Mumbai Court September 2005 Judgments

Thane Municipal Transport, Undertaking and Transport Manager, Thane Mu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR623; (2006)ILLJ874Bom

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. Rule. Mr. Oak waives service for the Respondent. By consent, Rule called out and heard forthwith.2. By this Petition, the judgment dated 14th March 2005 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane in Complaint (ULP) No. 457 of 2001, granting permanency to the members of the Respondent Union, has been challenged.3. The undisputed facts of the case are as follows:Petitioner No. 1 which is a transport undertaking functioning under the Thane Municipal Corporation employs more than 500 to 600 workmen as badli Drivers and Conductors. These workmen who were listed in Annexure 'A' to the Complaint filed before the Industrial Court have been working continuously for more than five years with the Petitioners and have admittedly rendered 240 days of continuous service. Since they were not accorded the status of permanent workmen, the Respondent Union filed a Complaint being Complaint (ULP) No. 457 of 2001 under Items 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trad...

Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Khandelwal Laboratories Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR92; 2006(1)BomCR292; 2005(31)PTC515(Bom)

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present notice of motion is taken out for interim reliefs in a suit for passing off. By prayer (a) of the motion it has been prayed that the defendant should be restrained by temporary order and injunction from manufacturing, selling, exhibiting for sale and advertising pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations under the trade mark CEFI or CEFI-DT or any other trade mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark CEFO, CEFO-P or CEFO-DT so as to pass off the defendant's pharmaceutical and medicinal preparation as if the same are pharmaceutical preparation of the plaintiff herein. 2. The present suit is filed on a passing off action under Section 27 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. It is the case of the plaintiff that sometime in or about December, 199 the plaintiff adopted a distinctive trade mark called CEFO for its use in relation to a medicinal and pharmaceutical preparation containing the drug 'Cefixime' to be marketed by the plaintiff. It ...

Abdul Rajtak Abdul Rehman Mulla and anr. Vs. Ibrahim Yusuf Lambe

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR472; 2006(1)BomCR214; 2006(1)MhLj107

S.A. Bobde, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 30-11-1992. By the impugned order, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has reversed the finding of the last Court of facts which had held that the respondent is not a tenant in proceedings under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.2. The matter has a long history and the MRT appears to have remanded the matter back to the fact finding authority on five occasions in the past. It is not necessary to go into that part of the history of the matter in detail.3. The relevant facts are as follows :--The petitioners are brothers. They are the sons of the original landlord Abdul Rehman Mulla who died in the year 1958 when they were about six years old. Their mother Jainabai re-married in 1961 and moved to another village. She has a sister Mariyam who is the mother of the respondent. 4. This matter relates to s...

G.J. Packaging Private Ltd. and anr. Vs. S.S. Sales and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)58; II(2007)BC472; 2006CriLJ214

S.P. Kukday, J.1. Heard.2. This application filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. impugns order dated 17-3-2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in SCC No. 344/ 2003 issuing process against the applicant for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred to as N.I. Act).3. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that Respondent No. 1 M/s S.S. Sales is a proprietary concern. Mrs. Swati Dilip Gandhi is the sole proprietress of the firm. The firm deals in craft papers and was supplying goods to petitioner No. 1 company - M/s G.J. Packaging Pvt. Ltd. situated at Sendhawa. Petitioner No. 2 and Shri. Ganesh Soni are the Directors of the petitioner No. 1 Resp. No. 1 was selling the goods to petitioner No. 1 on credit from time to time. On 4-12-2002, petitioners issued a cheque bearing No. 603865 drawn on State Bank of India, Indore branch for Rs. 13,52,132/- in favour of the Resp. No. 1 for payment of the dues. R...

Kaiki Rustomji Alpaiwalla and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR691; 2006(1)MhLj522

V.M. Kanade, J.1. Both these Writ Petitions can be disposed of by common Judgment since common question of law is involved in both the petitions.2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the Writ petitions are as under;Two flats owned by the petitioners were requisitioned by Order dated 14-6-1950 and they were allotted to respondent No. 2 in both the petitions by order dated 1-12-1959. Pursuant to the said order of allotment, respondent No. 2 in each Writ Petition continued to occupy the said flats. The Supreme Court in the case of Grahak Sanstha Manch and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra reported in : [1994]3SCR746 , directed Government to de-requisition the premises and hand over possession to the owners. In view of the said judgment of the Supreme Court the petitioners filed aforesaid two Writ Petitions for quashing the order of requisition passed by the respondent and also sought direction that the possession of the flats be restored. During the pendency of petition, the Stat...

Sunil S/O Manikrao Aparadhe Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR207; 2006(2)MhLj185

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule, made returnable forthwith by the consent of the parties.2. Heard Mr. Rajeev Madkholkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. T.R. Kankale, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. A. J. Thakkar, learned Counsel for the intervener.3. The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 17-8-2005 issued by the Collector in exercise of power under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipalities, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Township Act, 1965 (for short, Municipalities Act) whereby resolution No. 7 passed in the General Body of Municipal Council, Akot dated 17-5-2005 granting approval to the tender for repairs and maintenance of street light, tender for electrification under the Integrated Urban Development Scheme and tender for lifting debris, etc. was set aside/cancelled.4. Mr. Madkholkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order primarily on the ground that the Collector does not have either powe...

Cce Vs. Electrolux Voltas Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The lower appellate authority has decided that after-sales service charges for four years being optional cannot be included for the purpose of valuation while determining MRP under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. We are of the view that the said decision is legal and correct and hence, the Department's appeal is rejected....

Nagpur Transwell Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aluminium and alloy conductors, falling under Chapter 76 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Their factory was visited by the Central Excise Officers on 25-2-2003, who conducted various checks and verifications and as a result, stock of finished goods as also raw material was found to be in excess and short than the recorded balance. After recording statements of various persons, proceedings were initiated for confiscation of the goods as also for imposition of penalty and for confirmation of demand of duty on the short found inputs.2. The Assistant Commissioner, vide his order confirmed the duty in respect of short found inputs, confiscated the excess found final products with an option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 3,34,748/-. He also imposed personal penalty equivalent to duty involved on shortages of inputs. On appeal against the above order, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the ...

Parasrampuria Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Bom)143; [2006]282ITR110(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 21st September, 1993 passed by the appropriate authority under Section 269UD(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By the said order, the appropriate authority has held that the apparent consideration in respect of the property agreed to be sold by the petitioners to the respondent No. 5 was less than the market value by 15% or more and accordingly ordered pre-emptive purchase of the said flat.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a Private Limited Company carrying on business as builders and contractors. The petitioner No. 2 is a director and shareholder of the petitioner No. 1 company. By an agreement dated June 7, 1993 the petitioners agreed to sell to the respondent No. 5 a flat admeasuring 1112 square feet bearing No. 1102/1202 in Parasrampuria Tower No. 6, Oshiwara Village, Near Millat Nagar, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Bombay - 400 058 for a lumpsum price of Rs. 28,56,000/-. Admittedly, the said building was under constructi...

Spaco Carburettors India Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under the Compani ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR665; (2005)199CTR(Bom)598; [2006]284ITR611(Bom); 2005(4)MhLj1087

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The short point raised in this petition is whether the assessing officer after issuance of notice for regular assessment under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was justified in issuing intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 2. The assessment year relevant for the present petition is 1989-1990.3. On December 29, 1989 the petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') filed its return of income for AY 1989-90 inter alia claiming deduction of Rs. 1,01,15,244/- being the expenditure on acquiring technical know-how as revenue expenditure. An intimation under Section 143(1)(a) was issued by the assessing officer on April 16, 1990 accepting the return.4. The said intimation was rectified by the assessing officer under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act by disallowing the expenditure on technical know-how on the ground that the same is capitalised. Thereupon, the assessee on March 26, 1991 filed revised return seeking reduction...