Mumbai Court March 2007 Judgments

Kadamba Transport Corporation Ltd., Represented HereIn by their Managi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008ACJ1445; 2007(3)ALLMR481; 2007(4)BomCR694

S.A. Bobde, J.Admit.1. Taken up for final disposal by consent.2. This is an appeal against the Order of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Vascoda-Gama, rejecting the appellant's contention that the respondent's suit is barred by Section 175 read with Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant had therefore applied under Order VII, Rule 11(d) for rejection of the plaint. The respondent sued the Kadamba Transport Corporation for damages and other relief of injury suffered by her while travelling in the appellant's bus. According to the respondent No. 1, she suffered an injury, not because the bus met with an accident, but because she fell off the seat in the last row of the bus, whereupon the seat fell on her and injured her back. She has therefore sued the appellant for compensation in the Civil Court since, according to her it was not a claim triable by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal constituted under Section 165 of the M.V. Act.3. According to the appellant, the resp...

Kiran Rajaram Nimbalkar Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR987; 2007(4)MhLj775

Savant R.M., J.1. Rule. Rule with consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard finally.2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges his non-selection to the post of lecturer in the respondent No. 3 College and the selection of the respondent No. 5 to the said post.3. Such of the facts which are necessary to be cited for adjudication of the issue raised in the petition are stated thus:The respondent No. 3 is an affiliated college of the respondent No. 2 Health University. The respondent No. 3 college issued an advertisement in daily Lokmat on 21.1.2004 for the post of lecturer in Agad Tantra. The petitioner applied for the said post alongwith some other applicants. The Central Council Of Indian Medicine i.e.' C.C.I.M.', for the sake of brevity, has framed regulations governing the appointment of teaching staff in Ayurved Colleges. The said regulations are applicable to the respondent No. 3 College. The said regulations...

Shubhada Sunil Phansekar Vs. Travel Corporation (India) Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2007(114)FLR964]; 2007(4)MhLj822

V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent.2. The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Labour Court in a Complaint (ULP) No. 261/2000 and Revision Application (ULP) No. 48/2003 whereby the Labour Court dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner which order was confirmed by the Industrial Court in revision.3. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:4. The petitioner was working with respondent No. 1 as Assistant from 24-11-1980. Her services were confirmed in 1981. The respondent No. 1 company has various branches in India and when the petitioner was appointed, it was specifically stated in the appointment letter that the petitioner was liable to be transferred to its offices. The company issued a transfer order transferring the petitioner from Dubai to New Delhi by order dated 26th June, 1999. The petitioner was directed to report to the Delhi Office on 12th Ju...

Shubhada Sunil Phansekar Vs. Travel Corporation (India) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR730

Kanade V.M., J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent.2. The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Labour Court in a complaint (ULP) No. 261/2000 and Revision Application (ULP) No. 48/2003 whereby the Labour Court dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner which order was confirmed by the Industrial Court in revision.3. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:4. The petitioner was working with respondent No. 1 as Assistant from 24.11.1980. Her services were confirmed in 1981. The respondent No. 1 company has various branches in India and when the petitioner was appointed, it was specifically stated in the appointment letter that the petitioner was liable to be transferred to its offices. The company issued a transfer order transferring the petitioner from Dubai to New Delhi by order dated 26th June, 1999. The petitioner was directed to report to the Delhi Office on 12th Ju...

Kopargaon Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Vs. Deputy Commissi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR159; 2007(6)MhLj233

S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. The petitioner challenge the reference made by the respondent No. 1 under Sub-section (1) of Section 10 and Sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947, for short). This order of reference is passed by respondent No. 1 on 5th January, 1991 and the issue referred is 'Shri Vasant Vishnu Shinde should be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service with effect from 12th August, 1982'.2. A resume of few relevant facts, may be summarised as follows:(a) Kopargaon Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee is the petitioner with whom respondent No. 3 was working as 'Accountant'. The managing committee of the petitioner is governed and regulated by the provisions of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulations) Act, 1963 and Rules of 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1963, and Rules of 1967 for short). Petitioner also framed its own rules regulating the service conditions of i...

Carona Ltd. and anr. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2007(115)FLR156]

V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.By this petition, the petitioners are challenging show cause notice which is issued by the respondent No. 2, dated 13th July, 2004 which is annexed at Ex. K to this petition. Said show cause notice has been issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Recovery Officer and is addressed to the Petitioner No. 1-Company. By the said notice, the petitioners have been asked to pay an amount of Rs. 4,07,81,721 and the petitioners have been asked to pay the amount within three days from the service of notice. Further, it is stated that if the said amount is not paid, the Recovery Officer would realize unpaid dues in the modes prescribed in Sections 8-B to 8-G of the Act.2. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:The Petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and engaged in the b...

Shimnit Kiwalite Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs (imp)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, who has upheld the order dated 26-9-2006 extending the period for issue of show cause notice by six months i.e. up to 27-3-2007, we find that the appeal itself can be disposed off at this stage. Hence, after granting the stay, we take up the appeal for final disposal.2. In this case, the appellant had imported Retro-Reflective sheets vide Bill of Entry dated 10-8-2005 and on the basis of investigation of undervaluation of the consignment, the consignment was detained and the consignment was seized on 28-3-2006. The investigation could not be completed within the time provided to the customs authorities as certain details, which were called for from the importer, were not furnished and extension of the period of issue of show cause notice therefore become necessary. The Commissioner of Customs (Imp) being satisfied that the facts exist that indicate that the i...

Royal Impex, Mohan Impex and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Ep)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(120)ECC424

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties, we find that it is possible to dispose of appeals themselves at this stage and we proceed to do so, as the grievance of the applicants is violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, we proceed to hear and decide the appeals.2. The case of the department, in brief, is that M/s Time Sales Agency and M/s Shree Venkateshwar Textiles had imported 100% Polyester Fabrics/Yarn and disperse dyes duty free under DEEC scheme and cleared the same free of duty by submitting fake/bogus bunk guarantee.3 As regards the appellants in the above appeals, the case of the department is that M/s Royal Impex is liable to penalty on the basis of seizure of polyester fabrics from their premises for the reason that bill produced by them to satisfy their claim that this has been purchased by them from one M/s N.F.A. International, did not cover supply by M...

Colgate Palmolive (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)12STT269

1. This is a stay application against demand of inadmissible credit of duty amounting to Rs. 3,75,31,618/- and imposition of equivalent amount of penalty alongwith interest on M/s Colgate-Palmolive (I) Ltd. 2. The allegation in brief is that the applicant has availed and utilized inadmissible Cenvat credit on common input services which were used in or in relation to the manufacture of both dutiable and exempted final products and also in relation to traded goods.3. Applicant is having units at Sewri, Mumbai, Aurangabad and in Himachal Pradesh. The unit in Himachal Pradesh came into existence in April 2005 and the goods manufactured in that unit are completely exempted from duty. This unit in Baddi (H.P.) was only manufacturing tooth paste which was also being manufactured by Sewri unit. The Aurangabad unit on the other hand was manufacturing tooth power and shaving cream out of which tooth powder was exempt from duty. In addition to the above, the applicants were also purchasing duty...

Canara Bank (Debenture Trustees) Vs. Apple Finance Ltd.,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2008Bom16; 2007(3)ALLMR491; [2007]77SCL92(Bom)

Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The above suit No. 162 of 2002 came to be filed by Canara Bank as a Debenture Trustee for amounts due and payable by the Defendants Apple Finance Limited (AFL) in respect of 750014% Secured Redeemable Rated Nonconvertible Debentures (AAAIII) series for 75 crores together with interest, costs, charges thereon. AFL mortgaged their immovable property at Plot No. C27, G block,s Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai 400 051 (the suit property) to secure the said debentures. AFL issued the said debentures of 75 crores to 6 debenture holders being 5 Nationalised Banks and to a Limited Company. The Nationalised Banks were Dena Bank, Bank of Baroda, United Bank of India, UCO Bank and Syndicate Bank. A first charge on the right, title and interest inter alia of the suit property together with the plot on which it stood and the furniture, fittings and fixtures thereon came to be created in favour of Canara Bank as the Debentures Trustee who filed the above Suit. 2. The AFL fa...