Mumbai Court November 2007 Judgments

Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Precimax ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008(117)FLR153]; (2008)2LLJ755Bom

Abhay S. Oka, J.1. Heard the advocates appearing for the parties. The Appeal is admitted on substantial question of law arising out of ground (d) of the Memorandum of Appeal. The advocate for the Respondent waives service. By consent, the Appeal is taken up for final disposal.2. The Appeal has been preferred by the Employees State Insurance Corporation for challenging an order made by the Employees State Insurance Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') by which the Application made by the Respondent under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') has' been allowed. The Application was made by the Respondent for challenging the order dated September 24, 1999 passed by the Appellant under Section 45A of the said Act. By the impugned order, the Application has been-allowed on the ground that the limitation/time limit of five years provided in the proviso to Clause (b) of Section 77(1-A) of the said Act will apply to the...

Pepsico (i) Holding Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)(125)ECC171

1. These are four appeals involving a common issue and accordingly, a common order is being passed.2. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant Pepsico India Holdings are engaged in the manufacture of aerated water. During the process of manufacture of aerated water the appellant draws sample from online for testing which are tested within the factory itself. They also draw reference samples which are retained up to period of 6 months front the date of manufacturing and thereafter they are destroyed since they cannot be marketed. The appellants were issued four show cause notices stating that they have cleared the samples for test purposes in their in house laboratory for testing of quality and for adherence to product specification without complying with the procedures laid down under the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and without payment of Central excise duty leviable thereon. The show cause notice further stated that the appellant draws one bottle of sample every hour for its ...

The Village Grampanchayat and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR905; 2008(1)BomCR542; (2008)110BOMLR33; 2008(2)MhLj620

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners, who represent the village panchayat Talegaon and who are also members of the said village panchayat, challenge the notification dated 16th August, 2007, No. VPM 2607/CR-4334/PR-4(22) issued by the Rural Development and Water Conservation Department, Government of Maharashtra. By the said notification, original revenue village Talegaon, which within its territorial limits, comprises Krishnanagar, was bifurcated into two revenue villages by exercising the powers as conferred by Article 243(g) of the Constitution of India Rule with Section 4 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (Bombay Act III of 1959). The two newly constituted revenue villages are Talegaon and Krishnanagar, both within Chalisgaon tahsil of Jalgaon district. Consequently, the notification issued by the Additional Collector, Jalgaon on 26.10.2007, No. Sasha/gramapa/kavi/85/2007, inviting objections for constitution of wards in the gram panchayat for election of...

Ghatge Patil Transport Limited, a Company Incorporated Under the Provi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR497

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule made returnable forthwith. Smt.Pai, the learned APP waives service for the Respondents. 2. By the present petition, the petitioners are challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 52 and 52(1-A) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as applicable to the State of Maharashtra, hereinafter called as 'the said Act', being violative of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 300A of the Constitutional of India as also seeking to quash and set aside the Order dated 19th December, 2005 passed by the Range Forest Officer, Wild Life, Kolhapur in Case No. Crime/1591/2005-06 Kolhapur, the Order dated 31st October, 2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shirala, in Criminal Complaint No. 183 of 2006 below Exhibit-72, and the Order dated 8th May, 2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 46 of 2006 and pray further for direction to the respondents for release of their vehicle bearing No....

Shri Sudhakar Chindu Bhadane Vs. the Niphad Taluka Education Society a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR540; [2008(116)FLR649]; 2008(1)MhLj448

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arises from the order passed by the School Tribunal, Nashik region at Nashik on 24-7-1998 thereby dismissing Appeal No. 1/1998 filed under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short MEPS Act).2. The Petitioner was initially appointed as a junior clerk w.e.f. 1-8-1971 in the Respondent No. 1 education society. However, he came to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher sometimes in the year 1975. On 26-6-1992 he was terminated from service and, therefore, he filed Appeal No. 21/1992 which was allowed by the School Tribunal. Said order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 1548/1994 which came to be dismissed by this Court on 27-6-1994 by Division Bench of this Court.3. As per the Petitioner when he went to join for duty on 6-1-1998 he was not allowed to join by the Head Master and, therefore, he met the Chairman of the Society and requested him to a...

Madhuri Prabhakar Patole Vs. Aruna Satishchandra Gaikwad

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR709; 2008(3)MhLj447

1. In view of the reference made by the learned Single Judge of this Court (CORAM : A.M. Khanwilkar, J.), Madhuri Prabhakar Patole v. Aruna Satishchandra Gaikwad 2006 (4) Bom. C.R. 238 and directions given by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice, the present matter was placed before us for resolving following issueISSUEWhether Section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC) in relation to its applicability in the State of Maharashtra, stands repealed by Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment Act 1999) i.e. Central Act No. 46 of 1999 and/or by Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 i.e. Central Act No. 22 of 2002?2. Brief facts giving rise to this reference are as under:A suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 895 of 2005 was filed against the present applicant in the Court of CJSD, Solapur for declaration and injunction. Application Exh-5 was also filed for temporary injunction. The present applicant-original defendant fil...

Hirasingh Sardarsing Parmar Vs. Ramkuwarbai Sardarsingh Parmar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR671; 2008(1)BomCR811

Pangarkar C.L., J.1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff who lost in the first Appellate Court.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:One Smt. Kesarbai was owner of the suit property. She died in the year 1955. She left behind her, plaintiff Hirasingh and two daughters namely: Durgabai and Ratnabai. Upon death of Kesarbai, it is alleged that the plaintiff and the two daughters became the owners of the suit property. They have decided to partition the said property. The two daughters namely: Durgabai and Ratnabai authorised present plaintiff Hirasingh to institute a suit on their behalf. The defendant is occupying the suit house even though she has no right whatsoever. She did not vacate the suit house inspite of the notice. Hence, the plaintiff instituted the suit. 3. The defendant resisted the suit. She denies that Kesarbai was the owner of the suit property. On the other hand, she submits that she is the step-mother of the plaintiff being widow of Sardars...

Prabhakar S/O Ambadas Kothale Vs. Shantabai W/O Prabhakar Kothale

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR386; 2008(2)MhLj794

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This Second Appeal is filed by the Original petitioner/Husband. An application for grant of divorce under Section 13(1A)(ii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter mentioned as 'Act'; was moved by him against the present respondent, the said application was granted by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur on 23-4-1982 and the present respondent - Wife carried appeal against it under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, vide Civil Appeal No. 358 of 1982. The said appeal has been allowed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Nagpur on 24-7-1987. The present Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure has been admitted by this Court on 27-7-1988, on questions of law as given in the appeal memo as substantial questions of law involved therein. The said questions read as under:(1) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in holding that the decision dated 8-2-1977 in Second Appeal No. 385 of 1971 operates as res judicata in the present case?(...

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products in their own factories situated at different locations. They also get medicines manufactured on job work basis from various job workers who have their own manufacturing facility approved by FDA. They supplied raw materials and packing materials to the job workers who manufactured medicines in accordance with specifications given by them. The job workers availed credit of duty paid on raw materials and packing material. Medicines so manufactured are cleared by the job workers on payment of duty on the basis of cost of raw materials plus manufacturing expenses including manufacturing profit as per the Supreme Court decision in Ujagar Print's case. The present case pertains to medicines manufactured on job work basis by M/s Niramay Pharma (NPPL) having its factory at Nashik. They were however issued show cause notices alleging that M/s Glenmark Pharmaceutica...

Lilabai W/O Kisanrao Chavan and Kalawatibai W/O Tukaram Kadam Vs. Deok ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR673; 2008(2)BomCR200

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This Second appeal has been filed by the original plaintiffs whose claim in respect of partition of Survey No. 54 and House No. 143, Ward No. 18 of Amravati was rejected while rest of the claim was allowed. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal can be stated thus The present appellants are the heirs of the original plaintiff Sonabai. Sonabai's husband Ganpatrao died in the year 1938 living behind him one son Motiram and two daughters namely; the present appellants/plaintiffs. Defendant No. 1 is the widow of Motiram the son of Sonabai while defendant No. 2 is daughter of defendant No. 1. It is alleged that the suit property mentioned in scheduled A and B attached to the plaint is the joint family Property left behind by Ganpatrao. The said property was being managed by Motiram after death of Ganpatrao. Motiram had a son Dadarao. Both Motiram and his son were murdered on 18/10/1966. The plaintiffs submit that there was no partition of the suit property and as such ...