Mumbai Court March 2007 Judgments

Bhagwandas Dhanji Thakkar Vs. Vishnu Kishordas Teckchandani and Amarra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR243; (2007)109BOMLR817; 2007(4)MhLj337

D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. The appeal before the Court arises out of an ad-interim order passed by the Learned Single Judge on 22nd November 2006, by which the Court Receiver was appointed as Receiver in respect of the suit premises, with a consequential direction to the Receiver to appoint any party as his agent, on the usual terms and conditions. Both the Plaintiff and the First Defendant were permitted to bid for the agency. The First Defendant is in appeal. 2. The suit premises consist of a tenement (Tenement No. 175, Chawl No. 25, situated on plot bearing C.T.S. No. 588, Kuldeep Co-operative Housing Society Limited, C.C.I. Nagar, Near Rationing Office, Rajendra Nagar, Borivali (East) Mumbai-400 066) admeasuring about 1400 sq.ft. The premises originally belonged to the Second Defendant. The Plaintiff and the First Defendant entered into an agreement on 17th February 2003 with the Second Defendant by which the Second Defendant agreed to sell the premises jointly to the Plaintiff and th...

Sara Rauf and Joe Shera Rauf Vs. Durgashankar Ganeshlal Shroff (Since ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR534; 2007(4)BomCR812; (2007)109BOMLR759; 2007(4)MhLj129

D.B. Bhosale, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is by the tenant against whom a decree of ejectment has been passed on the ground available under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short 'the Rent Act'). Both the courts below have concurrently held that the requirement of the premises by the respondent-landlord is reasonable and bonafide.2. The respondent-landlord is the owner of a bungalow consisting of ground floor and first floor bearing CTS No. 9 situate at Church Road, Pune. Both the floors consist of four rooms each (for short 'the suit bunglow'). The petitioner-tenant is in possession of the first floor alongwith an attached balcony (for short 'the suit premises'), whereas the respondent-landlord is in possession of the ground floor. The status of the petitioner as a protected tenant under the provisions of the Rent Act is not in dispute in the present petition. The monthly rent of the ...

Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and ors. Vs. Presiding Officer and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR773; 2007(3)BomCR646

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. Heard Shri S.J. Kadu, Advocate holding for Shri Haq, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Thakare, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 3 and Shri Pathan, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4. 2. The management has challenged in this writ petition judgment of the School Tribunal dated 27.7.1995, allowing the appeal preferred before it by respondent No. 4. employee on the ground that the management could not have issued to respondent No. 4 charge-sheet and could not have inflicted upon him any punishment. It has found that for the very same act or misconduct, the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Amravati Division, Amravati, had already taken disciplinary action against respondent No. 4 and he was already punished.3. The facts are not much in dispute. The Board i.e. present respondent No. 2 is statutorily constituted body entrusted with the work of conducting Annual Examinations of 10th & 12th Class students at State Level....

Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medicum Project Division Vs. Dy. Registrar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR877; 2007(4)MhLj181

P.V. Kakade, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.P. for respondent-State. Perused the record. This Revision Application is filed against the order passed by Deputy Registrar, Establishment and Taxing Officer, Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad issuing direction to the petitioner that in each case he shall pay the Court Fees as referred in para 11 of the order of the said Authority.2. The petitioner is the Executive Engineer of Medium Project Division, Jalgaon which is working under corporation 'Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation'. They filed in all four First Appeals and common question arose regarding payment of Court Fees as they sought exemption on the ground that they were 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India and therefore were entitled for the exemption in the payment of Court Fees in view of the recent amendment in Bombay Court Fees Act.3. While presenting Appeals the petitioner did not pay the Court Fees and ...

Hukumchand Mishrilal JaIn and anr. Vs. Sushilabai Champalal Agrawal an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR171; 2008(3)BomCR867; 2007(4)MhLj379

ORDERS.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard learned senior counsel Mr. P.M. Shah, instructed by learned Advocate Mr. P.V. Barde who appears for the petitioners, and learned Counsel Mr. D.S. Bharuka who appears for respondent Nos. 2 to 7. Initially caveat was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 7. Learned Counsel Mr. Bharuka, however, makes a statement that he also appears on behalf of respondent No. 1. He assures that if Vakalatnama is not filed on record, of respondent No. 1, he shall place it on record immediately.2. This writ petition challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge, Dhule in Regular Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2000 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shirpur, District Dhule in Regular Civil Suit No. 118 of 1988.3. A resume, of relevant facts, may be summarized, as follows:(a) One Mr. Jamnalal Rampratapsheth Agrawal filed Regular Civil Suit No. 118 of 1988 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division...

Gwaldas Shivkisanji Lakhotia Vs. Bapurao Arjunji Bandabuche

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR544; 2007(4)MhLj698

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This revision is preferred by the plaintiff, whose application for execution of order passed under Order 15-A, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure was rejected.2. The plaintiff had instituted a suit for ejectment and possession along with arrears of rent. While suit was pending, the plaintiff applied under Order 15-A Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure for a direction to defendant/tenant to deposit the arrears of rent and to continue to deposit Rs. 156/- per month. This order was passed on 27-9-1988. A writ petition filed by the defendant against the order granting permission to the plaintiff to terminate the tenancy was allowed and the order of Appellate Court was set aside. As a result of this, the suit came to be dismissed as infructuous. Later, plaintiff filed Darkasth No. 16/98 and sought to recover Rs. 18,490/- as arrears of rent on the basis of the order on application under Order 15-A, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure. The said application for execution is rej...

Ashad Ullah Khan and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR768; 2007(4)BomCR343

Chavan R.C., J.1. By this petition, six locomotive drivers working with the South East Central Railway challenge the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 20.1.2006 rejecting their Original Application No. 500 of 2005.2. The petitioners were to be considered for promotion as drivers of passenger trains. Thirty-seven posts of such drivers were to be filled in from Nagpur Division. The petitioners along with other drivers were subjected to written tests held on 27th and 29th April and 2nd May, 4th May, 6th May and 12th May, 2005. A circular by the Railway Board required that 45 to 55% of the questions at such tests were to be objective type and the rests were to be descriptive. The petitioners were subjected to tests on 29.4.2005 and 4.5.2005 when 40% objective type questions were put. On 2.5.2005, however, 60% objective type questions were put and this is how the petitioners claim to have been discriminated. The petitioners, therefore, filed Original Application before ...

John D'Silva and Ors. Vs. Neosonic Electronics Ltd. and Ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR334; [2008]141CompCas897(Bom)

R.S. Dalvi, J.1. The petitioners in the above company application seek to execute the order dated June 8, 2004, of the Company Law Board (CLB) under the provisions of Section 634A of the Companies Act, 1956, through this Court as the executing court since the company against which the order is passed has its registered office within the jurisdiction of this Court and its life-time director, respondent No. 2 in the company petition, resides within the jurisdiction of this court. The applicant-company has taken out the above chamber summons being Chamber Summons No. 1061 of 2006 for raising the attachment and staying the execution. The lifetime director being respondent No. 2 has taken out another chamber summons for setting aside the warrant of attachment and staying the execution.2. It is the case of the applicant-company (which is a company other than respondent No. 1 company in the company petition) that it is the owner of the premises sought to be attached and that the first respond...

Kenneth Communications Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)10STJ115CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. The short issue involved in the present appeal relates to refund of Service Tax paid in excess by the appellant. The said rejection is on the ground of unjust enrichment. The appellant submits that they have issued credit notes against their customers, in which case unjust enrichment would not apply, as held by the Tribunal in the case of Prachar Communications Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise 2006 4 STT 171 (Mum.CESTAT). Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to original adjudicating authority for fresh decision, in the light of the ratio of the above judgment of the Tribunal and in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand....

Chemtrols Engineering Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. A very short issue is involved in the present appeal. It is seen that during the course of investigation, appellants deposited an amount of Rs. 1,67,354/- on 13-9-1997, while claiming the provisional release of the seized goods. Proceedings were initiated against them vide Show Cause Notice dated 16-2-1998, which were ultimately dropped by Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise vide his order dated 22-6-1998. As a result appellants became entitled to the refund of duty deposited by them, accordingly they filed a refund application on 20-8-1998.2. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the above refund claim on the ground of limitation by holding that the application has been filed on 20-8-1998 i.e. beyond the period of six months from the date of payment of duty which is 13-9-1997. The said order was also confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals), hence the present appeal.3. Admittedly the said amount was deposited by the appellant during the course of investigation and before the start of pro...