Mumbai Court November 2006 Judgments

Pradip Madgaonkar @ Bandya Mama Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

J.N. Patel, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. These four writ petitions can be disposed of by a common order as more or less the petitioners have assailed their prosecution under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act 1999 (for short MCOC Act of 1999) by seeking quashing of the FIR and the grant of approval under Section 23(1)(a) and sanction under Section 23(2) of the MCOC Act primarily on the ground that no case has been made out against them relating to their complicity in the organised crime alleged to have been committed by the organised crime syndicate known as Chhota Rajan Gang headed by Rajan Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan @ Nana @ Sheth. 3. The petitioner Pradip Madgaonkar @ Bandya Mama (in Writ Petition No. 988 of 2006) is wanted in two cases i.e. (1) registered wide crime No. 150 of 2005 for having committed offences under Section 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), and 3(5) of MCOC Act, 1999 and 384, 385, 386, 387, 50...

Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. Knight Queen Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(34)PTC365(Bom)

1. We heard the counsel for the Appellant.2. The counsel for the Appellant strenuously urged that letters and the fonts in the label at V, continue to be closely similar to the Appellant's label 'Good night'.3. We are unable to agree with the counsel for the Appellant. The Label at 'Y' which the defendants have undertaken to use for their mosquito coils and electrically operated apparatus, cannot be said to be exactly identical or closely similar to the plaintiffs trade mark and copyright. As a matter of fact, the label at 'Y' has a different colour scheme. Instead of red background, it has green background. Letter 'K' in label at 'Y1 is so designed that it gives an impression of mosquito attached to it. The font 'K' in the Appellant's trade mark word 'Knight' is distinct and dis-similar to the font 'K' in the defendants' trade mark. Besides that the word 'Knight' in the plaintiffs label has a different look than the word 'Knight' appearing on the defendants' label at 'Y'.4. In this vi...

Ravi Industries and ors. Vs. Western Coalfields Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR211; 2007(1)MhLj791

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Mr. Sunil Manohar, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. S. C. Mehadia, Advocate for respondent No. 1 and Mrs. Neeta Jog, A.G.P. for respondent No. 2.Mr. Manohar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the petitioners are Government Contractors and purchase boulders, gitti, murum, stones, stand, etc. from the open market for their construction activity. Respondent No. 1 invited tenders for the construction work. Clauses (ii), (viii) of the General Terms and Conditions reads thus;(ii)...Responsibilities of the Contractor/Contractors:(i)...(ii)...(iii)...(iv)...(v)...(vi)...(vii)...(viii) All taxes, whether local, Municipal or Central etc. and cess, royalties etc. those are payable or may become payable shall be to the Contractor's/Contractors account and shall be deemed to have been included in the tender for the work to be excluded by him/them. The contractor/contractors will have to produce a certificate from the appropriate authorities of the S...

Armstrong Builders and Developers Vs. Vishvanath Naik

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR167; 2007(1)MhLj787

N.A. Britto, J.1. This is a complainant's appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act, for short).2. The case of the complainant was that he was the Proprietor of Armstrong Builders and Developers and that on 22-1-2004 the accused had taken a cash loan from the complainant for a period of three months and in part discharge of the said liability the accused had issued a cheque bearing No. 112888 dated 22-4-2004 drawn on the Bicholim Urban Co-op. Bank Limited for a sum of Rupees One Lakh and when the cheque was presented for payment, the same was returned dishonoured with remark dated 2-7-2004 that the funds were insufficient. The complainant sent the notice dated 6-7-2004, which according to the complainant, the accused received on 7-7-2004 but failed to comply with the same within a period of fifteen days and therefore the complainant prosecuted the accused by filing the complaint on 20-8-2004.3. In support of the complaint...

Dastamma M. Banjara and ors. Vs. Chveer Raju and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2007)ACC580

A.P. Deshpande, J.1. The heirs of one Mahadev filed an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai and the rejection of the said application against the Insurance Company has given rise to the filing of the present petition.2. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased was a workman engaged in the working on dumper for the purposes of loading and unloading and the accident has occurred during the course of his employment. Whereas it is the case of the Insurance Company that the deceased was travelling as a passenger and. hence the petitioners are not entitled to compensation from the Insurance company. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to indicate that the deceased was working as labourer engaged by the owner of the vehicle on the dumper. Perusal of the order passed by the M.A.C.T. records a finding that there is absolutely no pleading either in the application or the complaint filed under Section 166 ...

Asstt. Cit Vs. Jasper Investments Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to assessment year 1989-90.2. The department is objecting in allowing the claim of the assessee of 100 per cent depreciation on account of 32 steel rollers purchased from M/s S.P. Engineering Works and in allowing the business expenses at Rs. 14,13,312 by treating the same as revenue expenditure against capital expenditure treated by the assessing officer.3. Regarding the purchase of 32 steel rollers from M/s S.P. Engineering Works (SPEW), Bakura Howrah, the briefly stated facts are that the assessee purchased these rollers for a sum of Rs. 25,62,000. These rollers were leased out to M/s Usha Rectifiers Corpn. (India) Ltd., Gauriganj (Usha Rectifiers) Sultanpur, UP. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessing officer inquired into the genuineness of the purchases of rollers. The assessing officer summarized the results of his inquiry that Mrs. Sarmishta Ganguli, propriet...

Harischandra S/O Panditrao Gitte Vs. Shridhar Gangaram Gitte, Claiming ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR247; 2006(6)BomCR856; 2007(1)MhLj847

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Both these petitions arise out of same order and as such are being disposed of together. Challenge in these petitions is to order dated 2.9.1994, rendered by the College Tribunal for Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, (for short 'the Tribunal'). By the impugned order, appeal preferred by petitioner - H.P. Gitte was partly allowed and his removal from post of Principal was held illegal but instead of directing his reinstatement it was declared that he would be entitled to amount of compensation equal to six months pay and other allowances admissible to the post of Principal.2. Petitioner H.P. Gitte, was appointed as lecturer in History, initially on part time basis in 1974, by Jawahar Education Society Parli Vaijanath. He was later on appointed as full-fledged lecturer on probation. Somewhere in 1978 he completed the probation period and was substantively appointed as confirmed lecturer. There occurred vacancy in the post of Principal of the ...

Narayan S/O Girjuba Gadhekar Vs. the Chairman, Sillod Taluka Co-operat ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR589; 2007(2)BomCR177

V.R. Kingaonkar, J. 1. By this petition, petitioner impugns award rendered by Labour Court, Aurangabad, in reference case bearing No. 1. D.A. No. 78/1984. 2. There is no dispute about the fact that in the State of Maharashtra, raw cotton purchase was being made through the Maharashtra State Co-operative Federation, Bombay. Respondent No. 1, likewise other Taluka Co-operative Marketing Societies, was appointed as subagent to purchase cotton under the monopoly scheme for and on behalf of the State Federation. The petitioner was appointed as purchase assistant on daily wages basis at a cotton procurement center by the respondent No. 1. The initial amount of daily wages was Rs. 5/- and was increased from time to time up to Rs. 13/- till the date of his alleged termination. 3. Briefly stated, the petitioners case is that he was appointed by order dated 17.12.1979 as helper and was continuously engaged in service of the respondent No. 1 till his termination vide order dated 30th July, 1983. ...

The Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Chindha Fakira Patil (Decease ... Overruled

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR370

N.V. Dabholkar, J. 1. These ten appeals under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (henceforth, 'the said Act') read with Order 41 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (by virtue of Section 53 of the said Act), challenge composite judgment delivered by Reference Court (Civil Judge, Senior Division), Jalgaon, on 4.4.2000, thereby disposing of ten Land Acquisition References i.e. LAR Nos.478, 461, 495, 465, 485, 477, 468, 491, 466 and 481 of 1999. All the appeals are preferred by the State, feeling aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation granted in favour of respective Respondents claimants, by the Reference Court. 2. The Respondents are the owners of lands, which were agricultural lands from village Deoli Bhoras (8 lands) and Bilakhed (2 lands), Taluka Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon. Their lands are acquired by regular land acquisition proceedings through Special Land Acquisition Officer (henceforth referred to as 'SLAO') for the purpose of Minor Irrigation Tank, Deoli Bhoras. Notifi...

Lt. Professor Raju S/O Shamrao Khole Vs. State of Maharashtra Through ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR229

D.D. Sinha, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of Mr. Anand Parchure, learned Counsel for petitioner and Mr. Mujumdar, learned A.G.P. for respondent.2. The Writ Petition is directed against the impugned communication dated 26.6.2006 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), Mumbai in exercise of power under Clause (2) of Sub-section 2(A) of Section 2 of the Bombay Home Guards Act, 1947 whereby the service of the petitioner stands terminated after expiry of period of one month from the date on which the said notice was served on the petitioner. 3. Mr. Parchure has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as District Commandant (Home Guards) for the district of Nagpur vide order dated 2.8.2003 issued by the respondent No. 1 for a period of 5 years. Petitioner assumed charge of the post on 7.4.2003. It is contended that a frivolous complaint was filed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 409 and 420 ...