Mumbai Court March 2006 Judgments

Fatmabai Binte Nakhuda Mohammed Ameen Rogay Religious and Charitable T ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR225; 2006(3)MhLj816

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present petition is challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court dated 14.7.2005 under MRTU complaint no.1104 of 2001. By the said order the petitioner is directed to make payment of legal dues to the respondent workmen of sum of Rs. 2,40,426/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 1.4.99 till realisation and cost of Rs. 1000/-. 2. This impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner inter-alia contending that the respondent is not a workmen and as such the complaint preferred by him is not maintainable. It has been contended that infact the respondent no.6 was the Secretary appointed under Clause 15 of the Deed of settlement and therefore the complainant was not the workmen. The complainant in his evidence has deposed about the work carried out by him which was clerical in nature. In the said deposition he has deposed as under : I entered into the service of Respondent No.1 as Secretary of the trust on the initial salary to the tune of Rs. 150/-....

Usha M. Mahadik Vs. Parle Products Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR436; [2006(110)FLR903]

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present petition challenges the order passed by the 6th Labour Court, Bombay both under Part-I and Part-II. By the said two orders the labour court has held that the inquiry which was conducted by the company was just and fair and in accordance with law and the findings of the inquiry officer are not perverse. By Part II of the order the Labour Court has held that the punishment awarded is correct and not disproportionate to the charges levelled. 2. The present case is where the petitioner has been charged with assaulting the co-worker on 13.9.2005. At about 9.30 a.m. when the co-worker went for a cup of tea to the canteen at that time without any provocation the petitioner caught hold of her and assaulted her and consequently she fell on the ground. Ultimately two ladies rescued the co-worker Mrs. Mani Dodhia. Even when she was taken away by other workers still petitioner did not stop and continued abusing and threatening the said Mani Dodhia in filthy language. ...

Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Dattatraya Yashwant Waghdare and a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR566; 2006(6)BomCR404; 2006(3)MhLj801

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present writ petition is filed challenging the orders dated 5.3.2005 and 3.10.2005 being as Ex.K, M and N to the present petition. Some of the material facts of the present case are as under : 2. The respondent no.1 was working as a Weighbridge Clerk in the clerical category and was chargesheeted on 29.4.2005 on the grounds of serious misconduct. Under the standing orders 12(d) the charges were of theft, fraud and dishonesty in connection with the business of the company. On 3.5.95 the respondent no.1 replied to the chargesheet and denied the charges levied against him and therefore a domestic inquiry was held. The respondent no.1 was dismissed from service on 31.7.95 after conducting the domestic enquiry. The respondent no.1 thereafter filed a complaint under MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 and alleged unfair labour practice under item no. 1(a), (b), (d) (f) (g) of Schedule IV of the said Act. After the pleadings were completed on 28.7.1997 the labour court passed an order...

Ajit Majur Kamgar Sahakari Sanstha Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR291; 2006(6)BomCR402; 2006(3)MhLj529

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Dhore, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Mujumdar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents,2. The petition is directed against the order dated 19-4-1993 passed by the Tahsildar, order dated 30-10-1993 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, order dated 30-5-1994 passed by the Additional Collector and order dated 8-4-1996 passed by the Additional Commissioner.3. Shri Dhore, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of report of Talathi, Sultanpur dated 25-1-1993. The Tahsildar concluded those proceedings by passing order dated 19-4-1993 wherein it was held that petitioner has illegally transported hundred brass of minor minerals and as per provisions of Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, fine of rupees forty-five thousand was imposed on the petitioner. It was contended that being aggrieved by the said order, appeal was filed by the petitioner...

Shankar S/O Bhagwan Ambhore (Dr.) Vs. Vice Chancellor, Dr. Babasaheb A ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR522; 2007(1)BomCR521; 2006(3)MhLj835

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. By the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges communication dated 11-3-2006 forwarded by respondent No. 3 to the petitioner. By the said communication at Exhibit 'G', page 30, respondent No. 3 viz. Registrar of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad (henceforth referred as 'B.A.M.U.', for the sake of brevity), informed the petitioner of respondent No. 1, the Vice Chancellor of B.A.M.U. having passed orders disqualifying the petitioner from his membership on the Senate and Board of Studies in Economics (henceforth 'BOS', for short), in view of his conviction by IVth Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Aurangabad, in Regular Criminal Case No. 6064/2004, dated 28th February, 2006. It is informed to the petitioner that in view of the disqualification incurred, the petitioner ceases to be a member of the aforesaid authorities of the University. Consequently, it app...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ashok Shankar Sarkale and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2006)ACC788; 2007ACJ1017; AIR2006Bom198; 2006(4)ALLMR250; 2006(3)BomCR593; 2006(4)MhLj404

Vyas Kshitij R., C.J. 1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed on behalf of Union of India through the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad (A.P.) challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 30th September, 2003, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Latur, in L.D.F. No. 32 of 2003, whereby while allowing the said complaint, the District Forum directed the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs. 4,05,000/- as compensation to the respondents along with Rs. 1,000/- towards the costs of the petition within one month from the receipt of copy of the order. Out of the said amount, 1/5th of amount each is directed to be deposited in the names of minors, complainant Nos. 3 to 5, in F.D.Rs. in Nationalised Bank till each of them attains majority and remaining 2/5th amount is to be paid to complainant Nos. 1 and 2.2. The respondents have filed an application before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum...

In Re: Megal Markus Pereira

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom273; 2006(6)ALLMR298

F.I. Rebello, J.1. A learned single Judge of this Court in M.H. petition No. 2 of 2002 (Shri Umesh Narayan Gokhle V. Shri Ajit M. Mankar) decided on 21 -2-2002 took the view that under the provisions of the Mental Health Act, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), it is the Civil Court which is the District Court within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act.2. This judgement was noted by another learned Judge (S. C. Dharmadhikari, J.) in petition No. 2 of 2003 In Mental Health Petition No. 9 of 2003 In Land Acquisition Reference No. 58 of 1987. In his order dated 6-8-2004, Dharmadhikari, J. took the view the District Court as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act is the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction and referred the matter to the learned Chief Justice for assigning the matter to a larger Bench. That is how the matters are placed before us for our consideration.3. The limited issue, therefore, is whether the city Civil Court constituted under the p...

Sukhada Kudke Vs. Director of Panchayats and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR895

Lavande A.P., J.1. Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Kantak, learned Advocate General with Ms. L. Dharwadkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 though served has chosen not to put in appearance. Rule. Ms. Dharwadkar waives notices on behalf of the respondent No. 1. By consent heard forthwith.2. By this petition, the petitioner assails the Judgment dated 1.12.05 passed by the first respondent in Panchayat Petition No. DP/PP/11/2005 filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner.3. The brief facts, which are relevant for the disposal of this petition, are as under:On 10.6.05, respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 50 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 for removal of the petitioner as Sarpanch of Madkai Village Panchayat on the ground that the petitioner had issued NOC to M/s. Balaji Metal for dumping industrial waste in the Communicate property without ...

Metropolitan Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides at length. The learned advocate for the appellants prays for waiver of pre-deposit on the following grounds : - (A) SCN for extended period issued by the Asst. Commissioner (237) instead of Commissioner in the case of Saraf Fabrics Ltd. v. CC. (B) Commissioner (Preventive) Mumbai, instead of CC (Ahmedabad), not accepting the exports made from Porbander (Gujarat) as valid. DEECs also completed by ACC Porbander in the case of Montana Valves & Compressor (P) Ltd. (C) Commissioner (P) Mumbai, instead of CC, Nheva Seva/Mumbai Port from where the imported goods had been cleared, adjudicating the case 1997 (73) ECR 348 (T) in the case of Informatika Software (P) Ltd. v. CC, (P) Calcutta. (D) Despite corrigendum to SCN (389) making it adjudicable only by CC, Nhava Sheva) & CC, (Imp), Mumbai, CC, (P) adjudicating the case. in the case of Krishna Filament Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-III & 2001 (137) E.L.T. 1223 (T) in the case of Consolidated Enterprises v. CC, (G), Mumb...

Asian Paints (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. Shri D.B. Shroff, ld. Advocate for the appellants submits the following date sheet with particulars of events leading to rejection of appeal dated 26-4-2002 filed by the appellants:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sr. No. Date Particulars----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 March, 1979 The Appellants got certain paints manufactured on a to January, job work basis from M/s Ansuya Packing Services, 1983 Palghar (the job worker). The raw materials were sup- plied by the Appellants and the job worker was paid only job charges. On completion the job worker stock transferred the paints to the Appellants' branches/ depots for subsequent sale.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 19-8-1983 The Assistant Commissioner in charge of the job worker's factory passed an order against the job worker demanding duty of Rs. 18,25,938.77 f...