Mumbai Court May 2005 Judgments

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited a Body Corporate Constituted U ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR746; 2006(3)MhLj488

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Sanglikar for the Appellants in Second Appeal No. 1281 of 2004 and for Respondent No. 2 in Second Appeal No. 615 of 2004. Mr. Anne for the Respondent No. 1 - Owner in both the Appeals. Mr. Siodia for the Appellants in First Appeal No. 615 of 2004 and for Respondent No. 2 in Second Appeal No. 1281 of 2004.2. I will be referring to the parties by their original nomenclature in the suit as plaintiff and defendants. Following substantial questions of law were formulated by Justice Kakade on 28.4.2004 :(1) Was it right and proper for the Courts below to consider the material fact that the earlier suit being R.C.S. No. 128 of 1990 was barred by limitation and therefore, under Section 27 of the Limitation Act, the respondent - plaintiff's right to institute a suit for possession of the property had extinguished?(2) Was it right and proper for the Courts below to hold that the present suit is not barred by limitation when the reliefs in earlier suit i.e. R. C. S....

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Through Divisional Traffi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR340; (2005)107BOMLR251; (2006)IILLJ283Bom; 2005(4)MhLj798

S.B. Mhase, J.1. These Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the common judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 3831 of 1995, 2441 of 1995, 2442 of 1995 and 5801 of 1999 and 1886 of 1997. The learned Single Judge has disposed of these writ petitions by a common judgment, because the common point had arisen for consideration. The matter pertains to the employees of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). The employees involved in these writ petitions are the cleaners engaged by the Corporation for cleaning the buses and other premises of the Corporation on piece rate basis during the shift. The Caste Tribe Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Union'.) is a registered Union under the Trade Unions Act and was functioning in the Corporation. The said Union had filed Complaint (ULP) No. 542 of 1991 and Complaint (ULP) No. 57...

Venus Steel, Products Through Its Proprietor Shri Jaime S. Lazaro Vs. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2006)BC5

N.A. Britto, J.1. Heard Shri Salkar, the learned counsel on behalf of the Applicant and Shri Pangam, the learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent No. 1.2. The applicant herein was accused in C.C. No. 207/N/96/F wherein he was convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The applicant having challenged the said conviction/sentence before the Sessions Court, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by his Order dated 17.1.2003 upheld the conviction but modified the sentence, in that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge directed the applicant/accused to undergo 10 days S.I. and pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- in default, to undergo 10 days S.I.3. The applicant filed a revision application before this Court, being Revision Application No. 8/03. As none appeared before this Court on behalf of the applicant on 20.2.04, 12.04.04 and 20.4.04, this Court proceeded to dismiss the Revision Application for non-prosecution on 21.4.04.4. The applicant has now invoke...

Mr. N. Dinakara Shetty, Assistant Manager, Vijaya Bank Vs. the Union o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR470; [2006(108)FLR85]

N.A. Britto, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner who is an employee of the respondent - Vijaya Bank seeks a direction against the said Bank to treat his application for voluntary retirement as withdrawn and to continue him in service and not to relieve him with effect from 31.5.01 and consequential benefits.2. The petitioner is an employee who joined respondent -Vijaya Bank on 2.7.1973 and in normal course was due to retire on 31.3.08. The petitioner was the Assistant Manager at the time of filing this petition.3. The said Bank is a body corporate governed under the provisions of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 and the service conditions between the petitioner and the said Bank arc governed by the Vijaya Bank (Officers) Service Regulations while the service conditions of the staff are governed by the awards made from time to time and by bipartite settlements.4. The respondent- Bank first introduced what is known as Vijaya Bank (Employees') Pensi...

Smt. Latabai Narcinha Telang, Widow of Narcinha Telang Vs. Shri Suresh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR389; 2006(1)MhLj440

A.P. Lavande, J.1. Heard Mrs. Agni, for the petitioner and Mr. Bhobe for respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 though served, is absent. Rule. Mr. Bhobe waives notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. By consent heard forthwith.2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges Order dated 16th June, 2004, passed by the Addl. District Judge, South - Goa at Margao. dismissing Civil Misc. Application No. 109 2002/II.3. Briefly, the facts which are relevant for disposal of this petition, are as follows :In Regular Civil Appeal No. 58/96, in which the petitioner was the appellant. consent terms were filed which were signed by both the parties and decree dated 3.7.1998 was passed by the Addl. District Judge. Margao, in terms of the consent terms filed. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 did not pay Rs. 500/- per month to the petitioner in terms of the consent terms The petitioner, therefore, issued notice dated 11.4.2004 calling upon respondent No. 1 to pay to the petitioner a sum of R...

Jayesh Pandya Vs. Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR725

Deshpande D.G., J.1. I had earlier framed two Issues as Preliminary Issues. They are :(1) Whether the suit is maintainable in view of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act; In the said order Section 67 was quoted. By consent it was corrected.(2) Whether the suit is maintainable in as much as the plaintiff has filed the present suit No. 2812 of 2001 without withdrawing his earlier Suit No. 1991/2000 for the same cause of action.2. I heard Advocate Mr. Sen, appearing for the plaintiff; Advocate Mr. Dhakephalkar, appearing for defendant No. 13; Advocate Mr. Sanjay Jain, appearing for defendant No. 22; and defendant No. 7 in person. Following is the background for raising the preliminary objections.Plaintiff Jayesh Pandya was the real estate broker. He was doing a business in the name of Pandya & Shah Associates. A partnership firm, in the name and style of M/s. Hetali Construction Company came to be formed in, 1992. One Ms. Jaikirti Mehta was a partner with 10% share; the plaintiff and...

Municipal Corporation of City of Amravati and anr. Vs. Vedant Security ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR369

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. Petitioner is local body constituted under the provisions of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) for Municipal Administration of Amravati town. Petitioner No. 2 is its Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Administration). Through this writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India they challenge the order dated 14-2-2005 passed by Second Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amravati in regular Civil Suit No. 62/2005 allowing application at exhibit 5 and the subsequent order dated 21-4-2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Amravati in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2005 upholding the said order of trial Court. By this order, the trial Court has restrained petitioners from acting upon tender notice published by them in the newspaper on 2-2-2005 inviting tenders for engagement of security guards till 30th April, 2006 or till disposal of main suit, whichever is earlier. The respondent is an establ...

Kenneth Khan Vs. Air India Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2005(107)FLR454]

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Two questions arise which are common to both these petitions and, therefore, both these petitions are being heard and decided together. The petitioners in these two petitions were working as pilots in Air India. The petitioner in the first petition, i.e. Writ Petition No. 78 of 2004, was the President of Indian Pilots Guild (IPG) at the relevant time, whereas the petitioner in the second petition, i.e. Writ Petition No. 205 of 2004 was its member.Following upon the spread of an epidemic known as SARS in South East Asia and the Iraq War in the Middle East, the two petitioners declined to operate the flights on account of a decision of this IPG. That led to the departmental enquiries against both of them by the Respondents. The date of retirement of both the petitioners was 31st December, 2003. The enquiries could not be completed till then for which both the parties hold each other responsible. The contention of both the petitioners was that they are workmen within th...

Shri Nitinbhai J. Patel and P.P. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 78,51,236 confirmed as differential duty on clearances of chewing tobacco during the period April 1999 to June, 2000 by M/s. P.P. Patel & Co. and penalty of equal amount under Sec.11A and penalty of Rs. One lakh under Rule 173Q(1) imposed on the company and penalty of Rs. One lakh on the Manager of the applicant company, we found that it was possible to hear and decide the appeals themselves at this stage and hence proceed to do so with the consent of both sides and after waiving pre-deposit.2. The case of the department in a nutshell is that the manufacturer of unbranded chewing tobacco cleared the entire quantity to their other unit and did not correctly value the goods for the reason that the assessable value was not correctly determined under Rule 6(b) of the Central Excise (Valuation)Rules 1975 read with Board's circular No.258/92/96-CX dtd 30.10.96.3. The contention of the assessee...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ebers Pharmaceuticals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT61Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Revenue's is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who has accepted the respondent's contention that the absence of show cause notice is fatal to the demand of differential duty.2. None appears for the respondents in spite of notice; hence we heard the Department Representative and perused the records. This is a case of provisional assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the Apex Court decision in Collector v. Kosan Metal Products (1988 38 ELT 573 (SC) holding that when excise duty has not been levied or paid or had been short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded, a demand for recovery of such amount must be made under Sec. 11A of the Central Excise Rules and not by short entry on the monthly RT. 12 return under Rule 173-I of the Central Excise Rules. However the Kosan Metal Products judgement is not in the context of provisions assessment. In the context of provisional assessment the decision of the Apex Court reported in...