Mumbai Court November 2007 Judgments

Harinarayan G. Bajaj Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through Secretary, Mini ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR604; 2008(2)BomCR780; [2009]147CompCas579(Bom); [2008]82SCL79(Bom)

J.N. Patel, J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This Writ Petition filed by the petitioner challenges the decision of the Appellate Authority under Section 20 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, which dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 6th March, 1997 passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (S.E.B.I.) in the case of SESA Goa, which rejected the complaint lodged by the petitioner in the matter of acquisition of Sesa Goa Co. Ltd. by MITSUI & Co. of Japan through Finsider International Co. Ltd. It was the case of the petitioner that the said acquisition was in violation of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations of 1994') and in violation of the provisions of Clauses 40A and B of the Listing Agreement of the Stock Exchange. 3. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that responden...

Cosmos Foundation and anr. Vs. Mcgb and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR868; 2008(2)BomCR224; 2008(2)MhLj256

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent, as short question is involved. Ms. Archana Joshi waives notice for respondents 1 to 3. Insofar as respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are concerned, since they are formal parties in respect of the dispute raised in this petition, coupled with the fact that in spite of notice already served they have not chosen to appear, the matter is proceeded ex-parte against them. Suffice it to observe that the order that I propose to pass is in no way adverse to respondent Nos. 4 and 5.2. The sole controversy raised in this petition is with reference to the communication issued by the Assistant Assessor and Collector, H-West Ward of the office of the Assistant Assessor and Collector, H-West Ward, Bandra (West), Mumbai 400 050 dated 18th July, 2007 in response to the letter sent by the petitioners dated 9th February, 2007 (which is Exhibit-G, page 43 of the paper book). By this communication, the respondent No....

Raghuvansh Dewanchand BhasIn Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008CriLJ2127

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Whether the respondent No. 2 could have been arrested the petitioner on the strength of an warrant for arrest which had been already cancelled, and various other connected Issues are sought to be raised in the petition.2. A complaint came to be lodged against the petitioner being C.C. No. 163/S/2000 in the Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court Mumbai, by one Mr. Prem Harchandrai which came up for hearing on 7th August, 2002 and on the ground that the petitioner was not present in the Court, a non-bail able warrant came to be issued against the petitioner making it returnable on 31st October, 2002, and the said non-bailable war rant was forwarded to the Colaba Police Station for its execution. However, on 12th August. 2002 the said warrant was cancelled by the learned Magistrate.3. On 15th August, 2002 the complain ant Prem Harchandrai approached the Colaba Police Station and insisted for arrest of the petitioner in pursuance of the said warrant. After verifying ...

The Dy. Cit Vs. Lyka Labs Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These are the cross appeals by the assessee as well as Revenue pertaining to Assessment Year 1998-99 which have been heard together and are being disposed off by the common order for the sake of convenience.2. The first ground raised by the assessee in this appeal reads as under: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in considering the sum of Rs. 6 crores received from US Vitamins Ltd. in consideration of the transfer of marketing information and clinical data and allied rights and, agreeing to refrain from directly or indirectly competing with them, to be in the nature of a revenue receipt.3. Briefly stated, the facts relating to the above issue are these. The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of bulk drugs and formulation of pharmaceutical products, which are sold both in domestic and export market. In addition, the assessee was also marketing a Nitro Glycerine based product named 'Angispan TR', manufactured by ano...

Shri Ravindra Ramchandra Gadgil Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)BomCR236; 2008(1)MhLj53

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constituion, impugnes the order passed by the School Tribunal at Kolhapur in Contempt Application No. 30/1993, on 30-9-1997. The matrix of brief facts relevant to this petition is that the Petitioner was employed as an Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 12-6-1989 and he possessed the qualification of B.Sc. B.Ed. at the relevant time. He was issued notice of termination on 31-3-1990 and the same was challenged in Appeal No. 212 of 1990. The said Appeal was allowed on 16-9-1991 and the notice of termination dated 30-3-1990 was set aside. The management was directed to reinstate the petitioner to his original post and pay him difference of emoluments from the date of his termination till he was reinstated. The Tribunal further directed the management to implement the order within 40 days and submit a report of compliance to that effect.2. The Petitioner filed Contempt Application No. 30 of 1993 for execution of the order of reinstatement ...

P.R. Shele Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR83; 2008(2)BomCR213; 2008(2)MhLj33

Ranjana Desai, J.1. The petitioner was working as Inquiry Reservation Supervisor with the Central Railway. Charge-sheet was issued to him on 12-2-2001. Shortly stated the charge against the petitioner was that while working as Inquiry Reservation Supervisor, he made special cancellations for four journey C.P. tickets amounting to a total of Rs. 35,036/- and pocketed the said amount. He had thus defrauded the railway administration to the tune of Rs. 35,036/-.2. Enquiry Officer was appointed. Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 6-9-2001 with his findings. The said report is dated 12-2-2001. We must refer to the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer because the learned Counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on those conclusions. The said conclusions are as under:(i) The Spl. Cancellation were made on the ID OF THE CE. However, it cannot be said that the CE had himself resorted to spl. cancellation.(ii) The amount of debit of Rs. 35,036/- is to be recovered from the wages...

Acc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)10STR223

1. This stay application is directed against the confirmation of demand and imposition of penalty.Considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records.2. The issue involved in this case is regarding the eligibility of the applicant for availing credit of the service tax paid on the GTA service for transporting the final products to the dealers and depot.3. This issue has been referred to Larger Bench by the Regional Bench of Bangalore in the case of India Cements Ltd. v. C.C.E., Tirupati 2007 (8) S.T.R. 43 (Tri.) : 2007 (216) E.L.T. 81. It is the convention that when the matter is referred to a Larger Bench stay of recovery of the amount is granted. There is no reason to deviate from such convention.4. Accordingly, since the issue in dispute in this case stands referred to Larger Bench, the application for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of the appeal....

Airfrreight Limited Vs. the Pharmaceutical Products of India Limited

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)BomCR203; [2008]83SCL109(Bom)

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This petition has been lodged as back as on 15th July 1998. However, the same is still pending for admission. That is presumably on account of order dated 23rd July 1998 adjourning the matter sine die on the ground that the company was before BIFR. Registry has been informed that the company has already come out of BIFR. In that sense, the matter will have to proceed. However, it appears that a formal order of acceptance of petition has not been passed so far. 2. The office places the company petitions for acceptance before the Court after its institution on the assumption that that procedure is required to be followed in terms of Rule 97 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, as mentioned by the Company Registrar. He further submits that that procedure is required also on account of Section 439(8) of the Companies Act. Section 439(8) of the Companies Act reads thus:Section 439 : Provisions as to applications for winding up: (1) ... (2) ... (3) ... (4) ... (5) ... ...

Shashikant S/O Jaikumar Makhe and anr. Vs. Shantabai W/O Ramswarup Sar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009ACJ463; 2008(1)MhLj957

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. These three First Appeals can be disposed of by common judgment, since identical question of law and facts are involved.2. All the appellants had instituted applications under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Akola. All the applicants claimed compensation on account of death of their kith and kin. The learned Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed awards in all the petitions. While passing the said award, the learned Judge of the Tribunal, however, awarded 12% interest from date of award till realisation of the amount. Being aggrieved by that order of award of interest from date of award and not from date of application, these first appeals have been preferred.3. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the appellants and the respondents.The only point which arises for my consideration is-Point FindingsWhether the learned Member of the Tribunal hadproperly exercised the discretion vested in him in awar...

Atmaram S/O Kisan Shirsat Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)BomCR764; 2008(2)MhLj237

S.P. Kukday, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of a writ directing respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for making payment of the dues towards the salary of the petitioner for the years 1995 to 2004, along with interest.2. After completing his matriculation the petitioner joined school at Wavade on 28th August, 1984, as Assistant Teacher (Untrained). In the year 1989 petitioner completed Sahitya Sudhakar Course which is treated as equivalent to Graduation. Thereafter, he also completed In-service Teaching Course. As the petitioner had acquired a degree, which is equivalent to graduation, he was promoted and placed in the cadre of Graduate Teacher in the year 1995, in pursuance to the Government Resolution dated 14th November, 1979. As per the conditions incorporated in the Government Resolution, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to complete his B.Ed. Course within five years from his placement in the cadre of Trained Teacher. On his failure,...