Mumbai Court July 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shridhar Sakharam Omle Vs. Yeshwantrao Chawan Academy of Development A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR456; (2007)ILLJ179Bom; 2006(5)MhLj604
R.M. Lodha, J.1. By the order dated 14.10.1992, the petitioner who was working-as General Assistant, Yashwantrao Chavan Academy of Development Administration (for short, 'Yashada') was dismissed from service with effect from 15.10.1992. The appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Chairman, Executive Committee, Yashada also came to be dismissed on 21.8.1993. The petitioner seeks to challenge these orders in this writ petition.2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant in Yashada on 16.5.1986. He was provided with the room for his residence at the pump house in the compound of Yashada. The job of the petitioner was to oversee the mazdoors working in the Mali Department. In the night of 15.4.1992, one lady Smt. Hirabai (working as dish washer and chappati maker in the Mess) was found sleeping in the petitioner's room. The petitioner was served with chargesheet on 11.5.1992 under Rule 22.01 of Yashada Service Rules, 1999. The charge against the petitioner was that he misbehaved in the ...
Sicom Ltd. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Bom1; I(2007)BC82; 2006(6)BomCR159; [2006]133CompCas610(Bom); 2006(203)ELT34(Bom)
Rowurow, J.1. This is a dispute between two wings of the State. Each one is trying to claim priority over the other.The Facts:This petition is at the instance of M/s. SICOM Ltd., the Company established by the Government of Maharashtra for development of industries under the provisions of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 ('Act' for short); which carries on business of financing industrial undertaking in the State of Maharashtra,2. The Government of India, in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 46 of the said Act, issued Notification dated 11th December, 1986, extending provisions of various sections amongst other, Section 27, 29, 30, 31, 32A to 32F, 41, 41A and 44 of the said Act of the said Act to the petitioner. The petitioner is, therefore, deemed State Financial Corporation within the meaning of Section 46 of the said Act.3. The petitioner, under an Indenture of Mortgage dated 22nd December 1986 has advanced a sum of Rs. 51,00,000/-by way of term loa...
Madan S/o Babanrao Zade Vs. Hon'ble Minister of State and Ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR235; 2006(44)MhLj409
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and learned counsel for respondent No. 4.2. The counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 24-4-1998 passed by the respondent No. 1 while exercising powers under Section 55-B of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, on the ground that the order impugned is the interim order and the final declaration of disqualification under Section 55-B of the Act would not have been given at the interlocutory stage by the State Government before passing the final order, and therefore, the order impugned is not sustainable, Mr. Gordey, learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that even in the order, which is interim in nature, no reasons as such are given for holding that the petitioner has incurred disqualification under Section 55-B of the Act and in absence of reasons, impugn...
Shantaram Raghunath Khalkar Vs. Nashik Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR230; 2006(6)MhLj334
ORDERH.L. Gokhale, J.1. Writ Petition No. 2491 of 1986 is filed by an employee of the 1st respondent Municipal Corporation. He claimed the post of Fire Superintendent by the method of promotion. The 3rd respondent is an employee who has been appointed to that post on the basis of nomination. This appointment is challenged through this petition.2. The second petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 2083 of 2002 is filed by the respondent No. 3 from Writ Petition No. 2491 of 1986. This petition prays for a declaration that the petitioner therein (i.e. respondent No. 3 in the first petition), ought to be appointed to the further higher post of Chief Fire Officer w.e.f. 5-10-1989 and that the 1st respondent was in error in not elevating him to the post of Chief Fire Officer from October, 1989.3. The third petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 2325 of 2002 is filed by the 3rd respondent from Writ Petition No. 2491 of 1986. He has challenged the resolutions of the Nasik Municipal Corporation passed on 17-1...
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rustom Behramji Colah (Dr.) and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)MhLj42
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, with the consent of counsel, made returnable forthwith. At the request of the counsel, the petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.On 27th August, 1956, an Indenture of Lease was executed between Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd. ('Burmah Shell'), the predecessor-in-title of the Petitioners and the Respondents. By and under the lease a plot of land admeasuring 888 sq. yards being C.S. No. 549, Mazgaon Division was leased out by the respondents to Burmah Shell. The term of the lease was for a period of 20 years commencing from 1st January, 1956 and the monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 550/=. Clause 3(c) of the lease deed contained the following covenant:(c) If the Lessee shall have given to the Lessor not less than two calender month's notice in writing prior to the expiration of the term preserved herein expressing a desire to renew the lease and shall have duly observed and performed all the terms and conditions hereo...
Omesh Keshav Karnik Vs. the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconst ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC179; [2007]139CompCas88(Bom)
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. The prayer in the petition is for quashing process issued against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in Case No. 1387/SS/2005 pending before the 30th Metropolitan Magistrate's Court at Kurla and number of other cases mentioned in prayer Clause (b) of the petition.2. The petitioner is Managing Director of Phoenix Fine Chem. Pvt. Ltd., which is a sick company. This petition is filed by the petitioner in the capacity of Managing Director of the said company. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have filed complaints against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and as per this petition, there are Dumber of complaints against the petitioner, as described in paras 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the petition. The contention of the petitioner is that the complainants were aware at the time of the transaction with the petitioner that the petitioner company is declared as a Sick Industrial C...
Shakuntala Pravinbhai Saraiya (Smt.) Vs. Union Carbide India Ltd. (Now ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: [2006(110)FLR1060]; (2007)1LLJ69Bom
1. Heard Mr. Vinod Shetty, counsel for the appellant.2. The only statement that is made in the statement of claim is that the worker, in fact, has worked for more than 240 days. It is not even stated that she worked for more than 240 days in the preceding year. Rather, it is admitted in the statement of claim that the workman has not been given continuous work by the Company. The defence of the employer was that the worker was employed purely on temporary basis in connection with the temporary work/temporary increase in work and has not completed 240 days of continuous service in the preceding year.3. That the burden lies on the workman to prove that she worked for 240 days continuously in the preceding year admits of no legal ambiguity. The worker miserably failed to establish that she had worked for 240 days in the preceding year.4. The counsel for the appellant submitted before us that an application was made by the worker for direction to the employer for production of the document...
Maharashtra General Kamgar Mahasangh Vs. Mistry Prabhudas Manaji Engin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR555; 2007(3)BomCR856
Karnik D.G., J.1. This petition raises an interesting question of law viz. Whether the interim order passed under Section 30 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short the Act',) can be enforced by making an application for recovery under Section 50 of the Act.2. The basic facts are few and are not in dispute. The petitioner which is a trade union registered under the Act filed a complaint against the respondents under Section 28 of the Act alleging that the respondents were guilty of unfair labour practice, inasmuch as they had not paid the wages to the workmen employed by them from January, 2000 till the date of the complaint. It prayed for a declaration that the conduct of the respondent in not paying the wages amounted to an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV to the Act and also prayed for an order directing the respondents to pay the wages from January, 2000 till date. In the complaint the petitione...
Aarti Advertising Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: (2007)6STR122
2. At. the time of hearing stay application, it is quite felt expedient to dispose of the appeal itself as the issue involved in both is one and the same.3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee M/s. Aarti Advertising, 8, Giridhar Sankul, Krishna Nagar Panchavati Nasik, are engaged in providing services of Advertising services having Service Tax Registration to comply with the conditions prescribed in the Service Tax Rules, 1944 is provided in Service Tax network. It appears that the assessee had failed to pay Service Tax and to file return in time in form ST-3 for the period April, 2001 to September, 2003.Thereupon the Assistant Commissioner had issued two Show-Cause-Notices for the contravened the provisions of Section 68 & 70 of the Act for not paying the Service Tax and filing the returns in time and as to utilize the same should not be levied and also proposed penalty. The Notices were adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner (S.T.), Central Excise & Customs,...
Manish Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Vs. Ccex and Capsulation Services
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC63
Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T) 1. Heard both sides. Appeal No. E/3559/2000 has been filed by M/s Manish Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Appeals No. E/2740 to 2742/2000 have been filed by M/s Capsulation Services Pvt. Ltd. and Appeal No.E/2827/2000 has been filed by the department against M/s Capsulation Services Pvt. Ltd. In all these appeals, the dispute relates to classification of the various impugned goods listed below. The assessees claim these goods to be classifiable under sub-heading 3003.10 as P or P medicaments, whereas it is the department's case that these goods should be classified as vitamins under Chapter 29. The compositions of the impugned goods in respect of these appeals are as follows: I. M/S MANISH PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD. Sl.Ferric Ammonium Citrate 20 mg Methyl Paraben 2000 Folic Acid BP 1.5 mg Disodium E.D.T.A. Sorbital solution BP 1.25 mg Sugar Sodium Saccharine Ascorbic Acid BP 250 mg Ethyl cellulose Starch Lactose Talcum Magnesium Stearate Sodium starch glycol...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »