Mumbai Court June 2006 Judgments

Shri Sanjay Pandurang Vs. State, Through Public Prosecutor

Court: Mumbai

ORDERN.A. Britto, J.1. These revision petitions are by the accused who have been convicted and sentenced in C. C. No. 44/S/94 under Section 326, 324 r/w 34 I.P.C. by the learned J.M.F.C., Pernem and whose appeals have been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji, vide Judgment dated 3092005. 2. The accused were charged and tried under Section 326 I.P.C. with an allegation that on 2931994 at about 6.00 p.m. at Khutwal, Pernem, the accused in furtherance of the common intention assaulted PW1/Anand Mahadev, PW5/Rama Naik, PW10/Sakaram Naik, PW11/Sitabai Naik, PW12/Vishram Mahale and PW13/Sadanand Naik with dandas and pal koitas thereby causing grievous injuries to PW5/Rama Naik, PW10/Sakaram Naik and PW12/Vishram Mahale and simple injuries to others. In support of the charge, prosecution examined 20 witnesses. 3. The case of the accused is that the said PW5/Rama Naik, PW13/Sadanand Naik along with 20 other persons had gone to the house of the accused at about 7 p.m. with pal koita...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kinetic Engineering Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue is an appeal against the order of Commissioner who had held that: (i) The ratio of case law relied upon by the Assessee is rightly applicable in their case. (ii) Departments plea that reliance on Apex Courts decision in Indian Aluminium Co. being incorrect since the said judgment rendered in context of old tariff item, and not applicable to C.Ex.Tariff 1985 was not acceptable. (iii) There is no material change in the definition of manufacture as container in Section 2(f) of the CT, PRIOR to 1.3.86. (iv) "Ash Residue" covered under CSH 2620 of CETA 85 is not per se sufficient for determining whether the item came into existence as a result of manufacture. (v) Boards Cir.Dt. 1.7.88 - CX 1 relied upon by the deptt. seems to be in consistent as classification therein relates to denying of exemption Notfn. No. 149/86 CE dt. 1.3.86 to brass rods/bars.In view of the above observation Comm(A) has held that Department's appeal does not sustain as Aluminium dross & ash is non exc...

Pallonji Shapoorji and Co. (P) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Wealth Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)102ITD101(Mum.)

1. This Special Bench has been constituted by the Hon'ble President under Section 255(3). The issue referred to the Bench for the asst. yr.1990-91 is as under: Whether right to occupy premises belonging to a co-operative housing society are taxable assets under Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983 in the case of a private limited company? Assessee has filed its return of wealth on 9th May, 1991 declaring a net wealth of Rs. 1,20,400. Assessee is a company. AO noticed that the assessee-company has not offered the value of the flat at Sterling Bay Co-operative Housing Society Limited for wealth-tax purpose. In response to notice under Section 17 of the WT Act, assessee filed the return on 5th May, 1994 declaring a net wealth of Rs. 1,20,373. Assessee made repeated contention that the flat is not includible in the net wealth of the assessee. This is because the land and building belonged to the society and not to the assessee since it is merely an occupier of the flat. AO rejected the abo...

Rajesh S/O Suryabhan Nayak Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Minis ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)MhLj243

J.N. Patel, J.1. These two writ petitions had been filed by the petitioners raising several key issues in reference to the practice and procedure followed by the Police Officers, who are vested with the powers of Executive Magistrate for conducting proceedings under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code' for short). 2. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 428/2002 the petitioner is an Advocate, who was required to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, as one person by name Khobaib Raja engaged him to represent his case before the Special Executive Magistrate, Tahsil Division, city of Nagpur, in the proceedings initiated under Section 107 of the Code at the behest of Police Station Lakadganj, and has highlighted the various illegalities and irregularities being practiced in the court of Special Executive Magistrate, who also happens to be the Assistant Commissioner of Police of Kotwali Division, and has been joined in person as re...

Vyapari Sahakari Bank Maryadit Vs. Ambure P.A. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR372; 2006(4)BomCR21; [2006(111)FLR253]; 2006(5)MhLj277

V.C. Daga, J.1. These two writ petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are directed against two separate orders dated 15.1.1996 and 17.1.1996 respectively passed by the Industrial Court, Solapur; one rejecting contention of the employer that the strike resorted to by the respondents-employees of the petitioner Bank was illegal and by another order holding that the petitioner-Employer Bank has committed unfair labour practice under Item 8 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act for short) by recruiting employees during the period of legal strike. 2. These petitions involve common question of law based on identical facts; as such both petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. Introductory Facts : 3. The petitioner is a Co-operative Society duly registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, engaged in the business of banking, having its regi...

Seth Govindraoji Ayurved Mahavidyalaya Vs. Vimal S. Nagare

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR384; 2006(4)BomCR38; [2006(110)FLR647]; (2006)IIILLJ987Bom; 2006(4)MhLj511

V.C. Daga, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration is: whether teachers of an educational institutions can be held to be on employees under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) to enable the teachers to claim gratuity? 2. All petitions, involve common question of law and are founded on identical facts so a common judgment will dispose of all these petitions. The facts for the sake of clarity are taken from Writ Petition No. 1069 of 2005 filed against Smt. Vimal S.Nagre. BACKGROUND FACTS:3. The present petitions, at the instance of the petitioner the Educational Institution, are directed against the judgment and order dated 16.12.2004 passed by the respondent No. 2, the Controlling Authority and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Solapur holding that the teachers, (the respondent No. 1), involved in these petitions are entitled to claim gratuity under the provisions of the Act. 4. The factual matrix reveals that ...

Sai Traders a Proprietary Concern of Shri Motilal Amonkar and Shri Mot ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR1

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J1. Since common questions of law and facts arise in both the petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The Goa Public Health Act, 1985, hereinafter called as 'the Health Act' has been amended by the Public Health (Amendment) Act, 2005, hereinafter called as 'the Amendment Act'. The petitioners challenge the Amendment Act, on the ground that the same encroaches upon the legislation by the Parliament i.e. the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, hereinafter called as 'the Tobacco Act', and Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter called as 'Food Adulteration Act' which relate to Entry Nos.33 and 18 respectively of Concurrent List and considering the Entry No. 52 of Union List read with declaration under Section 2 of the Tobacco Act, the entire tobacco industry comes under the control of Uni...

Smt. Taramati Bhagwandas Vithlani Vs. Navjivan Gulab Gaikwad and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR565

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The Petitioner is the owner of an immovable property by the name of Taramati Bhagwandas Vithlani Chawl situated at S.M. Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai. The First Respondent was the tenant of the Petitioner in respect of a room bearing Room No. 238. A suit for eviction was instituted against the First Respondent on the ground of unlawful subletting, change of user and nuisance. It is an undisputed fact that the writ of summons was served on the First Respondent. It is equally undisputed that several adjournments were sought on behalf of the First Respondent for filing a written statement and time was granted by the Learned Trial Judge. No written statement was filed. The suit was decreed by the Small Causes Court on 23rd October, 2002. A notice before execution of the decree was taken out and was served on the First Respondent ...

Shri Dharma Bhika Patil (Since Deceased by His Heirs Smt. Indubai Dhar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR561

D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. The Additional District Judge at Kalyan, allowed an appeal preferred by the landlord against the decision of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, by which the landlord's suit for eviction came to be dismissed. While allowing the appeal, the Appellate Court has held that a ground for eviction has been made out under Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Rates (Control) Act, 1947. The ground for eviction under Section 13(1)(l) is that the tenant after coming into operation of the Act has 'built, acquired vacant possession of or been allotted a suitable residence'. 2. The premises in question consist of a one room tenement, being Block No. 8 of a property known as Amarprem Building situated at Subhash Road, Vishnu Nagar, Dombivli (West). A suit for eviction was instituted in 1992 on the ground of (i) Default in the payment of rent; (ii) Nuisance; and (iii) The tenant acquiring suitable alternative residential accommodation. The suit was dismissed by ...

Natural Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Razzak S/O Hazi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ3680; 2006(4)MhLj771

B.R. Gavai, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. Shri M. M. Agnihotri, learned Counsel waives notices on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and Shri K. S. Dhote, Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice on behalf of the respondent No. 2.2. The applicants assail the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pulgaon dated 21st June, 2005 thereby issuing the process against the accused for the offence punishable Under Sections 406, 409, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts, in brief, leading to the present application are as under.3. The applicant No. 1, Company, which is the accused No. 1 in the complaint, is a Sugar Manufacturing Company. The accused No. 2 is the Managing Director and Chairman of the accused No. 1. The accused Nos. 3 and 4 are the Merchants/Brokers working for the accused No. 1. The accused No. 5 is the partner of the accused No. 4.4. It is an allegation of the complainant, respo...