Mumbai Court August 2005 Judgments

Subhash K. Thakkar Vs. Sqn. Ldr. Rushad Dinshaw and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR90; 2005(4)MhLj353

B.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. This Civil Revision Application filed under Section 115 of the C.P.C. brings in question the legality and correctness of the Decree of eviction passed by the Competent Authority, Konkan Division, Mumbai on 2/8/1996 in Case No. 1 of 1994 arising out of an application submitted by the joint landlords under Section 13A(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short 'the Bombay Rent Act').2. The brief facts, not in dispute, are as under:- One Mrs. Piloo Irani, who was a member and share holder of Bakhtavar Co-operative Housing Society, was the owner of Flat No. 72 located on the 7th Floor of the building known as 'Sherman', situated in the said Co-operative Society and admeasuring about 1235 sq.ft. By an agreement of lease dated 1/8/1967 the said flat was leased out to the petitioners, who are real brothers, on a monthly rent of Rs. 900/-. On the same day another agreement was executed between the petitioner No. 1 and the landlad...

Shri Nariman Hormusji (Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs and Repr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR506; (2005)107BOMLR108

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Both these Writ Petitions are arising out of a common judgment and order passed by the Additional Chief Judge of small Causes Court (for short 'Appellate Court') at Bombay dated 28th September, 1993, whereby, both the Appeals filed by the common petitioners/heirs of the original petitioner - paying quest - in both these Writ Petitions have been dismissed and confirmed the common judgment and order passed by the Small Causes Court (for short 'Trial Court') and resultantly dismissed the Declaratory Suit No. 1590/5450 of 1974 filed by the petitioners and confirmed the suit for possession filed by the respondent-owner (now deceased) [for short 'the respondent-owner']. Therefore, these two separate Writ Petitions by the common petitioners (heirs) against common respondents (heirs).2. The premises is a flat on the second floor of Bhiwandi House standing at 92, August Kranti Marg, Bombay - 400026, which consists of a hall and three bed 'rooms, a kitchen, bathrooms and WCs...

Suresh Bhavanishankar Pejawar (Since Deceased Through Heirs Sucheta Su ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR401; (2005)107BOMLR123; 2006(3)MhLj97

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Petitioner-plaintiff has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and sought to challenge the proceedings of the Courts below as the case, as contemplated under the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short 'The Bombay Rent Act') was dismissed by the Appellate Court i.e. The Small Causes Court at Bombay. Therefore, the present Writ Petition.2. Heard Mr. Chetan Agarwal, counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rajesh Patil, counsel for the respondent. The main submission raised in the present Writ Petition is based on the Additional Affidavit filed on record which is dated 16th July, 2005, the averments wherein are as fallows:'7. I say that our mother shifted to Anandadham (Senior Citizen Home), Jambulpada, Tq. Sudhagad, Dist Raigad on 6th December 1977 all though the own premises was there i.e. suit flat. I say that our mother was residing in the said Old Age Home till 25/06/2005. I further say that on 25th June 2005 we brought her t...

Vishwanath Govind Lagu Vs. Smt. Usha Laxman Barve

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR359; (2005)107BOMLR30

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The Petitioner-tenant has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and sought to challenge the judgment and order dated 23rd July 1997, passed by the Additional District Judge, Palghar (for short 'Appellate Court'), whereby, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 113 of 1987 dated 6th July, 1993, was set aside and the respondent-landlord's suit for possession on the ground of securing alternative accommodation by the tenant as contemplated under Section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short 'The Bombay Rent Act') has been allowed. Therefore, the present Writ Petition.2. Since 1963, the petitioner-tenant is in occupation of one room admeasuring 7' X 10'. As it was difficult for the petitioner to accommodate all five of his family members, he acquired another premises of two rooms specially for the education and residence of his son and daughter near the suit premises, on rent. The...

Taparia Tools Limited Vs. Ambica Overseas and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(31)PTC257(Bom)

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed present suit claiming perpetual injunction in the following terms:(a) that the Defendants by themselves, their servants and agents be restrained by a perpetual order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from in any manner applying or causing to be applied in relation to wrenches and pliers or any other goods contained in Class 01 of the Fourth Schedule of the Designs Act, 1911 (now repealed and substituted by the Designs Act, 2000) and Rules thereunder, the designs described in Exhibits C and E to the Plaint or any other design which is identical to or deceptively similar to or a fraudulent imitation of the Plaintiffs registered designs Nos. 167097 and 178415 in Class 01 described in Exhibits A-1 and B-1 to the plaint, so as to pirate the Plaintiffs registered design Nos. 167097 and 178415 in Class 01 or from doing anything with a view to enable the Plaintiffs design Nos. 167097 and 178415 from being pirated;(b) that the Defendants by ...

Wardhaman Samjibhai Dharamsi and anr. Vs. Bank of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR218; 2006(1)BomCR394

Rebello F.I., J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The main issue which arises in this petition is as under :Is a secured creditor entitled to move under the provisions of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'Securitisation Act'), if proceedings have already been initiated and are pending under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'R.D.B. Act')' and without withdrawing those proceedings. 3. To answer the issue, a few facts may be set out. The respondent bank has initiated proceedings under the R.D.B. Act bearing O.A. No. 254 of 2001. Petitioner No. 1 is guarantor and petitioner No. 2 is principal Debtor. The proceedings are pending before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as 'D.R.T.'). The case of petitioner No. 1 is that he has specifically taken a stand in the proceedings bearing O.A. No. 254 ...

Shalini Ballikar and ors. Vs. Aidem Naique

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR935; 2006(2)BomCR199

Kanade V.M., J.1. The appellants are the original defendants. The respondent/original plaintiff filed a Suit bearing No. 97/86 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Margao for a declaration that the marriage of appellant No. 1 with late Raju Shamu Naique solemnized on 11th June, 1981 is null and void and for a consequential direction to the Civil Registrar of Selected and Margao to cancel the said marriage registered under No. 629 in the marriage Registration Book of the year 1981 and also for a declaration that the legitimisation of the illegitimate children from this marriage is null and void. The appellants herein/original defendants contested the suit. The trial Court was pleased to dismiss the suit including the counter claim filed by the appellant No. 1. Against the said Judgment and order, the respondent/plaintiff filed an Appeal bearing No. 73/1998 in the Court of the Addl. District Judge, Margao who by his Judgment and order dated 1st December, 1999 and Decree dated ...

Khandelwal Tube Mill Kamgar Sangh Vs. Government of Maharashtra and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2006(108)FLR605]; (2006)IILLJ331Bom

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The Apex Court by order dated August 5, 2004 has remitted the matter to this Court from an appeal which was filed against the order dated August 5, 2003. The matter has been remitted for deciding the inter se priority of dues of the workers and the Bank. Punjab National Bank had advanced monies to the Company under liquidation. Those amounts are now sought to be claimed by respondent No. 5, Asset Reconstructions Company (India) Limited. It is the contention of respondent No. 5 that the property which has been sold pursuant to notice issued under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Securitisation Act) was mortgaged in their favour and charge was registered under the Companies Act and, therefore, they are secured creditors. In the notice served under Section 13 of the Securitisation Act the amount claimed was in the sum of Rs. 4.66 crores. The workmen of the C...

Commissioner of Customs (Export) Vs. V.V.F. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT357Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Revenue is in appeal. The Respondents had imported and cleared stainless steel plates, Sections meeting the dimensions as endorsed on their EPGC Licence. These plates were marked as components bearing markings "C-10 Column" of distillation plant of the Fatty Acid. The respondents are in the manufacture and export of soap etc. & require a Fatty Acid Distillation Plant. The lower appellate authority has allowed the coverage of the imports made under EPGC Notification No.29/97-Cus, which, on a perusal, shows that capital goods in SKD/CKD condition, as in the instant case, to be assembled into capital goods by the importer and are components of capital goods required for assembly or manufacture of the capital goods i.e. Fatty Acid Column by the appellants are imported and required for maintenance of capital goods so imported, assembled or manufactured. There is no doubt that stainless steel plates of specified size marked as components of C-10 column of a Fatty Acid Plant, which wo...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Equity Bearing Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

These two appeals are departmental appeals filed in the year 2000. The respondents are not present. Heard Shri N.V.B. Nair, learned J.D.R.appearing for the Department. The respondents were penalised on the ground that unrecorded stock were found on verification and the stock was also confiscated. However, on appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the following order :- I find that in the present case the goods have been seized and subsequently confiscated only for the reason that the appellant did not account for the excisable final product in the simple records showing the production and clearance. The appellants unit is a SSI unit, thereby, they are exempted from maintaining any statutory records and registers, which otherwise a manufacturer is required to maintain, however, the provisions have been made making it obligatory on their part to maintain simple record showing production and clearance, which admittedly the appellants have failed to maintain. Be it as it may, this i...