Mumbai Court November 2007 Judgments

Laxmi W/O Bisan Ujjanwar and anr. Vs. Smt. Sharda W/O Mohammed Yaqub

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)MhLj561

A.H. Joshi, J.1. This Court issued a notice of final disposal on 19th December, 2006 to the respondent sole who failed to appear in spite of service. Petition is, therefore, taken up for final disposal.2. Heard.3. By the impugned order, the petitioners' application for permission to file a Written Statement was rejected.4. The petitioner No. 1 is an illiterate lady and a Sweeper by occupation.5. The application for permission to file a Written Statement is not properly worded, and lacks the pleadings explaining reasons or cause of failure to file the Written Statement in due time. This lapse is, however, liable to be viewed as a fault attributable to mofussil and unskilful drafting.6. It would be solely depending on the lawyer representing a party to explore and aver facts essential to making out a case, particularly when the litigants are rustic. Lack of proficiency by a lawyer engaged or who accepts the brief has, in fact, denied to such litigant due and fair legal aid.7. This Court ...

Communidade of Cacoda Vs. Vishnu Bhikaro Sawant and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR806

Rebello F.I., J.1. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:(1) Whether the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction the sanction is required from the Administrative Tribunal and such suit falling in the category preservatory (conservatoria) or executive (executive) no permission or authority is required from Administrative Tribunal but wherein suits the delay in filing it would cause an extinction of the right or guarantee the approval of the Administrator is necessary?(2) Whether the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction have within the category countenance and therefore permission of Administrative Tribunal is necessary or not?The substantial questions arise from the following facts:2. The appellant-plaintiff had instituted the suit for mandatory and permanent injunction being owners of the property surveyed under No. 145/21 and 145/2 of Village Kakoda. It was the case of the plaintiffs who are appellants herein that on or about 24.10.1989, the...

MohidIn M. Sangam Vs. Union of India (UOi) thro' the Secretary Governm ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008(117)FLR609]; (2008)IILLJ530Bom

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith. The petitioner has moved this Court to impugn the communication of September 4, 2006 whereby the Central Government as the appropriate Government has rejected the reference sought for by the petitioner in the manner of his status as workman employed with respondent No. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was employed by respondent No. 2 as driver-cum-operator since from 1999 and since then he was in continuous service till the time of his termination. Initially, the petitioner was receiving his payments of fixed monthly amount directly from respondent No. 2. The Petitioner's case is that subsequently to deprive him of his regular benefits after few years, respondent No. 2 through camouflage arrangement engaged the petitioner through a Contractor i.e. Trust Us Security Service without the knowledge of the petitioner. It is further case of the petitioner that he does not know to read, write and/or to understand English though he signs in ...

Goa Housing Board, Through Managing Director and Deputy Collector, Sub ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR785; 2008(1)BomCR356; (2007)109BOMLR2803; 2008(2)MhLj151

N.A. Britto, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 7/01/2003 of the learned Additional District Judge, Mapusa, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 20/- to Rs. 80/- per sq. meter. 2. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose off the present appeal. 3. By notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and published on Gazette dated 25/10/1984 the government acquired 10,491 sq. mts. of land forming part of Chalta No. 3 of P.T. sheet No. 67 of Mapusa belonging to the Respondent-Communidade for the purpose of housing activities of the Appellant-Goa Housing Board and by award dated 29/10/1987 the Land Acquisition Officer offered to the said Communidade compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. mt. 4. Dissatisfied with the said award of the Land Acquisition Officer, the Communidade preferred a reference and in the said reference examined 4 witnesses to support its case for enhancement. The Communidade produced an award in respect of the same la...

Laxman Babanrao Mali and Bacchusing Kanhailal Pardeshi Vs. Prabhakar S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR836; 2008(2)BomCR217; (2008)110BOMLR44; 2008(2)MhLj215

B.R. Gavai, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forth with. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioners, challenge the order dated 3rd November, 2007, passed by the learned 2nd Adhoc Addl.District Judge, Shahada below Exh.53 in Trust Application No. 01/2007 and below Exh.17 in Trust Application No. 02/2007, vide which both the applications of the present petitioners below Exhs.17 and 53 for leading the additional evidence, have been rejected. 3. It appears that there is a long standing dispute between the present petitioners and the respondents over the management of one Peoples Education Society. It appears that the change reports are filed by both the petitioners as well as the respondents, contending that in the elections the said society, their respective groups have been elected as the members of of the Managing Committee. After the orders were passed by the learned Asstt.Charity Commissioner, the matter went to the Jt.Charity Commissioner. Thereafter, the proceed...

Abdul Jabbar S/O Abdul Gaffar Sheikh (Dead) Through His Lrs. Abdul Wah ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)MhLj111

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The facts which are not in dispute are that earlier there was a agreement dated 5-12-1980 executed by the landowners/respondents No. 3 to 13 in the present second appeal in favour of appellant No. 1 (deceased) for sell of one acre of portion out of total 1.40 hectares of agriculture land at Mouza-Mahadula, Tah. Kamptee, District Nagpur. It is also admitted that the said portion of one acre was not identified or specified. On 20-12-1981, deceased-appellant No. 1 had entered into another agreement with landowners for very property. In the earlier agreement One Mohd. Umar was with him as proposed purchaser. In the later agreement present respondents 1 and 2 were with deceased appellant No. 1 as proposed purchasers. However, on 19-11-1982, deceased-appellant No. 1 had obtained a sale deed from the landowners in the name of himself and his wife. Thereafter, the present respondents 1 and 2 filed Special Civil Suit No. 50/1983 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, ...

Ramakant Ramchandra Dalvi Vs. Rashmi Raju Mhatre and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2008)BC529

A.P. Deshpande, J.1. By the present application, the applicant/original complainant is seeking special leave to file an Appeal against a judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate dismissing a complaint filed by the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The complainant averred in the complaint that he had advanced a hand loan in the sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the accused and the accused issued the cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/ - which when presented for encashment was dishonoured. The complaint is silent about the time as to when the amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- is said to have been advanced. Perusal of the evidence reveals that some time in July, 2004 the amount is claimed to have been advanced by the complainant. Even in the evidence of the complainant, there is no whisper of the time when the amount was paid and the manner in which it was paid.3. During the examination, the complainant had deposed that he had withdrawn the amount from the Bank for its pa...

Sanvijay Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved in the present appeal is regarding denial of abatement claim on account of closure of the factory on the ground that the appellants have not intimated the closing balance of the stock as on the date on which the production was stopped and on the date it was restarted.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Hot Re-rolling Steel Mills and was paying duty on the basis of annual capacity of production determined by the Commissioner under the Annual Capacity of Production Determination Rules. Under Section 3A(3) of Central Excise Act, 1944 an assessee can claim for abatement in duty liability subject to fulfillment of the conditions prescribed in Rule 96ZP(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which reads as follows: (a) The manufacturer shall inform in writing about the closure to the (Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise) with a copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise, either prior to the date of cl...

General Instruments Company Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)BomCR189; 2008(224)ELT230(Bom)

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In this Contempt Petition and the Show Cause Notice, the petitioner prays as under:a) That the Contemnor is guilty of contempt of this Honble Court for having wilfully disobeyed the order dated 7th April, 2006, passed by this Honble Court and that the Contemnor is liable to punishment for having committed contempt of this Honble Court. b) That the Contemnor be held guilty of civil contempt and be dealt with and/or punished in accordance inter alia the provisions of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, with such fine and imprisonment or in such other manner in accordance with law as this Honble High Court may deem fit. c) That the Contemnor be directed to issue amendment to Licence in accordance with or as per the draft annexed alongwith letter of the petitioner dated 3rd January, 2007 with or without modification, or amendment, as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper. d) Costs of this Contempt Petition be awarded in favour of the Petitioner. e) ...

Sk. Tassu S/O Sk. Anwar and Ashok S/O Ramchandra Dhage Vs. the State o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR85

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. This Appeal arises out of judgment rendered by Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, in Special Case (NDPS) No. 9/2003) whereby original accused Nos. 1 and 2 were convicted for offence punishable under Section 20(1)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default, to suffer S.I. for two years. The learned Special Judge was pleased to acquit original accused Nos. 3 and 4.2. Though, this common appeal was preferred by the convicted accused Nos. l and 2 yet, the appeal needs consideration only as regards appellant No. l Sk.Tassu, inasmuch as appellant No. 2 Ashok died during pendency of the appeal. 3. The prosecution case is that P.S.I. Dattatraya Kumbhar received a secret information to the effect that two men and two women were standing in an open space by side of Railway track and hutment at Nanded, having gunny bags of Ganja. This inform...