Mumbai Court February 2007 Judgments

Surjitsing S/O. Jeevansing Girniwale Vs. the Commissioner, Nanded Wagh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR554; 2007(2)BomCR617

B.R. Gavai, J.1. All these four petitions challenge the orders passed by the Commissioner of Nanded-Waghala Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation' for the sake of brevity), thereby declaring the petitioners to be disqualified under Section 10(1D) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'BPMC Act' for the sake of brevity, as Councillor of the said Corporation.2. Since the issue involved in all these four petitions is common, the petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.3. The petitioners were elected as Municipal Councillors from different wards of the said Corporation in the elections held in the year 2002. In so far as petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2773/2006 is concerned, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 28th December 2005, that he had obstructed in the work of removal of encroachment in respect of Community Centre and, therefore, why he should not be remove...

Chheda Housing Development Corporation, a Partnership Firm Registed Un ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR780; 2007(2)BomCR587; 2007(3)MhLj402

F.I. Rebello, J.1. This an Appeal by the Plaintiff. Along with the Appeal respondent Nos. 1 to 9 and Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 have also filed cross objections. All of them are being heard and finally disposed of by this judgment.2. The Appeal is preferred by the Appellant who is the original plaintiff. The respondent Nos. 1 to 9 are the original defendant Nos. 1 to 9, Respondent No. 10 is the original defendant No. 10, respondent No. 11 is the original defendant No. 11 and respondent Nos. 12 and 13 are the original defendant Nos. 12 and 13. The respondent Nos. 1 to 9 are the legal heirs of one late Shaikh Farid Shaikh Kalander, who had filed a suit in respect of the suit property and other properties against Behramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt. Ltd. being Suit No. 2105 of 1989, claiming adverse possession against Behramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt. Ltd. Consent terms came to be filed on 22nd June, 1992 under which a declaration was granted declaring late Shri Shaikh Farid Shaikh Kalandar to be the owner o...

Lal Bavta Hotel Aur Bakery Mazdoor Union, a trade union Incorporated u ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR74; 2007(5)BomCR456; [2007(113)FLR568]; (2007)IIILLJ201Bom; 2007(3)MhLj426

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The First Respondent before the Court conducts a hotel known as Ritz Hotel at Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai. Some time in 1976 the management of the hotel introduced South Indian specialities as part of the menu of food in some of the restaurants at the hotel and for room service. A South Indian Kitchen was opened. The workman whose services formed the subject matter of the dispute was appointed on probation as a South Indian cook in August 1976 and was confirmed with effect from 1st January, 1977. Subsequently, the management of the hotel took a decision to close down the South Indian Kitchen claiming that upon an assessment of viability the South Indian Kitchen had been found to be the least profitable of the kitchen department. A notice was issued to the appropriate government on 16th September, 1991 under Section 25-FFA of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 indicating an intention of permanently closing down the South Indian Kitchen with effect from 16th Novembe...

Angerlehner Michel Construction Pvt. Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ARBLR553(Bom); 2007(2)BomCR815

Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The Applicant in the aforesaid Judges Order has obtained a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 40979406 against the first Respondents in the Arbitration Petitions in which the Judges Order is taken out against the Respondents therein. The claimants in the aforesaid Chamber Summons have obtained an Arbitration Award for Rs. 9161727.42ps. In Arbitration Petition in which the Chamber Summons is taken out against the Respondents therein. The first Respondents in both of the aforesaid Arbitration Petitions are one Shreemauli Builders represented by their Proprietor Mr. K.P. Reddy. Arbitration Petition Nos. 242 of 2005 and 66 of 2005 are pending. By an interim order passed in this Arbitration Petition Nos. 242 and 66 of 2005 one Bangalore Water Supply has been directed to deposit Rs. 2.12 Crores. That amount is stated to have been deposited in this Court to the credit of those Arbitration Petitions. The Applicant in the Judges Order desires to attach and take the amount so deposi...

Maharashjtra Rajya Mathadi Transport and General Kamgar Union Vs. the ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR498; 2007(2)BomCR799; (2007)2LLJ418Bom; 2007(6)MhLj203

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule in both the Petitions. Heard forthwith. The Petitioners in Writ Petition (L) No. 2255 of 2006 is a trade union representing Mathadi workers in Mumbai, Navi Mumbai and many other Districts in the State of Maharashtra. It represents registered workers of Mathadi Boards including Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The Respondent No. 1 and 2 have been constituted pursuant to the provisions of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969. (hereinafter referred to as 'Mathadi Act'.) In terms of the schedule to the Mathadi Act, the provisions of the Act are made applicable to the areas of Greater Mumbai, Thane District and areas comprising of Panvel, Karjat talukas of Raigad District. Under the provisions of the Act, the State Government has been pleased to frame the 'Railway Goods Clearing and Forwarding Unprotected (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme 1976 which hereinafter shall be referred to as the scheme ...

Nivritti Namdeo Thite Vs. Hemraj Gulabchand Daga

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR473; 2007(5)BomCR283

D.B. Bhosale, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.9.1989 rendered by the IV Additional District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 761 of 1984 by which the appeal filed by the respondent-defendant was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dated 14.6.1983 in civil suit No. 2493 of 1977 was set aside. The suit was instituted by the petitioner for eviction on the ground of default. 2. The petitioner, hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord', is the owner of house No. 241 situated at Ganesh Peth, Pune. He had let out a shop premises on the ground floor of the said house No. 241 together with front ota and three rolling shutters for commercial use ( for short 'the suit premises') to the respondent-tenant, hereinafter referred to as 'tenant' in 1969. The monthly rent of the suit premises was Rs. 60/- plus education cess of Rs. 1.20 ps. per month. It was monthly tenancy. It appears th...

The Commissioner of Customs Vs. Standard Industries Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR799; (2007)109BOMLR677; 2007(119)ECC403; 2007LC403(Bombay)

V.C. Daga, J.1. This application is under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962 ('Act' for short) seeking direction against the Tribunal to state the case and raise and refer the question of law framed in para-4 of the said application arising from paras-6 to 13 of the impugned order dated 19th August, 1999 passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai ('Tribunal' for short). 2. At the commencement of the hearing of this application, learned Counsel for the respondent assessee raised two preliminary objections. Firstly; relating to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain and try the application in question. Secondly, relating to the tenability of this application under Section 130A of the Act. It has, therefore, become necessary to first decide the preliminary objections before proceeding to hear the application on merits.FACTS:3. The respondent-importer pursuant to the show cause notice issued under Section 28(1) of t...

Raymond Limited Vs. Raymond Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR521; 2007(4)MhLj243; LC2007(2)67; 2007(35)PTC334(Bom)

S.A. Bobde, J.1. By this notice of motion the plaintiff is seeking an injunction restraining defendants from dealing in relation to the word 'Raymond' or any other mark identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademarks bearing Nos.193273 and 407166 (Exhibits A and B), so as to infringe the same.2. The plaintiff has filed this suit for injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing their registered trade mark. There is no claim that the defendants are passing off their goods. The plaintiff's 'Raymond Limited' is a company which is a successor of 'Raymond Woollen Mills Limited' incorporated in the year 1925, which had conceived and adopted the use of word 'Raymond' in a stylized manner for marketing its product.3. On 27th June, 1983, the plaintiff obtained registration for the trade mark 'Raymond' under registration No. 401766 registered in Class 25 in respect of textile piece goods including shirting, suiting and saris, dress materials, blankets, shawls, satin, ...

Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC186

2. This appeal assails an order of confiscation of goods under Section 11(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to redeem on payment of fine of Rs. 1 lakh for the purpose of re-export and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the importer in terms of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import).3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the business of manufacture and trade in hydrogenated vegetable oil (vanaspati ghee). In their normal course of business. They placed an order dated 5.12.2005 to M/s Accor Industries Pvt. Ltd. Sri Lanka for purchase of 340.200 MT of vanaspati for shipment by 25.12.2005.Accordingly the goods were consigned by their vendors accompanying by certificate of quality i.e. to say the goods are in conformity with the PFA standards. The appellants have filed five bills of entry bearing No. 654954 dated 24.12.2005, No. 656522 dated 27.12.2005, No. 657184 dated 27.12.2005, No. 657183 dated 27.12.2005, N...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Natural Sugar and Allied

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The revenue is in appeal aggrieved by the impugned order passed by both the authorities below. The point for determination in this case is whether copper strip is eligible for cenvat credit at all and if it is eligible whether it is an input or capital good.3. The respondent is engaged in the manufacture of Ferro alloys falling under CSH No. 7202.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The preventive officers during the course of checking of cenvat accounts noticed that the assessee had raised cenvat credit on electrolytic copper strips falling under Ch. H. No. 7409.10 of CETA, 1985, that was purchased for fabrication and erection of furnace. On being objected that the said goods are not covered by the definition of capital goods and being agreed to the facts, the assessee reversed the credit of Rs. 94,608/-. Later on it was again raised, and on objecting it was reversed again. However, it is found that the assessee has raised cenvat credit of Rs. 1,57,530/- and Rs. 27,381/- vide RG...