Mumbai Court February 2007 Judgments

Kanak Industries Vs. General Labour Union (Red Flag), a Trade Union, R ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR477; 2007(5)BomCR286

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The scope of the Appeal:The appeal before the Court arises out of a judgment of a Learned Single Judge dated 22nd July 1997. A reference was made to adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The reference was on the question as to whether a lockout declared by the management of the First Respondent with effect from 26th May 1983 was legal and justified. The Industrial Tribunal held by an award dated 12th August 1994 that the question as to the legality of the lockout had already been decided on 5th May 1983 in a judgment of the Industrial Court in a complaint of unfair labour practices under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. ('MRTU & PULP Act, 1971') The Tribunal held that once the issue as regards the legality of the lockout has been decided finally by a competent Court, the lockout having been held to be legal, the same issue could not be rais...

Shri Sambhaji Ramchandra Pawar Patil and Shivaji Ramchandra Pawar Pati ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR782; 2007(4)MhLj468

D.B. Bhosale, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below by which the appellants-plaintiffs suit for injunction simplicitor stands dismissed.2. The appellants-plaintiffs are the sons of defendant No. 4 - Ramchandra Patil. Defendant No. 1 Madhavram, defendant No. 2 - Pandurang, defendant No. 4 -Ramchandra and one Ganpat are the sons of one Abaji. Ganpat died issueless. Defendant No. 2 died during pendency of the suit and since no legal representatives were brought on record the suit abated against him. Defendant No. 3 is the brother of appellants-plaintiffs. Defendant No. 4, the father of the plaintiffs, claim that the suit property was purchased by him out of his separate income in the name of the plaintiffs. In 1971, there was partition between the three branches, that is, defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 when the suit properties were blended with other properties of the joint family. According to the plaintiffs and defendant No. 4 the suit properties ...

Shri Maruti Rau Mane (Since Deceased Through Lrs. Housabai Maruti Mane ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR614; 2007(5)BomCR450; (2007)109BOMLR538; II(2008)DMC177; 2007(3)Mh.L.J.813

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.10.1990 rendered by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Kolhapur by which regular civil appeal No. 421 of 1985 filed by respondent No. 1 - plaintiff was allowed and the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court dated 30.9.1985, dismissing regular civil suit No. 61 of 1979 came to be set aside.2. The suit was filed by respondent No. 1 for partition and separate possession of one half share in the suit properties. The trial Court dismissed the suit for non joinder of Sonabai, the mother of the plaintiff, as party in the suit. It appears that in the appeal the plaintiff-appellant made an application for amendment of the plaint seeking permission to add Sonabai as party defendant in the suit and the said application was allowed and accordingly she was added as defendant No. 9 in the suit. This order of amendment was not challenged either at that stage or even in the present appeal. 3. Ms. Kololgi, ...

Prof. R.B. Singh Vs. the Principal, Sonopant Dandekar Arts College, V. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR606; 2007(5)BomCR474; 2007(4)MhLj846

S.B. Mhase, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate or direction directing the Respondents to treat the Petitioner on probation right from the time his first appointment i.e., 3.7.1990 and confirmed in the post of Lecturer in Zoology in the College of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and further directions to treat the Petitioner as if he has been in continuous employment on probation from 3.7.1990 and confirm in the post of permanent Lecturer w.e.f. 3.7.1992 and other consequential benefits, namely, increments, seniority, etc. The Petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Zoology with Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in a reserved post since the reserved candidate was not available. The Petitioner is an open candidate and therefore, the petitioner was initially appointed for a period of one year. Thereafter the Petitioner is appointed every year as against the reserved post and every year the management has followed the procedure of i...

Jaikumar S/O Jagannath Kulkarni Vs. the State of Maharashtra, General ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR162; 2007(4)BomCR362; [2007(113)FLR1125]; 2007(3)MhLj130

Naresh H. Patil, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. By consent of both the sides, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner was appointed on 23-9-1985 as Compounder in Primary Health Centre, Ambad, District Jalna. By an order dated 24th January 2001 the petitioner was declared as permanently incapacitated by the Medical Board of the Government College and Hospital, Aurangabad for rendering services as per Rule 72(1) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1982. The petitioner contends that the Medical Board described the illness of the petitioner as chronic Schizophrenia. A medical certificate of unfitness for further service as per Rule 72(1) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1982 was issued on 24th January 2001. Respondent No. 2 by his order dated 3rd March 2001 retired the petitioner compulsorily with effect frown 30th January 2001 on the ground he was medically unfit to perform du...

Gangaram Sakharam Dhuri Since Deceased Through L.R. Vishnu and ors. Vs ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR816; 2007(5)BomCR306; 2007(5)MhLj136

Abhay S. Oka, J.1. I have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties on the last date and today the Appeal is kept for dictation of Judgment. The original appellant is the original second defendant who has taken exception to the Judgment and Decree dated 19th September, 1987 passed by the trial Court in a suit filed by the first respondent-plaintiff. The suit has been partly decreed. For the sake of convenience, parties are hereinafter referred to with reference to their status in the trial Court.2. With a view to appreciate the submissions which are made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it will be necessary to refer facts of the case. The plaintiff, first defendant and the third to fifth defendants are closely related to each other. The genealogy reads thus:Gangaram Sakharam Dhuri | Sunderabai wife Gangaram(died in 1967) | (died in 1972)--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | |Vishnu (son) Gangubai ...

Vijaykumar S/O Madhukar Ingle Vs. Caste Scrutiny Committee and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR766; 2007(6)MhLj36

A.H. Joshi, J.1. The petitioner had applied for verification of certificate dated 2-7-1986, MRC 81/239/86 issued by Executive Magistrate Shegaon District Buldana towards his Tribe claim to belong to Thakur1 Scheduled Tribe, He needed verification of Tribe claim as he was elected as a Councillor in Municipal Council, Shegaon.2. In this petition service on the respondents 2 to 4 is not necessary as those arc proforma parties. The petitioner challenges the order of Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division, Amravati (for short described as the Scrutiny Committee) delivered on 17-2-2007 Annexure-XXII, invalidating his claim as 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe.3. Heard Learned Advocate Mr. Ram Parsodkar for the petitioner and the Learned Advocate Mr. Sudhir M. Puranik for the respondent No. 1.4. Jt is seen that the petitioner had furnished before the respondent No. 1, in all 20 documents. Out of those, the documents at Sr. Nos. 1,2,4,7,8, 10, 13, 14 and 16 to 20 (Total 13 in...

Brij Mohan Grover Vs. Official Liquidator, High Court and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2009]149CompCas380(Bom)

R.S. Mohite, J.1. The matter is moved for speaking to the minutes of my judgment and order dated December 22, 2006 and January 15, 2007, (Brij Mohan Grover v. Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay [2007] 139 Comp Cas 682 (Bom)) by the advocate for BLR Knits (Pvt.) Ltd.2. Heard all advocates present. Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the secured creditor have raised an objection to the grant of corrections as sought for. My attention is drawn to Rule 138 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. It is contended that, under the said rule, the minutes of any order signed by the judge is required to be kept in the Board Department for inspection of the parties for a period of three days from the date of the issue of the minutes. Any party desiring to inspect the minutes shall be entitled to do so on making an oral application to the person in charge of the Board Department and any party who disputes the correctness of the minutes as recorded or objects to the minutes o...

Sunkiran Synthetics Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicant is engaged in the manufacture of twine/cabled yarn since 1993. For this purpose they procured monofilament yarn from outside and only have the facility to twist yarn received from outside and manufacture cabled yarn or twine. This twine is used in the manufacture of nylon fishing net. They have filed declaration from time to time declaring their activity of making nylon fishing net twine which was claimed by them to be classifiable under Chapter Heading 5607.90 and claimed exemption under Notification No. 6/2002 dated 1-3-2002 during the relevant period. This notification exempted all goods falling under Heading 5607 made from yarn, monofilament, strips etc. on which appropriate duty of excise leviable under the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act or as the case may be additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 has already been paid. The classification of their yarn under Heading 5607 has been accepted by the Department...

Garware Marine Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicants is engaged in the manufacture of Nylon Fishing Nets falling under Chapter Heading 56 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and was procuring nylon multi-filament yarn of 210 deniers from the manufacturer of nylon filament yarn. They twist and turn the nylon filament yarn so procured and obtain nylon twine which is further used in the manufacture of their filial product viz. nylon fishing nets. The present dispute is regarding demand of duty on the intermediate product i.e. nylon twine which was classified by them under Chapter Heading 5607.90 and was cleared by them under full exemption of duty under Notification No. 6/2002 dated 1-3-2002 (Sr. No. 142 of the table). This exemption was subject to the condition that appropriate duty was paid on the base yarn and the manufacturer does not have the facility to manufacture base yarn. Since filament yarn of 210 deniers was fully exempted from duty they obviously were not taking any credit of the same and were of the view ...