunal 'has not awarded interest on the compensation from the date of the application. Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 5 has stated that respondent No. 3 is agreeable to pay Rs. 10,000 by way of final settlement of the claim in the appeal towards interest payable to the appellant. Mr. Nachinolkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, upon taking instructions from the appellant who is present in the Court, states that the appellant is ready and willing to accept the said amount of Rs. 10,000 in full and final settlement of the claim in appeal. Mr. Mulgaonkar states that the said amount of Rs. 10,0...

PenguIn Electronics (P) Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT194Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The assesses is a SSI unit who has obtained registration from the Central Excise authorities and were engaged in the manufacture of small radio sets till April 90, since in March 90 they got orders for producing cassette players DS 749 and later, in January 90, got orders for producing 2-Band wireless radio Sets (DL 264) which require more production space as well as deployment of more technical personnel for such activity, they decided to hire additional space & manpower on Job work basis to continue the production of their original production IFT Coils starve. They accordingly organised with M/s Pixie Industries, a neighbouring unit across the corridor to use part of their space & their labour on payment of Job Work Charges to manufacture "IFT Coils".In September, 1990, pursuant to the arrangement IFT coils were manufactured produced in the premises of M/s Pixie Industries and after they were produced, the final alignment, inspection, quality control check & packing w...

indus Ind Media Communications Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT105Tri(Mum.)bai

1. All these stay applications are having being disposed by this order after hearing both sides.2 Goods in both this case have being ordered to be confiscated and redemption fine imposed after confiscation of goods imported. The goods confiscated are not redeemed. When goods are confiscated, duty liability would arise only under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, after they are redeemed. Duty liability in this case therefore does not arise as the goods being confiscated are not redeemed.3.(a) Considering the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act 1962, which provides that in case of a appeal against an order relating to duty, interest on goods which are not under the control of Customs Authorities & penalty imposed shall be deposited before the appeal can be taken up. In this case goods are ordered to be confiscated and as provided under Section 126(2) the officer at judging the confiscation is required to take the goods in charge, the goods are therefore to be considere...

Schlafhorst Engg. (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is filed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal No.12/2001/AP/Misc (Air) dated 16.03.2001.2. M/s. Schlafhorst Engg. (I) Ltd. filed a refund claim of Rs. 1,05,604/- for goods cleared for amount cash No. HD/2670 dated 25.10.96 on the grounds of arithmetical error in applying exchange rate for the conversion of DM into INR, US $ has been used instead of DM. To prove that the incidence has not been passed on to any third person, the importer had submitted a Chartered Accountant's certificate stating that (i) the amounts of extra Customs duty paid by M/s. Schlafhorst Engg. (I) Ltd., which is amounting to Rs. 92,375/-against Bill of Entry No. 1969 dated 04.10.96 is due to conversion of rate in foreign currency to Indian rupees, by applying Re/$ rate instead of RE/DM rate.It was certified that this additional duty was not added to the cost of manufacturing and also no Modvat credit has been taken on the same and the said amount is also not passed on to the customers at the time ...

DBH International Ltd., a Company Incorporated under the Companies Act ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR732; [2005(106)FLR375]; (2005)IIILLJ434Bom

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 1.7.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1347 of 1996, rejecting the petition in limine. The writ petition was filed against the Award dated 31.7.1995 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. II (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Reference No. CGIT-2/55 of 1993, by which the impugned retrenchment was held to be illegal and void. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its letter dated 3.6.1993, had referred the following industrial dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication: 'Whether the action of the Management of M/s DBH International Ltd is justified in retrenching S/Shri A.M. Ghosalkar, S.R. Parab, E.T. Deshmukh, Chiman Sawant, Baban Vethebkar, Mrs D.D.' Mello and Mrs Rajalakshmi H. Pillai with effect from 16.9.1991? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?'. The aforesaid reference was made in pursuance of the failure report submitted by the Concil...

infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Limited Vs. Dsq Holding ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR22; 2005(2)MhLj965

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. These two chamber summons are initiated by both the plaintiffs as well as the defendants. The defendant has taken out the chamber summons being Chamber Summons No. 1759 of 2003 for revocation of leave under clause 12 of Letters Patent and the plaintiffs have taken out Chamber Summons No. 139 of 2004 for amendment of the plaint by insertion of certain words in paragraph 23 of the plaint which deals with the jurisdiction of this Court. In my view, it is necessary to consider Chamber Summons No. 1759 of 2003 taken out by the defendants first so as to ascertain whether as on the date of the filing of the suit and of obtaining leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent this Court, on averments made in the plaint, had jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. If this Court had jurisdiction then consequently Chamber Summons No. 1759 of 2003 must fail and if this Court had no jurisdiction as on the date of the filing of the suit then Chamber Summons No. 139 of 2004...

Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. Vs. Sanatan Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. and anr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR220(Bom); 2005(3)BomCR19; 2005(2)MhLj850

Vazifdar S.J., J 1. By consent, the appeal is admitted and taken up for final hearing.2. The appeal challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18-1-2005 rejecting the appellant's petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The learned Judge held that the appellants ought to make an application under Section 17 of the said Act before the learned Arbitrator and that it would not be appropriate to entertain the petition.3. The facts as regards the transaction are not in dispute. An agreement dated 21-8-2003 was entered into between the appellant and the respondents. Under the said agreement, respondent No. 1 was entitled to avail of a affinity card facility from the appellant which enabled respondent No. 1 to purchase from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. goods such as diesel, lubricant oils, genuine spares of the appellant and other utilities by using the said card issued by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.Respondent No. 2 the Managing Dir...

Sunil S/O Shriram Suratkar and ors. Vs. N.B. Pasalkar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR697; 2005(5)BomCR797; 2005(3)MhLj25

ORDERK.J. Rohee, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.2. This is a petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.3. Respondent No. 3 is the President of Janta Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Pusad which runs private unaided Polytechnic College at Pusad. Respondent No. 4 is the in-charge Principal of the said College. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 are the members of teaching staff whereas petitioner Nos. 5 to 16 are the members of non-teaching staff of the said College.4. On 29-9-1995 the Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State, Mumbai issued a Circular to all the Principals, Presidents, Secretaries of unaided educational institutes informing them that they were bound to pay salary, allowances and other facilities to the teaching and non-teaching staff as per the rules prescribed by the Governme...

State of Maharashtra and anr. Vs. Dilip Anant Surve

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR67; 2005(3)MhLj98

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.The State of Maharashtra has challenged the order of MAT dated 15-11-2000 in O. A. No. 646 of 2000 relying on its earlier Order dated 1-7-1998 in O. A. No. 472 of 1999. By that order, it has been held that the departmental enquiry held against the respondent, delinquent employee was without authority of law and hence vitiated and consequently set aside the impugned order imposed on the respondent which was by way of dismissal from service. The petitioners were however, given liberty to start fresh enquiry if they chose to re-start the enquiry, to the appropriate Enquiry Officer as per relevant Government decisions. Subsequent to that judgment, a Full Bench of MAT was constituted consequent on MAT noticing, that there was divergent opinion amongst its Benches on the issue. By order dated 7-6-2002 the Full Bench was pleased to hold that the power to hold departmental enquiries under the Bombay Police Rules exists and continues to exist and that ne...