Mumbai Court April 2006 Judgments

Shaikh Abdul Hasib Abdul Mannan (Dr.) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR454; 2006(44)MhLj310

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned Advocates for the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 23rd July, 1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing OA No. 732 of 1997 filed by the petitioner. The said appeal was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent to accept his date of birth as was recorded in the service register supported by the date of birth Certificate issued by the Solapur Municipality and consequently to direct the respondent to retire the petitioner on his attaining the age of 58 years on the basis of his date of birth as 6th May, 1940 and not as 5th September, 1939.2. The petitioner joined the services in the Central Railway as Assistant Surgeon Grade I in Group 'C sometimes in the year 1965.3. An application came to be filed by the petitioner on 2nd September, 1985 requesting for alteration in the recorded date of birth of the petitioner in the service records of the respondent. On 3...

Raymond Ltd. and anr. Vs. Thane Municipal Corporation and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR459; 2007(2)BomCR517; 2006(6)MhLj859

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. The petitioners challenge the communication to the petitioners by the respondent-Corporation under the letter dated 5th November, 1998 on the ground that the same is contrary to the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipalities (Octroi) Rules, 1968, hereinafter called as 'the said rules'.2. Few facts relevant for the decision are that the petitioners carry on business inter alia of manufacturing manmade as well as blended woolen fabrics and have one of their factory situate at Thane, within the State of Maharashtra. In the course of manufacture of the final product, it has to undergo various stages of manufacturing. The petitioners import raw wool, and polyester tow/fiber from different parts of the country. The said goods form the basic raw material for manufacturing the ultimate product of fabric. The actual process comprises of three stages. In the first stage, the raw material is processed and the raw wool is convert...

In Re: Zenta P. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2009]149CompCas413(Bom)

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioner before me is a transferee company.2. The scheme of amalgamation is between petitioner and one Zenta International, ICP Ltd., Alpha Ventura Ltd. and Zenta P. Ltd.3. The petitioner has set out that it is the transferee company. The amalgamating companies are the abovementioned transferor companies. The petitioner is an Indian company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office in India. The objects of petitioner are to carry on business in India and abroad and the main objects are set out in paragraph 4 of this petition. The share capital structure is mentioned in paragraph 5 with a copy of the latest balance-sheet annexed to the petition.4. It is not in dispute that the first amalgamating company, the first transferor company and second transferor company are carrying on business and registered as companies outside India and more particularly under the laws of Mauritius. Their capital structure is also r...

Swam Mills Ltd., a Company Incorporated Under the Companies Act, 1956 ...

Court: Mumbai

 1. The petitioners are a composite Textile Mill engaged in manufacture of cotton yarn, man-made yarn, cotton fabrics and man-made fabrics as well as the processing amongst other activities. For the period from October, 1994 to February, 1997, the petitioners were served with 14 Show Cause Notices for recovery of differential duty of approximately Rs. 50 lakhs. The said show cause notices were adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II vide Order-in-original No. 781/398/97 to 794/411/97 dated 12th November, 1997, confirming the demands covered thereunder along with interest. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise also imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. There being incorrect computation, he directed the Range Superintendent to verify figures and work out the fresh demand. The Range Superintendent re-worked the duty amount of Rs. 9,40,753/-and issued a demand notice on 18th May, 1998 requiring the petitioners to pay the said amount along with penalty o...

Punjab National Bank Vs. Rathi Pappins Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: I(2007)BC15

1. By the interim order dated 4th February, 2005 passed by this Tribunal, issue of Court-fee was kept open which will have to be decided before the appeal itself is heard and finally disposed of.2. The important question which requires determination in this appeal is whether Court-fee payable on this appeal is fixed Court-fee of Rs. 250/- or Court-fee payable on ad valorem basis under Rule 8 of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1994).3. On behalf of the appellants it is argued that since there is no order against the Bank for payment of any decretal amount, a Court-fee which would be payable is Rs. 250/-, which has already been paid by the appellants. According to the learned Advocate for the appellants since by this appeal what is challenged is the show-cause notice dated 12th January, 2005 issued by the D.R.T., Aurangabad pursuant to its order dated 27th December, 2004, there was no question of payment of Court-fee...

Shri Sunil Shamrao Jadhav and ors. Vs. the Kolhapur Municipal Corporat ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR60; 2006(6)BomCR196; 2006(5)MhLj101

B.H. Marlapalle, J1. In the first petition there were 10 petitioners and we are now informed that petitioner no.5 Pratap Ambaji Bodekar is no more in service of the Corporation and petitioner no.8 - Ramchandra Shivajirao Chavan died during the pendency of this petition and, therefore, the petition survives for the remaining eight petitioners. Petition No. 3685 of 1994 is filed by three persons. All these eleven petitioners claim that they had undergone the selection process for the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector (hereinafter referred as 'A.T.I.' for short) pursuant to the advertisement published in the local newspaper on 12.10.1992 by the Commissioner or the Transport Manager, Kolhapur Municipal Corporation Transport, Kolhapur, an undertaking of Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and they were issued appointment orders on or about 24.7.1993. However, when they went to report for duty they were not allowed to join on or about 26.7.1993. They submitted a representation on or about 19.5....

Shri Zulal Sayara Rajput and Shri Bhagwan Dharmaji Dhole Vs. the State ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR471; 2007(3)BomCR477; 2006(5)MhLj66

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Both the Petitioners herein are teachers working in a primary school. They impugn Circular dated 9th October, 2003 issued by Respondent No. 3 by which direction is issued to treat teachers working in Primary Ashram School as untrained primary teachers and to refix their salary in the pay scale of untrained primary teachers. Incidentally, they also seek protection of the pay scale. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is M.A., B.Ed. and was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Balkan-Ji-Bari Post Basic Ashram Vidyalaya, Dist. Thane, w.e.f. 16th June, 1986. He was placed in the scale of Rs.290-540, which is D.Ed. scale. He was appointed to work in secondary section of the School. The School was having classes of Standard I to X but the Classes of Standard I to IV were in the primary section whereas classes of Standard V to X were in the secondary section. The Petitioner No. 2 is B.P.Ed. and was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the same School w.e.f. 23rd July, 1987 in the D.Ed. sca...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Ram S/O Pandharinath Chidrawar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ827; 2006(4)MhLj508

S.P. Kukday, J.1. In the present petition, the State has impugned order dated 17-1-1998 passed by learned Special Judge under Essential Commodities Act. In summary Criminal Case No. 13/1996, discharging the respondent (original accused No. 3) of the offence punishable Under Section 3 read with 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act).2. The facts, in nutshell, are that : on 5-5-1996 District Supply Officer, Nanded; visited Naigaon and inspected premises of M/s Pandurang [Oil Industries belonging to Vyankoba Pandharinath Chidrawar, who was holding a licence under the provisions of Maharashtra Schedule Oil Seeds and Oils (Dealers and Millers) Licensing Order, 1977 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Oil Seeds and Oils (Dealers and Millers) Licensing Order, 1977]. It was found that the owner was holding stocks of edible oil and oil seeds in excess of the permissible limits. The District Supply Officer then visited the premises of M/s Gajanan Oi...

Sardar Gurudas Singh Bedi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR504; 2006(33)PTC321(Bom)

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith. Respondents 4 to 6 though served, have put in no appearance.2. An application was filed by the Respondent No. 6 for registration of their word mark 'Volga Ice cream' and label mark 'Volga ice cream'. The application was published under Clause (30) in Journal No. 1331 dated 1.6.2006 at Page 1080 by the Registrar of trade marks. It was made available to the public on 4th October, 2005. The stipulated period of time for filing extension of time on Form TM 44 was on or before 1.1.2006. The Form TM 44 dated 3.1.2006 was actually presented on 4.1.2006. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, as form TM-44 was not filed within the period of limitation refused to accept it. It is this refusal according to the petitioner which has given a cause of action to the Petitioners to file the present petition.3. Section 21 of the Trade Marks Act, 1991, hereafter referred to as Act, prescribes the time period for filing Opposition to registration. The express language used in t...

Bankerai Ambikarai Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through the Direct ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR849

ORDERH.L. Gokhale, J.1. This writ petition by a lecturer working as a part-time lecturer in two colleges (under two different managements) affiliated to the University of Mumbai, seeks correct emoluments and retirement benefits on par with a full time lecturer affiliated to the University. The two colleges are aided colleges and, therefore, the financial responsibility is that of the State of Maharashtra which is joined as respondent No. 1. University of Mumbai is respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 3 is the Principal of Narsee Manjee College of Commerce and Economics, a private college run by a Trust. Respondent No. 4 is the Principal of Elphinstone college which is run by the State Government. Narsee Manjee ('N.M. college' for short) and Elphinstone are the two colleges concerned in this petition. 2. The petitioner has done his M.A. in Hindi as the principal subject from the University of Mumbai. He obtained second class in the Graduation as well as in the Master's examination. It is hi...