Mumbai Court August 2006 Judgments

Air India Ltd. Vs. V.M. Mhadgut and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR846; 2007(1)MhLj531

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. These proceedings arise out of an order of the Presiding Officer of the National Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai rejecting an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The first respondent was employed as a Loader in the Commercial Department of Air India on 27th April, 1983 and was confirmed in service with effect from 1st November, 1983. On 27th November, 1986 the workman was arrested by the police at Sahar International Airport on the charge that he was involved in the commission of an offence punishable under Section 380 of the Penal Code. The allegation against the first respondent was that he was involved in the theft of 868 integrated circuits from the Air India cargo warehouse. The first respondent was charge-sheeted for disciplinary proceedings on 20th February, 1990. The enquiry committee came to the conclusion on 7th October, 1991 that the charges levelled against the first respondent stood established on the evidence on ...

isabel Willie Pimento and ors. Vs. Mohmed Haji Gafoor and Brothers and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR848; 2007(3)BomCR951

Dharmadhikari S.C., J.1. This Chamber Summons is by the applicant and the relief claimed is that the attachment levied on an immovable property bearing Survey No. 149-A Hissa No. 13, CTS No. 1368, admeasuring 570.3 sq.mtrs. and Survey No. 144-A, Hissa No. 5, CTS No. 1353, admeasuring 550 sq.mtrs. situate at Village Marol, Taluka Andheri in the Mumbai Suburban District be raised. The applicant also challenges an order passed by the Commissioner for Taking Accounts on 29th April, 2005. The facts which are not in dispute are these.2. A suit was filed in this Court by the plaintiffs against the defendants claiming that the suit property which is more particularly described at Exhibit-A to the plaint, be handed over to the plaintiffs and an order & decree to this effect be passed by this Court. A declaration was sought that agreement dated 23rd September, 1979 (Exhibit H-1) is fabricated, sham and bogus, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff.3. By prayer Clause (c) a money decree...

Gangubai Vishvambhar Dahatonde and anr. Vs. Narayan Pundlik Wankhade

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR541; 2007(3)BomCR845

Joshi A.H., J.1. This appeal is filed by the original defendant who was appellant in Regular Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2004. Limited question that is raised in appeal is as follows:Whether the first Appellate Court is competent to decide any appeal on merit when on the date of hearing none appeared, and was the Court bound to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution or non-appearance in view of Order 41, Rule 17 instead of hearing and deciding the appeal on merits of the case?2. This Court is satisfied after hearing both learned Advocates that the question framed in para 1 is a substantial question of law, and this second appeal is admitted on this substantial question of law.3. Learned Advocate for the respondent is ready to argue the case for final hearing and waives notice of final disposal, and the second appeal is taken up for final hearing forthwith.4. Heard. Factually, it is a common ground that the appellant was absent when the appeal was called out for final hearing before the ...

indus Ind. Media Communication P. Vs. C.C. (Gen)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. As a third member reference on account of the Difference of Opinion between the two members, who originally heard the appeals, I have heard Shri D.R. Shroff Sr. Ld. Advocate appearing along with Shri H.C.Daruwalla Ld, Advocate, Shri Prakash Shah, Ld Advocate for the appellants and Shri Vimlesh Kumar Ld, SDR for the Revenue. Inasmuch as, the facts, which are not disputed, have already been detailed in the order proposed by Ld. Member (Judicial) Shri Krishna Kumar, the same are not being repeated.2 The dispute is as regards the availability and applicability of Notification No. 110/95-Cus dt. 5.6.1995. The said notification grants concessional rate of duty to the goods specified in the table and imported into India subject to the conditions enumerated therein. For better appreciation of the said notification and the conditions attached thereto, I would like to reproduce the same.In exercise of the powers...subject to the following conditions, namely: (1) The goods imported are covere...

Blue Cross Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This reference arises from the divergent views on the question whether the value of physician's samples which are supplied free should be assessed on comparable basis with identical medicaments manufactured and sold for commercial purposes or that their valuation be assessed by adopting the costing method as done by the assessee on the basis of Rule 6(b)(ii)"of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975.2. The assessee is a manufacturer of P&P medicines falling under Chapter Heading 3003.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Revenue considered the adoption of costing method for the assessable value of various physician samples of the medicines to be lower than the value charged for the clearance of normal sales packs of identical medicines, and objected to the assessee's resorting to the provisions of Rule 6(b)(ii). In the show cause notice issued on the assessee, it was alleged that there was a short payment of Rs. 5,66,046/- as worked out in Annexure 'A' th...

Ajay Prakash Ambagade Vs. University of Pune,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR804

V.G. Palshikar, Acting C.J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the 1st respondent University requiring it to grant to the petitioner grace marks in one subject viz., Advanced Java Programming, and declare him as having passed the Master of Computer Application examination. 2. Facts necessary for adjudication of this dispute, stated briefly, are as under:3. The petitioner is a citizen of India and was permanent resident of Nagpur. He had joined the Pune University for obtaining the degree of Master of Computer Application, which was conferred by the University. The said post- graduate course was of three years' duration and consisted of six semesters, each semester being for six months. The petitioner undertook his studies for this post- graduate degree from June, 2000 and attended five semester till December, 2002. The sixth semester did not require any college attendance or any written examination. Thus the last examination, in conventional sense, which ...

Narayan Korga Pujari Vs. Gandhi Education Society, Through Its Secreta ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR225; 2007(3)BomCR308; 2006(6)MhLj476

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard the learned advocates for the petitioner and the respondent No.1 as well as the learned AGP for the respondent Nos. 2 and 5. None present for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, though served. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the seniority of the petitioner fixed by the respondent No.1 and approved by the respondent No.2 whereby the petitioner has been shown junior to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has to be enlisted as senior to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, more particularly, in view of the provisions comprised under Note-3 to Clause (2) of Schedule F of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981, hereinafter called as 'the said Rules'. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that though initially the petitioner was employed as untrained teacher in the institution of the respondent No. 1, after appointment of the respondent Nos.3 and 4, yet the petitioner and the said two respondents obt...

Raju Gajanan Koparde Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary, ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR499; 2007(3)BomCR353; 2006(6)MhLj518

V.M. Kanade, J.1. All these Petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment since the issue raised in these Petitions is common and can be dealt with in this common judgment. 2. Petitioners in these Petitions are challenging the Notification which is issued by the Respondents dated 19/08/2006 on various grounds under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Brief facts are as under:4. Petitioners are parents of the students who appeared for Common Entrance Test (For short 'CET'), seeking admission to the First Year Degree Course in Engineering. Respondents published information Brochure along with application forms for the admissions to the First Year Degree Course in Engineering in the first week of July, 2006. A Petition was filed in this Court challenging some of the clauses in the said information Brochure. This Petition was filed by the Association of the Management of Un-aided Engineering Colleges (Maharashtra). The said Writ Petition being Writ Petition Lodging No. 1629 of...

Shri Datta Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and anr. Vs. Shri Dinkar Krishna G ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR695; 2006(6)MhLj770

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition filed by the Management and the Head Master of Janta High School at Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur assails the judgment and order dated 11/9/1990 of the School Tribunal thereby allowing Appeal No. 148 of 1987. The said appeal was filed by the present respondent against the order of termination dated 3/10/1987 by way of punishment for an act of major misconduct as defined under the MEPS Rules, 1981 and the appeal was filed under Section of the MEPS (Condition of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short 'the Act').2. The brief facts are that the Respondent who was holding the qualifications of B.Sc., B.Ed. came to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Janata High School at Shirol run by Shri Datta Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, a Public Charitable Trust (old Society for short) and also a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Petitioner No. 2-Headmaster is one of the five Trustees of the said Society. The respondent was confirmed a...

Rupali Mehta Vs. Smt. Tina Narinder SaIn Mehta

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2007Bom62; 2006(6)ALLMR48; 2006(6)BomCR778; 2006(6)MhLj786

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This Notice of Motion has been taken out by the Plaintiff in Suit No. 75 of 2005. Petition No. 378 of 2005 has been filed by the present Plaintiff Rupali Mehta praying for grant of letters of administration with the Will annexed. The letters of administration are sought in relation to the estate left behind by Captain Narindersain Bhimsain Mehta, who expired on 22nd December, 2004. The Defendant Tina Narinder Sain Mehta had filed a caveat and therefore the petition was converted into Testamentary Suit No. 75 of 2005. 2. The Plaintiff has taken out this Notice of Motion seeking an order for appointment of the receiver as also seeking interim orders in relation to the property which according to the Plaintiff is left behind by the deceased. 3. An objection has been raised on behalf of the Defendant to the maintainability of this Notice of Motion seeking interim orders in relation to the property which according to the Plaintiff is left behind by the deceased on the gr...