Mumbai Court June 2005 Judgments

Bhaktawar LentIn and ors. Vs. Mrs. Lyla Darius Jehangir and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR822

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present Notice of Motion has been taken out by the applicant who is the legatee under the Last Will and Testament dt. 21.04.1989 of one Mr. Pilloo Ghaswalla. The petitioners in the present petition are the executors of the said will. The respondent No. 1 is the mother of the applicant. Respondent No. 2 is the aunt of the applicant and respondent No. 3 and 4 are joined as proper party namely the respective banks against whom certain directions are sought by the applicant.2. By the present motion applicant is seeking direction from this court against respondent No. 3 to pay over to the applicant a sum of Rs.1,27,00,923.63 forming part of two Fixed Deposits lying with them and belonging to the deceased. The applicant is also seeking direction for sum of Rs. 15,50,000/- kept in Fixed Deposit with the said Bank of Baroda be paid over to her with accrued interest. Thus, by prayer (a) of the motion, aforesaid two sums are claimed by the applicant to be paid over to her w...

Smt. Trivedibai Kashinath Gulave and Shri Mallikarjun Kashinath Gulave ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR860; 2005(5)BomCR126; 2005(3)MhLj970

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The foundation of this litigation is the relationship of the landlord and tenant. Petitioners-tenants, being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of fact by both the Courts below, have preferred the present Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and, thereby, questioned the impugned judgment dated 21st August, 1988.2. The petitioners are in occupation of the Suit premises which consists of two rooms. They are doing business of grocery shop in the front portion of the said premises since 1963. The back portion of the said premises itself provides the facilities of bathroom and other amenities. Since the day of the inception of the tenancy, they are occupying and using the small portion of said premises for the residential purpose. Respondents-landlord, a Cooperative Society (for short 'Society') constituted under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, without any demur or objection, allowed the petitioners-tenants to use and occupy the said...

Indian Hotels Co. Limited, a company Incorporated under the Companies ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR163; [2005(107)FLR773]

R.M. Lodha, J.1. The first petitioner is the owner of the hotels known as Taj Mahal Hotel and Taj Mahal Intercontinental situated at Apollo Bunder, Mumbai. The second petitioner is the shareholder of the first petitioner company. The first petitioner is a commercial establishment and is covered by The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act of 1948'). The petitioner's case is that the first petitioner is regularly paying the ESI contribution for and on behalf of his employees. On or about 24.06.1985 the first petitioner entered into a settlement with the Union representing its workmen. By this settlement the first petitioner agreed to give a further sum of Rs. 500/- per month to each employee as and by way of Attendance Linked Incentive (for short 'ALI'). The said settlement became operative w.e.f. the month of April, 1985. The first petitioner averred that in or about the month of December, 1986 it was realised for the first time that 1029 employees were possibly not ...

Shri Gopal Vishnu Gaude Through His Attorney Shri Vishnu Gopal Gaude V ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR385

V.M. Kanade, J.1. The Appellant is the Original Defendant. The Appellant has filed this Second Appeal challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sattari at Valpoi, Goa, in Regular Civil Suit No. 63 of 1978 who was pleased to decree the suit filed by the Respondents which decree was confirmed by the Additional District Judge at Panaji by Judgment and Decree dated 17-12-1994. When the Second Appeal came up for admission on 4-7-1996, the learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to admit this Second Appeal by framing two substantial questions of law, namely (1) Whether the documents relied upon by the parties have been misconstrued vis-a-vis identification of the suit property and (2) Whether the Courts did not address to the question of adverse possession with reference to the concept of possession under the Portuguese law which need not necessarily be to the knowledge of the owner?2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has su...

Chetna W/O Rajendra Tank Vs. Committee for Scrutiny of Caste Certifica ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR280; 2005(6)BomCR920; 2005(4)MhLj711

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is domiciled in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner was born on 14th August, 1968 at Chakradharpur in the State of Bihar and was educated at Tahsil Harda, Distt. Hoshangabad in the State of Madhya Pradesh. On 17-6-1990, she got married to Mr. Rajendra Tank domiciled in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner belongs to 'Gujar-Kadiya (Gurjar)' caste, which is recognized as Other Backward Class in the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as in the State of Maharashtra and is included at Serial No. 28 in the list of recognized Backward Classes published in the State of Madhya Pradesh in the Official Gazette on 8-2-1985. By the resolution dated 13th October, 1967 read with resolution dated 1st January, 2001, the State of Maharashtra has also included caste 'Gujar' in the list of recognized Other Backward Class categories as per the pleadings. The petitioner contested the elections to Nagpur Municipal Cor...

C. Ramakant Naidu Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR183

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. The petitioner a retired employee of the respondents seeks benefit of General Order No. 74 with consequential benefits of release thereof from 1-6-1982, along with interest. The said General Order 74, makes a provisions for grant of benefit of next higher grade in view of the stagnation after six years of service on lower post.2. Admittedly, the petitioner has retired on superannuation on 31-5-1990 and at that time he was working as Assistant Accountant at Koradi Thermal Power Station, near Nagpur. His employer is Maharashtra State Electricity Board. The petitioner was initially appointed as L.D.C. in the then Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board from 25-03-1955, and after the re-organization of States, the petitioner came on establishment of Maharashtra State Electricity Board. The petitioner got promotion as Upper Division Clerk on 30-8-1961 and in 1975, the respondent effected certain promotions to next higher post i.e. of Assistant Accountant. The petitio...

Janardan S/O Ramchandra Bute Vs. Ganapati Devasthan

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR592; 2006(2)MhLj181

S.T. Kharche, J.1. Heard Mr. Bhuibhar, learned Counsel, for the appellant and Mr. Sandeep Marathe, learned Counsel, for the respondent finally.2. This second appeal has been filed by the original defendant challenging the judgment dated 17-2-2005 and decree passed by the learned District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 89 of 2001 whereby the judgment dated 3-4-2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., in Special Civil Suit No. 275 of 1996 has been set aside.3. The learned Counsel for the defendant contended that the trial Court has rightly decreed the counter-claim of the defendant directing the plaintiff to execute the sale-deed of the suit field in favour of the defendant after obtaining necessary permission from the Charity Commissioner by receiving the balance amount of consideration of Rs. 7,500/- with further direction to the plaintiff to apply to the Charity Commissioner within one month from the date of the decree. He contended that the appellate Court has committed an...

Ank Seals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant's refund claim has been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), by following the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Flock India Ltd. on the ground that there was no challenge to the assessment order and, as such, refund claim cannot be entertained. However, I find that the ratio of the said decision is not applicable, inasmuch as there was no list between the parties on any point of law. The refund has arisen as a result of simple arithmetic calculation, inasmuch as instead of applying the exchange rate for Austrian Schillings, the exchange rate for Australian Dollars was taken into account and duty calculated accordingly. In such a situation, the provisions of Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 will apply. For ready reference, the same are reproduced below - Clerical or arithmetic mistakes in any decision or order passed by the Central Government, the Board or any officer of Customs under the Act, or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or o...

Jerry Varghese Construction Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who has dismissed the appeal filed before him, against the order of the Asstt. Commissioner who confirmed the demand of Rs. 67,786/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/-, on the ground of time-bar.2. None appears for the appellants in spite of notice: hence we heard the ld. DR and perused the records. We find that the only reason given for the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was that the resident Engineer of the appellant company who was handling the excise matter was transferred to Jamnagar and the papers relating to the appeal was misplaced in transit and mixed up with some construction file. This reason was not found sufficient by the lower Appellate Authority for condoning the delay. We agree that the above does not constitute satisfactory explanation for the delay in preferring the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). We, therefore, see no reason to interfer...

Jay Iron and Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT723Tri(Mum.)bai

2. Issue is demands consequent to the abatement claimed for the period 2.9.99 to 14.1.2000 on account of a transformer burn cut restored was rejected on account of redemption notice having been delayed and filed only on 17.1.2000 when 15.1.2000 was a Saturday and 16.1.2000 a Sunday and the Commissioner's finding that the same could have been filed on 15.1.2000 in the Control Room of his office which is said to be operational 24 hours 7 days a week, the condonation of effecting the same on 17.1.2000 was not condoned.3. On a perusal of rule 96ZO(2) it is apparent that no such Control Room of Commissioner is mentioned as the office where the intimation was required to be filed, it mentioning an Assistant Commissioner and copy to Range Superintendent. Prima facie the Commissioner's reasoning cannot be upheld and full waiver of pre deposit and stay is required to be ordered and granted....