Mumbai Court September 2005 Judgments

Mr. A.R. Khan Construwell and Co. Vs. Youth Education and Welfare Soci ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR511; 2006(1)BomCR170; (2005)107BOMLR231; 2006(2)MhLj595

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. These three LPAs are concerned with an immovable property of the first Respondent bearing Survey No. 643-b corresponding to CTS No. 614-b or final Plot No. 127 and PTR No. F/1892/at Nasik admeasuring 40 gunthas which is a Charitable Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 (for brevity the Act is referred to hereinafter or the BPT Act). The first Respondent Trust has obtained the said property upon transfer from a previous trust Anjuman Khairul Islam to whom it was transferred by one Muslim Education Society, Nashik which was granted the said property under a State Government Sanad dated 9th February, 1934. As per the terms of the Sanad a structure consisting of 12 rooms has been constructed. The property was required to be used as a hostel for muslim boys. 2. The said Muslim Education Society, Nashik was dissolved under a resolution passed on 29th July, 1973 under which its properties came to be transferred to one Anjuman C. Khairul Islam, Bombay wit...

Annappa Satu Mane Vs. Tajani Balu Shinde and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR975; 2006(1)BomCR264; (2005)107BOMLR218; 2006(1)MhLj333

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The dispute in the present case arises in the context of the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act 1958. The Act received the assent of the President on 14th January, 1959 and was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette on 20th January, 1959. 2. Certain lands bearing Survey No. 365/1 to 6, 366/1 to 4 and 367/1 to 4, admeasuring 10 acres and 31 gunthas and situated in village Manerajuri, were originally inferior village Watan-Service Inam lands of Class-VI. On 21st April, 1905, these lands were allotted by an order of Raosaheb, State Karbhari of the then State of Ichalkaranji to one Shripati Sakharam Shinde, the grandfather of the First Respondent. These lands were allotted as a Service Inam for rendering service as a peon at the village Chawdi. Shripati Shinde expired in 1939 and thereafter, the name of Balu Shripati Shinde, the father of the First Respondent came to be recorded. Balu Shinde did not report for duty and the lands came to be forfeite...

Maharashtra Rajya Shetki Mahamandal Karmachari Sanghatna Vs. M.D., Mah ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR524; 2006(2)BomCR622; [2006(109)FLR59]; 2006(1)MhLj223

B.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. This petition arises from the judgment and order dated 25th February, 1994 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court at Maharashtra at Pune dismissing complaint (ULP) No. 128 of 1991. The said complaint was filed by the petitioner Sanghatna union on behalf of the employee of the respondent Corporation and working in the head office at Pune. It was a complaint under Item 9 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') and it was contended that the respondent employer failed to implement the G.R. dated 1st October, 1988 and this failure amounted to an act of unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. As per the complaint, the employees at the head office of the respondent Corporation are entitled for the pay scale and other monetary benefits as applicable to the State Government employees. A revision made in the pay scales pursuant to...

Mohammad Afsar S/O Mohammad Samsher and ors. Vs. Khurshidbano Wd/O Moh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR679; 2006(1)MhLj331

A.H. Joshi, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. Heard finally.2. This is a petition by Original Defendant Nos. 1, and 3 to 6.3. Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 filed an application (Exh.176) seeking permission for production of certified copies of oral evidence of late Hajrabee widow of Mohammed Samsher recorded in Regular Civil Suit No. 81 of 1982.4. By application (Exh.177), they prayed for admitting the deposition in evidence. They claimed that earlier Suit No. 81 of 1982 was between the same parties. It is admitted that the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 81 of 1982, was challenged in appeal, and the decree passed in appeal is a subject-matter of Second Appeal. Thus, the judgment and Decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 81 of 1982 has yet to reach finality.5. It is on this ground, the plaintiff and defendant No. 8 have resisted the application of defendant Nos. 1 to 6 at Exh.177.6. Learned Advocate Shri Bhide placed reliance on reported Judgment of Ho...

Shaikh Mohobulla S/O Noor Mohammad Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)MhLj251

J.N. Patel, J.1. The petitioner is a convict, who has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court for his release mainly on the ground that he has already undergone the sentence imposed by the trial Court.2. The petitioner came to be convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, vide his judgment and order dated 31-7-1987 for having committed offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default, to undergo further RI for two months.3. The case of the petitioner was examined by the State Government in the light of Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he was placed in category 3(b) of the Guidelines for premature release under the '14-Year Rule' of Prisoners serving life sentence after 18th December, 1978, which provides that the total term of imprisonment, which the prisoner is required to undergo, was 24 years.4. Shri Jaiswal, the learned counsel for the p...

Cosmopolitan Co-operative Housing Society and ors. Vs. Special Land Ac ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR479; 2006(1)BomCR743

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Both the appeals, the Appeal No. 575/95 filed by the claimant and No. 817/94 filed by the State arise from the award dated 09/07/ 1993 passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference No. 145 of 1986 and involves a common question of law and facts, and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The claimant is the Housing Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 since 1965. The land in question comprises of various survey numbers situated adjoining each other on the Western side of Mumbai-Pune National High Way abutting on the western side of the Mumbai-Pune National High Way No.4. After the purchase of the said land, it was developed by the claimant by preparing necessary lay out plan of the property, demarcating boundaries as also by filling up with earth wherever necessary and by demarcation of plots and road. The development had commenced in the year 1965 and continu...

Vishnum Shankar Naik Vs. Ananta Ayu Naik (Deceased) Legal Heirs and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR571; 2006(1)BomCR654

Britto N.A., J.1. This is plaintiffs second appeal arising from R.C.S. No. 10/76 and was admitted on 3 substantial questions of law by virtue of Order of this Court dated 5-7-2001. Question No. 2 on which arguments have been advanced on behalf of both the parties reads as follows:Whether the Additional District Court could have ignored that the declaration in Order dated 21.9.98 in Tenancy Case No.9/94, declaring the appellant to be a tenant in respect of the suit property when the said Judgment might have attained finality and was not challenged by the respondents who were the parties to the proceedings in which the said Judgment and Order was passed.2. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the said Civil Suit. The dispute between both the parties was regarding a property belonging to Vassant Gangadhar Sinai Kenkre and others known as 'Jacobichem Bhat' and surveyed under Nos. 6/2 and 16/ 0 of village Bhoma. The plaintiff claimed to b...

Shivanath Baburao Walke Vs. Miss Flora D'Souza

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom87; 2006(3)ALLMR227

N.A. Britto, J.1. This is plaintiff's second appeal arising from Special Civil Suit No. 388/89/A and was admitted on several substantial questions, one of which reads as follows :3. Whether the Appellate Court committed illegality in overlooking that failure of the Respondent to prove Issue No. 2 which was in rebuttal would pave way for suit being decreed based on the documentary evidence?2. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose of this second appeal and the parties hereto shall be referred to in their names as they appear in the cause title of the said Civil Suit.3. There is no dispute that the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant dated 26-9-1986 agreeing to sell to the plaintiff the defendant's property known as 'ARADI OF PEDEM GRANDE' having Chalta No. 17 of P.T. Sheet No. 78 of City Survey of Mapusa on terms and conditions mentioned in the said agreement. In addition to the said agreement of sale, the defendant also executed a general Power of Attorney o...

Lockwood Industrial and Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The Dy. Commissioner (ST) has confirmed the interest amount of Rs. 2,066/- under Section 75 of the Central Excise Rules and the amount already paid as provided against interest. Further, he imposed penalty of Rs. 40,400/- under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. Further, a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was also imposed towards penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.3. The appellant's main contention is that they do not come under the net work of Service Tax. The amount totally payable under the impugned order is less than Rs. 45,000/-. Secondly, the impugned order is non-speaking one and there are no mala fide intention on their part in delaying the payment. The appellants rely upon the case law of CCE, Mumbai v. Top Detective & Security Services Pvt. Ltd. . It is held in this case that Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 are not mandatory. Further, they rely upon the case of CCE, Rajkot v. Air Express Courier Services .In this case, the assessee has not failed to disc...

Chokshi Tube Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The claim of the appellants for refund of duty paid under Customs Tariff heading 73.17/19 has been rejected by the authorities below on the ground that the goods were prime quality seamless stainless steel and assessable to duty under that heading.2. None appears for the appellants in spite of notice. Hence, we heard the Ld. DR and perused the records.3. The contention of the appellants is that since the heading was amended on 15-4-1982 to cover tubes and pipes and blanks there for of iron or steel and other stainless steel, the goods imported by them during the period August to November 1978 namely, prime quality stainless steel seamless mother pipes were not classifiable under Customs Tariff heading 73.17/19, and they were not chargeable to duty.However, as seen from the order of the authorities below, the headings during the period of import, covered all tubes and pipes irrespective of the material out of which they were made. The amendment has also been rightly held amount to b...