Mumbai Court May 2006 Judgments

Maharashtra State Electricity Board, a Body Corporate Formed Under the ...

Court: Mumbai

D.G. Deshpande, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants, learned PP, and Counsel for the Respondents. 2. All these Applications are arising out of Criminal Cases filed by the Respondent No. 2 and others, for defamation, before the JMFC, Nasik. The Applications are filed for quashing the Complaints. The Applicants are the original accused and employees of Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB). Datar Switchgear Limited was a Company. That MSEB had an agreement regarding supply of certain materials. The dispute arose between the MSEB and Datar Switchgear Limited. The matter was referred to Arbitration. The Arbitrators passed an Award. The MSEB filed Petition against that Award. That Petition was allowed and the Award was set aside. In the intervening period, there were proceedings in between the parties for perjury or contempt etc. Different Affidavits came to be filed on behalf of the MSEB through its different Officers. It is those Affidavits which have defamed the Complaina...

Mrs. Shantabai Yashwant Kothare and ors. Vs. Shri Shankar (Since Throu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR48; 2006(4)BomCR55; 2006(5)MhLj651

K.J. Rohee, J.1. The original plaintiffs have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Sixth Additional District Judge Thane, in Civil Appeal No. of 1986 on 30-10-1987, partly allowing the appeal against the judgment decree passed by Joint Civil Judge, J.D., Thane in Regular Civil Suit No. 314 of 1982 on 29-1-1986. The original defendant has filed cross objection. 2. The appellants instituted suit for ejectment and possession of the tenanted premises as well as encroached area. 3. The admitted facts are that the appellants are the owners of field Survey No. 95, situated at village Majiwada, district Thane. The defendant/respondent was working as agricultural labourer with the appellants. Permission to construct hut in the said field was granted by the village Panchayat on 26-11-1957. The respondent was permitted construct a hut and to reside therein as a tenant. Accordingly, the respondent erected a hut and started residing there as a tenant from 1-2-1964. 4. Acc...

Surendra M. Wagh and anr. Vs. Manohar Krishna Kale and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR19; 2006(4)BomCR115; 2006(5)MhLj70

P.V. Kakade, J.1. The petitioner tenants have preferred this petition against the judgment and order passed by the lower appellate Court dated 25th October, 1993 dismissing the Appeal No. 7 of 1992 and confirming the order passed by the Trial Court dated 5th October, 1991 whereby the petitioners were directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the present respondents. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for both parties. Perused the record.3. The original plaintiff had filed the suit for possession of the suit premises i.e. Block No. 2, 'Anupam' situated at 777 Tilak Road, Dadar, Bombay - 400 028 against the original tenant Vasant G. Thakur (defendant No. 1) and his sister-in-law Mrs. Rajani Talwalkar (sister of 1st defendant's wife) as the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff had claimed possession on two grounds, namely, (i) that the tenant had acquired suitable alternative accommodation and (ii) defendant No. 1 had sublet the premises to defendant No. 2....

Smt. Sunanda Hari Kadam and Ganesh Hari Kadam Vs. Manisha Hospital

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR127; [2006(110)FLR642]; 2006(6)MhLj362

S.U. Kamdar, J. 1. Both these petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court in Revision Application (ULP) No. 43 of 2001, dated 18th March, 2002. 2. Some of the facts of the present case are as under. One Hari Ganpat Kadam was an employee of respondent hospital. He was appointed as Ward Boy since 1967 and had put in twenty years of service. The said worker was also a Union Leader and was actively participating in the Union Activities. The respondent no. 1 charge sheeted the petitioner for charge of assaulting co-workers. He was suspended from service with effect from the date of charge sheet dated 26th June, 1987. After replies were filed, an enquiry was conducted and ultimately he was dismissed from service on 10-10-1987. After his dismissal, said worker filed a complaint bearing Complaint (ULP) No. 283 of 1987 before the Labour Court under Item 1, Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP ACT. In part I award a finding was recorded by the Labour Court that the enquiry was...

Sindhu Vishwanath Phadake Vs. Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR446; 2006(4)BomCR573; 2006(5)MhLj593

Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. The petitioner joined service as a teacher in the Adarsh Vidya Bhavan School on 1st November, 1957 where he worked until 24th June, 1973. The School was taken over by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan from 25th June, 1973. The petitioner continued to work until 31st October, 1985 when she attained the age of superannuation of 60 years. The petitioner was a contributory to the Central Provident Fund Scheme. A request was made by the petitioner for being allowed to switch over to the pension scheme. That request was turned down and thereupon the petitioner moved the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner by its order dated 29th May, 2001 which is impugned in these proceedings.2. The Tribunal noted that the pension scheme was made applicable to the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan by an Office Memorandum dated 1st September, 1988. The Tribunal noted that under the terms thereof all those who had retired on or after...

Prashant Khushe Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2007)BC417

R.S. Mohite, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns an order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai in C.C. No. 186/Misc/2005 on 8.12.2005 issuing an order under Section 14 of the Securitisation Act, 2002.2. Before the respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 14 of the said Act, admittedly they had issued notice under Section 13(2) of the said Act. Instead of filing representation or objection after receiving notice under Section 13(2), the petitioner who is a borrower of the Bank chose to file Writ Petition in this Court being Writ Petition (L) No. 651 of 2005. On 18.3.2005. the Division Bench of this Court disposed of that writ petition because on behalf of the petitioners in the said petition which included the present petitioner, statement came to be made by the Advocate that he will file an appeal and they should not be dispossessed from the residential flat as they were ready to hand over necessary documents for handing over the formal po...

Ratanlal Mishrilal JaIn Vs. Premchand Ramdhan Agrawal

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2007)BC466

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Heard Mr. Chatterji, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Piratwar, learned Counsel holding for Mr. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the respondent.2. As per the order dated 28.4.2006 in Criminal Application No. 2713 of 2005 this Court has already granted leave to the appellant to prefer appeal against the order of acquittal. Perused the record. Admit. In view of the nature of the matter, by consent, it is taken up for final hearing forthwith.3. To state in brief the appellant is the original complainant and respondent is the original accused. The appellant had filed complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent alleging that he is the proprietor of Ashok Oil Industries in Old M.I.D.C. Area at Jalna. The appellant and the respondent were well acquainted to each other. The respondent was in need of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The appellant gave hand loan to him of Rs. 1,00,000/- by cheque dated 15.9.2000. The cheque was encashed by the responde...

Ravi Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2007)BC258

V.M. Kanade, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner who has been shown as an accused in a complaint filed by one Devichand Jain for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this Writ Petition are as under.A Plantation Company, known as Arrow Global Agrotech Ltd. having its Office at Thane, floated a Scheme in the year 1995 known as Arrow Bond and, under the said Scheme, the investor had to invest Rs. 5,000/- per Bond and it was represented that the investor would get regular income through post-dated cheques which were payable quarterly. Number of investors invested in the said Scheme and they were all issued quarterly cheques by the Company. The petitioner was studying in the final year B.Com. and he was appointed as an agent of the Company for mobilising the investments from various investors. As many as three thousand such agents were appointed by the Company and it was agreed that the agen...

V.S. Tempo and Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC345

1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are registered as a steamer agent and have taken registration for the same on 16.07.1997. During the period November 2002 to March 2003 they have availed service tax credit amounting to Rs. 6,18,895/- which was paid by the service providers of port service and utilized the same for payment of service tax on the output service of a steamer agent. Since port service and the steamer agent service do not fall under the same sub-clause of Clause 19 of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994, the credit taken by them was considered irregular and was accordingly demanded back from them.2. The appellants in their submissions stated that the services provided by them were in the nature of port services only and they have incorrectly registered themselves as a steamer agent. The services rendered by the input service providers for providing output services to its clients comprise of supply of labour and deployment of staff on overtime basis, su...

Agarwal Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants in this case are rendering service of clearing and forwarding agent and were liable to service tax. However, there has been consistent delay in payment of the Service Tax and accordingly besides the amount of service tax, a penalty of Section 5,000/- under Section 76 and Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1944 was imposed on the appellants by the Assistant Commissioner. This order was reviewed by the Commissioner who enhanced the penalty from Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) to Rs. 1,24,285/- (Rs. One Lakh Twenty Four Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Five Only) on the ground that the appellants have not been able to show any justifiable reason for delay in payment of Service Tax.2. The learned advocate for the appellants submits that the penalty imposed was exorbitant and there were justifiable reason for delay in deposit of service tax and filing the return as there was a dispute between the clearing agent and the company as to who will pay the service ...