Mumbai Court September 2006 Judgments

Shri Kantilal Somabhai Kothari Vs. Shri Udayvare Raghavendra Acharya a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR468; 2006(6)BomCR642

V.C. Daga, J. 1. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 6th September, 1996 in Appeal No. 427/1988 in R.A.E. Suit No. 133/821/1969 passed by the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai confirming the judgment and decree dated 6th September, 1996 passed by the Small Causes Court in suit directing eviction of the petitioner- tenant from the suit premises within a period stipulated therein. Factual Matrix : 2. The factual matrix reveals that one Mr.N.V.Baliga was the owner of the building situated at 257, Frere Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001. Some time in the year 1959, Mr.Baliga filed suit for eviction against his tenant, an old generation 'Mugle Azam' film fame personality Mr. Mubarak (original defendant No. 1); who was occupying premises consisting of 5 rooms with his servant, cook and other paraphernalia. In the year 1965, the said suit came to be compromised pursuant to which Mr.Mubarak became statutory tenant of five rooms located on the first floor of...

Shri. Gireesh U.G. Menon Vs. Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha, a Trade Union Regis ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR233; [2007(112)FLR394]; 2007(1)MhLj761

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith. The Petitioner employed with M/s. Crawford Bayley & Co, had made an application to the Industrial Court to be impleaded as party in Application (M.R.T.U.) No. 14 of 2003, which was taken out by Respondent No. 1, under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act (M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). An affidavit was filed in support of the application. Along with the Petitioner, other employees also filed affidavits. In the affidavit it was pointed out that the Petitioner was a Member of the Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha and had resigned from the membership of Respondent No. 1 from 2.4.2004. They had intimated to Respondent No. 1 that they had joined another union namely Adarsh Kamgar Sabha. In the affidavit it has been set out as under : I have informed the non-Applicant Union to revoke and cancel resolution dated 19th August, 2003 passed by the Applicant Union in w...

Prof. Manohar Dhonde and Indian Bahujan Teachers Association (ibta), M ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR717; 2007(1)BomCR417

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. The two Writ Petitions are pertaining to a common subject, which can be described as 'grievance relating to sexual harassment meted out to some lady teachers working in a private school.' Writ Petition No. 282 of 2004 is filed by two Petitioners, who claim to be office bearers of two different associations, namely, Bharatiya Vidyarthi Sena and Indian Bahujan Teachers Association. Writ Petition No. 4170 of 2004, which was filed after about six months since Public Interest Litigation (PIL, for short) is filed by three lady teachers of the said private school, which is run by management-Respondent No. 9 in the first Writ Petition.As many as eleven Civil Applications were also filed by different parties in these two matters, which are clubbed together right from 16.8.2004, when the first major order was passed, common in both the Writ Petitions. We may quote operative part of the order dated 16.8.2004 for ready reference; We direct the Registrar of this Court to forwar...

Kewalchand (Since Deceased Smt. K.K. Mehta and ors.) Vs. Nemchand Meht ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR615

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Shri Kevalchand Nemchand Mehta and his wife Smt. Kamlaben constructed the multi storeyed building by name 'Keval Mahal' on Marine Drive, Mumbai consisting of 11 flats somewhere in the year 1940. At that time the couple had one son and five unmarried daughters. In 1945 second son was born, in 1946 third son was born and in 1954 three daughters and eldest son Dinesh were married. In the year 1942 Flat No. 9A located on the 4th floor was given on rent to one Mr. M.C. Davar who was occupying the same along with his wife and the couple had no issues. With the arrival of children and grand children, the members of the family had increased and, therefore, the landlords gave a notice of terminating the tenancy in the year 1965. Finally, RAE Suit No. 446/2650 of 1971 was filed on or about 28/5/1971 under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Amendment) Act, 1978 (for short the Bombay Rent Act) seeking possession of the suit flat on the grounds of reasona...

Thomas A. Fernandes Vs. Director and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR447; 2006(6)BomCR551

1. Heard Shri M.S. Sonak, the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Shri S.R. Rivankar, the learned Government Advocate on behalf of the respondents.2. Rule. By consent, Rule heard forthwith.3. In this petition, the petitioner who was appointed as a Laboratory Assistant, in one of the Government High Schools, by Order dated 12.01.1976, seeks, inter alia, for a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents not to retire the petitioner at the age of 58 years and for a further direction to continue the petitioner in service till the petitioner attains the age of 60 years.4. The petitioner was appointed as a Laboratory Assistant initially in the Government Higher Secondary School, Panaji, by Order dated 12.01.1976 and is presently posted in a Government High School where there is a Headmaster, Teachers, one Laboratory Assistant (Petitioner), one UDC, one LDC, one Peon and one Watchman. The petiti...

Adamji Lookmanji and Co. and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2007Bom56; 2007(1)ALLMR785; 2007(3)BomCR447

ORDER1. The petitioners have challenged orders dated 25th April, 2005 and 12th October. 2004, passed by the Registrar of Firms, Maharashtra State, Mumbai under Section 69-A of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, in terms of Maharashtra Amendment Act, 29 of 1984 (for short 'Mah. State Amendment') by which a retrospective penalty of Rs. 1,03,680/- has been levied for non-intimation of alterations in the partnership deeds dated 17-4-1972, 21-8-1975 and 18-10-19/9.2. Petitioner No. 1 Adamji Lookmanji & Co. (for short 'the firm') is a partnership firm which was registered on 18th February, 1946 under the Indian Partnership Act. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are the partners of the said firm under Deeds of Partnership dated 8th December, 1982 and dated 1st December, 1999. Respondent No. 2 is the Registrar of Firms who is exercising the powers, functions and duties under the Indian Partnership Act. Mr. Adamji Yahyabhai Jasdanwala, a partner of the firm, now retired, shifted his residence on 17th April...

PravIn Ratilal Share and Stock Brokers Ltd. Vs. Sagar Drugs and Pharma ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ARBLR373(Bom); 2007(3)MhLj134

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the petitioner challenges the Award made by the Arbitral Tribunal directing the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 48,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Eight lakhs only) to the respondent No. 1. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submits that the claim made by the respondent No. 1 before the Arbitral Tribunal was barred by the Law of Limitation. It is submitted that the Arbitral Tribunal has held that the claim is not barred by the law of limitation because the claim is based on the current and running account maintained by the respondent No. 1 and that last payment was made on 23-9-2003. The learned Counsel submits, by pointing out the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 2 of the Arbitration Act, that the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the arbitration held under the bye-laws of National Stock Exchange and therefore, the period of limitation would be governe...

Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Annamma Philip a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR766

Vazifdar S.J., J.1. As a substantial part of the basis of my order in both the Notices of Motion is the same, it would be convenient to dispose of both the Notices of Motion by this common order:2(a). Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in Suit No. 2177 of 2001 are the trustees of the P.T.M. Family Trust. Defendant No. 4 is the Dalamal House Commercial Premises Co-operative Society Ltd.(b). Defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 7 in Suit No. 2178 of 2001 are Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in Suit No. 2177 of 2001. Defendant No. 4, i.e. the society, is Defendant No. 4 in this suit as well. Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the trustees of the Idichandy Family Trust, to whom Defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 7 have purported to sell the property in 1983.(c). For convenience, the reference to the defendants hereafter, will be to Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in Suit No. 2177 of 2001 who are Defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 7 in Suit No. 2178 of 2001.3.(a). Suit No. 2177 of 2001 is filed for specific performance of an agreement dated 15.5.1980 ...

Sidharam M. Yanagandul and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR317; 2007(4)BomCR444

Karnik D.G., J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 10/7/2006 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai refusing to grant ad interim relief of an injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation from demolishing the unauthorised structure.2. There are three shops exist in the property bearing final plot No. 205, Rakshe Chawl, Dadar (East), Mumbai. Appellant is a tenant occupying one of the shops. Behind the three shops there is a temporary shed with brick -masonary walls and G.I. sheet roof. The said temporary shed (for short the suit shed') is the subject matter of this appeal.3. On 5th June, 2006 the respondent municipal corporation issued a notice to the appellant under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (for short the Act) to show cause why the suit shed which was constructed without the permission of the Planning Authority should not be demolished. By a reply dated 8th June, 2006 the appellant submitted that he was in possession of the suit shop as a te...

S.K. Sahdev Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. We have heard both sides on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 97,55,466/- and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed on M/s. PMS Diesels penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on M/s. PMS Enterprises; penalty of Rs. One lakh on Shri S.K. Sahdev; penalty of Rs. Two lakhs on R.M. Dhiman and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on Shri K.M.Unad-kat. The period of dispute is 1990-91 to 1994-95.2. The demand has been confirmed on M/s. PMS Diesels as a result of holding that their clearances are required to be clubbed with the clearances of M/s. PMS Enterprises and since the total clearance value exceeds the ceiling limit prescribed in SSI Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 1-3-1993, they are not entitled to the benefit of SSI Notification. The goods in question cleared by M/s. PMS Diesels are LP sets, crankshafts and connecting rods.3. As regards Liner Piston set (LP set), we find from the show cause notice that the activity carried out is purchase of various parts and components i.e. Liner, Piston,...