Mumbai Court August 2005 Judgments

Riyaz Alias Ahemad S/O Jameel and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)MhLj299

S.P. Kukday, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. Learned APP waives service for respondents.This is one more example of violation of the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.2. The petitioners are students having their residence in Kuccharwata locality of old Jalna. On 27-3-2005 while they were going to the mosque for offering prayers at about 8.00 p.m., respondent No. 4 and 5 arrested and brought them to Kadim Police Station. At the police station, petitioner No. 1 was maltreated at the instance of P.I. Chandansingh Rajput. No information regarding their arrest was given to the petitioners. On getting information regarding incarceration of the petitioners, their parents had come to the police station, but they were asked to come to Tahsil office on the next day with necessary documents for furnishing surety such as 7/12 extracts. All the three petitioners were searched. Hundred-rupee note found with petitioner No. 3 wa...

Eurokids International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. India Book Distributors Egmont Bo ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR198

Dharmadhikari S.C., J.1. This Notice of Motion is taken out for following reliefs :a. that pending the hearing and final disposal of the present suit the Defendant No. 1 their servants, representatives, agents, distributors, dealers and employees be directed by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court to deliver-up to defendant No. 2 or the Plaintiffs as Defendant No. 2's exclusive licensee, all copies of the impugned TinTin Books and to certify the same in writing to this Hon'ble Court and to the plaintiff ;b. that pending the hearing and final disposal of the present suit the defendant No. 1 their servants, representatives, agents, distributors, dealers and employees be restrained by a temporary order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from in any manner whatsoever importing, distributing or selling TinTin books in India ;c. that pending the hearing and final disposal of the present suit the defendant No. 1 their servants, representatives, agents, distributors, dealers and emp...

Maharashtra Government Polytechnic Teachers Welfare Association and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR689; 2006(1)MhLj227

S.P. Kukday, J.1. Rule, made returnable forthwith with the consent of parties. Shri V. A. Gangal, learned Special Counsel waives service for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are formal parties. Shri Shelke, learned Counsel waives service for respondent No. 5.In this petition, the petitioners have impugned the order dated 9th March, 2005, passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad, in Original Application No. 920/2004, thereby rejecting Original Application filed for quashing the Government Resolution dated 9-9-2004 bifurcating the cadre of Maharashtra Engineering Teachers and Administrative Services Group-A.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that initially there was a single cadre of Maharashtra Engineering Teachers Services, comprising of teachers from the engineering college, polytechnics and administrative cadre. The pay scales prescribed by University Grants Commission were made applicable to the teachers qualified for teaching i...

Smt. Savitri Poto Gaonkar Widow of Poto Mono Gaonkar, Master Manohar P ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom111; 2006(1)BomCR802; (2006)108BOMLR280

V.M. Kanade, J. 1. The appellants are the original plaintiffs and the respondents are the original defendants. The appellants are challenging the judgment and order passed by both the lower Courts dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs on the preliminary issue by holding that the suit is not maintainable being barred by Rule (92)(3) of Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code. The second appeal was admitted on 04/02/2000 and an ad-interim relief was granted in Civil Application No. 172 of 1997. The second appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law formulated in para 2 of the Appeal Memo which are reproduced hereinbelow: 1. Whether the property which is neither the subject matter of execution application or attachment order, nor proclamation of sale and which is factually not auctioned at all in the court auction, and which is also not referred to in minutes of auction can be included for the purpose of issuing of certificate at the time of the confirmation of sale? 2. Whether ...

Maharashtra Kamgar Sangharsh Samiti and anr. Vs. Horizon, the Beach Ho ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2006(109)FLR392]; 2006(2)MhLj87

D.G. Karnaik, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners challenges the judgment and order dated 28th February 2002 passed by the learned Member Industrial Court, Mumbai dismissing their complaint bearing ULP No. 405 of 2000 as not maintainable. The facts giving rise to the petition are summarised below :--2. Respondent No. 1 runs a hotel by name Horizon Beach Hotel at Juhu, Mumbai. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the directors of the respondent No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 is one of the employees of respondent No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 is a trade union which claims to represent the workmen of the respondent No. 1. The claim, as can be seen later, is disputed by the respondents.3. In June 1999, the industrial relations between the management of the respondent No. 1 and its workmen became strained. According to the respondent No. 1 on or about 17th June 1999, the workmen resorted to an illegal strike, while according to the workmen it was the management that was preventing the workmen from attendin...

Hari Shankar and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants herein had imported steel measuring tapes seeking clearance under OGL which was not accepted as the goods were consumer goods requiring a valid import licence to cover their import. The goods were, therefore, confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act 1962 with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine, and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed upon them under Section 112 of the Act vide Order-in-Original dated 2.3.95. The appellants filed an appeal before the commissioner (Appeals); the department also filed appeal seeking enhancement of fine and penalty, and vide Order-in-Original dated 20.11.96 the appeal of the importers was rejected and the department's appeal was allowed by way of remand. The importers filed an appeal before the Tribunal which by its order No. C-IV/1339/WZB/03 dated 25.12.03 remanded the case for re-determining the issue as to whether the goods are consumer goods in addition to the issue of fine and penalty. The Jt. Commissione...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. G.R. Ispat Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed by the Department. Heard Shri U.H. Jadhav, learned JDR for the Department. None is present for the respondent.There is an adjournment request from the respondent, which is rejected as the miscellaneous application and the appeal can be decided without their presence.2. After hearing the learned JDR and perusal of the case records, we allow the early hearing application and proceed to decide the appeal.The department's appeal is mainly on the ground that mandatory penalty equal to duty of Rs. 30,62,219/- should have been imposed, whereas only Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed under the impugned order. This appeal has been filed pursuant to review order dated 21-9-2004 passed by the Board. The adjudicating Commissioner has clearly given reasons in the impugned order as to why he has taken a lenient view in the circumstances of this particular case and has imposed a token penalty.One of the reasons recorded by him is that there was no production on account of non-s...

Jog Engineering Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The benefit of exemption in terms of Notification 23/98-Cus. has been denied to the appellant herein on the Concrete Weigh Batching Plant imported for using in the construction of Mumbai - Pune Express High on the ground that the contract is awarded by Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited (MSRDC) and not by the Public Works Department of the State Government as per the Condition No.74(a)(ii) of the Notification. Hence this appeal by the importer.2. We have heard both sides. We find that PWD has certified on 2-11-88 that they have awarded the contract for the construction of Mumbai - Pune Express Highway through MSRDC to the appellant herein. Therefore, Condition No. 74 of the Notification stands satisfied in favour of the appellant and the benefit of exemption under the said Notification is to be held to be available to appellant. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner, which is holding that the exemption is not available to the appellant...

Vip Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (E.P.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT240Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Commissioner of Customs has confiscated the goods "Pu Portfolio Computer case and Pu Briefcase on the ground that the country of origin has not been indicated on the goods, but this is only on the cartons for packing of the goods, which is contrary to the conditions in terms of Notification issued under Section 117 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The importer is in appeal against such action.2. We have heard both sides and referred to the notification in question and schedule thereto. We find that Part-I of the schedule deals with the goods made or manufactured or produced beyond the limit of India and imported into India [and is therefore relevant for this goods] and Serial No. 26 thereof covers all imported goods, which are specifically described in Serial 1 to 25 of the schedule. The goods in question are not specifically described in Serial No. 1 to 25 and therefore, it is Serial No. 26 which is relevant. As per Serial No. 26, the indication of the country of ...

Nivrutti Bala Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ199

R.C. Chavan, J.1. By this appeal, appellant challenges his conviction for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Penal Code and the sentence of imprisonment for life inflicted upon him.2. Appellant and his wife came to be prosecuted for setting their son-in-law on fire and causing his death at 1.00 a.m. on 5/7/1996. The victim Babasaheb and appellant's daughter Shobha were residing with their children in one of the rooms of the appellant's house. Babasaheb was addicted to liquor and used to pick up quarrels. Even on the night of 4/7/1996, at about 9.00 p.m., deceased Babasaheb quarrelled with his wife. It is the prosecution case that the appellant and his wife poured kerosene on Babasaheb when he was asleep and set him on fire. The flames made Babasaheb wake up. He found his parents-in-law standing by his side. He screamed and ran out of the house. His wife Shobha extinguished the flames. He was then taken to hospital where he succumbed to his injuries at about 10.00 a.m. on 5...