Mumbai Court October 2006 Judgments

Laxmi Jairam Dhond Vs. Sushila D. Amonkar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR420; 2006(6)BomCR259

Kakade P.V., J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. The appellant has impugned the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji dated 14-2-2006, rejecting the objections raised by interested parties to list of assets in an Inventory Proceeding, filed by them.3. The appellant filed an Inventory Proceeding upon the death of late Jairam Dhond. In the midst of this Inventory Proceeding, list of assets were filed at Exhibit M27 dated 4-7-2003 and as per prevalent law interested parties were given opportunity to file their objections and accordingly the objections of the interested parties were filed at Exhibit 31 dated 6-3-2004.4. It was objected to by the Cabeca de Casal that objections were not filed within specific time when the list of assets came to be filed on 1-7-2003 and objections came to be filed on 6-3-2004 which was beyond the prescribed period of filing objections. On such grounds as well on merits, the objections came to ...

Mineria Nacional Limitada and anr. Vs. Sociedade De Fomento Industrial ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR830; 2006(6)BomCR1; [2007(3)JCR131]; 2006(6)MhLj731; [2007]74SCL210(Bom)

Britto N.A., J.1. An appeal against any decision or order of the Company Law Board, in terms of Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 lies before this Court. The short question for our consideration is whether such an appeal is to be entertained by a Single Judge or a Division Bench of this Court?2. Some bare facts are required to be taken note of to answer the said question.3. The appellants herein had preferred this appeal against the Order dated 26-9-2005 of the Company Law Board before the learned Single Judge of this Court dealing with the Company matters. By Order dated 7-7-2006, the learned Single Judge, in the light of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in (Bais Surgical & Medical Institute Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Dhananjay Pande and Ors.) : 2005(5)BomCR434 was pleased to place this appeal before the Division Bench. When the matter came up for hearing before the Division Bench, the learned Counsel on behalf of both the parties were in complete agreement that the ju...

Anil Moreshwar Ravetkar (Dr.) Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR818; 2006(6)BomCR256; 2007(1)MhLj701

Kanade V.M., J.1. Heard.2. Rule. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service.3. By this Petition, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Government dated 4th February, 2005 whereby the Government was pleased to set aside the Resolution passed by the Standing Committee, Pune Municipal Corporation dated 29th July, 2003 by exercising the power vested in it under Section 451 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (For short 'B.P.M.C. Act') and the petitioner is also challenging the order passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation dated 28th September, 2005 which was passed by him as a consequence of the impugned decision of the Government dated 4th February, 2005 whereby the Municipal Commissioner directed that the petitioner should be removed from service and that he should not be given pension and other retirement benefits.4. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this Writ Petition are...

Vimal Pandurang Karanjkar Vs. Vinayak Shrikrishna Londhe and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR509

Oka A.S., J.1. Heard Advocate appearing for the Applicant in support of prayer for grant of leave. The applicant is the complainant in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The learned trial Judge has acquitted the first respondent. The acquittal is on the following grounds:(i) Service of notice under Section 138(b) of the said Act of 1881 was not proved. At the relevant time the first respondent was detained in jail,(ii) The applicant has not proved the cheque and the signature on the cheque and the contents of the cheque are not proved and therefore the cheque has not been exhibited,iii) Dishonour memorandum issued by the bank is also not proved and therefore, it is not exhibited.iv) Office copy of the demand notice is not proved.2. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the notice was sent to the first respondent by Registered Post A.D. at the address of the jail. He submitted that the original cheque, original Memorandum issued ...

Shahid Sultan Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ568

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The appellant, who was the original accused No. 1 has challenged the judgment and order of the ad hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thane. He has been convicted under Section 232 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted under Section 235 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 10 years. In addition, a fine of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed on each count on the appellant.2. The cable of the prosecution is that the Thane Crime Breach was informed on 1-5-2001 that illegal manufacturing of Indian coins was being carried out in Kaniz Apartment in Mumbra. The premises were raided and the appellant and original accused No. 2 were found in the premises on that day. According to the prosecution, they were in the process of manufacturing counterfeit coins of the denomination of Rs. 5/-. The equipment and machinery which was allegedly being used for counterfeiting the coins ...

Ms. Akanksha Amar Naik Vs. Government of India, Ministry of External A ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ575

J.N. Patel, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith.2. The learned Counsel for the respondents waives service.3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.4. A short question which arise for our consideration is whether the impugned decision by respondent No. 1 communicated vide letter dated 14-6-06 to the petitioner by the Regional Passport Office that her case has been 'not recommended' by the Deputy Commissioner of Police SB-II, C.I.D., Mumbai for issue of passport and, therefore, it has been decided not to grant passport facilities to her is not in accordance with law and is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and if so, whether the petitioner is entitled to have passport facilities as applied for by her from respondent No. 1?5. The petitioner is daughter of late Amar Naik and is a citizen of India. On completion of Higher Secondary Education i.e. 12th Standard, she wants to become a pilot and for that purpose she intends to join commercial Pilot Training Progr...

Mrs. Alka Toraskar Vs. the Vaishya Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR397; 2007CriLJ858

ORDERN.A. Britto, J.1. The petitioner herein is accused in C.C. No. 805/P/2004/C and questions the correctness of the Judgment dated 3-7-2006 of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mapusa, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('Act' for short).2. The parties hereto are being referred to the names as they appear in the cause title of the complaint.3. The complainant is a Co-operative Credit Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Society Act, 1960, as applicable to this State. The accused had obtained a loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the complainant and as per the complainant, the accused had issued a cheque bearing No. 449031, dated 20-2-2004, for Rs. 1,48,775/-, drawn on Andhra Bank, Mapusa, towards part payment of the said loan amount and when the said cheque was presented for payment, it was returned dishonoured for insufficient funds vide endorsement dated 23-2-2004 whereupon the compla...

Amulakhrai D. Desai Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai and anr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR731; [2007(112)FLR897]

Rebello F.I., J.1. The case of the petitioner is that he carried out the measurements pursuant to his appointment as a neutral person in terms of the order of this Court dated 27.1.1998 in Writ Petition No. 2094/97 along with Notice of motion No. 6/ 199 in Writ Petition No. 1636/97. It was submitted that the show cause notice dated 28.4.2000 is based on an assumption that he had done measurements of works which he was not asked to do. It has been set out that the measurements of the 5 works done apart from the 86 works was in terms of the order of this Court. Once that is the case, it is submitted that no enquiry ought to have been held against the petitioner and the show cause notice requires to be quashed and set aside.We may address ourselves to this issue as apart from this there are several other allegations which we do not propose to go into at this stage. Vasant Nagoji Gaikwad, Joint Chief Personnel Officer has filed his affidavit dated 21.11.2002. In that affidavit in paragraph...

Mercantile Finance House Private Limited Vs. Mac Enterprises and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2007)BC1

ORDERN.A. Britto, J.1. The applicant herein is the complainant in C.C. No. 12/0A/1997/D and is seeking special leave to appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act, for short).2. Heard the learned Counsel Mr. A.R. Kantak on behalf of the complainant and Mr. A. Monteiro, the learned Counsel on behalf of the accused.3. There is no dispute as to the facts. Four cheques issued by the accused to the complainant bounced. The details of the said cheques are as follows:-------------------------------------------------------------No. Date Amount-------------------------------------------------------------061724 01.08.1996 Rs. 66,667.00061725 01.09.1996 Rs. 66,667.00061726 01.10.1996 Rs. 66,667.00 061729 16.10.1996 Rs. 25,00,000.00-------------------------------------------------------------4. The complaint was filed on the allegation that the complainant had served on the accused a notice of demand dated 24.12.1996. However, the acc...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Leak-proof Engineering (i) Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In these appeals arising out of two separate orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), the Revenue seeks classification of product "Grafoil" consisting of graphite tapes, packing rings and gaskets under CET sub-heading 6807.00 as articles of graphite, as against the Commissioner (Appeals)'s classification of the product as parts of pumps under CET sub-heading 8413.90.Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CC, Bombay , holding that Karbate tubes made of artificial graphite impregnated with phenolic resin and which are parts of heat exchangers are classifiable under CTA Heading 6815.10 as non-electrical articles of artificial graphite or other carbons, in view of Chapter Note l(a) to Chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff which excludes articles falling under Chapter 68 from coverage under Chapter 84, we hold that the product in dispute is required to be classified under the heading claimed by the Revenue, viz. under CET sub-heading 6807.00. The submission of the learned Counsel for the r...