Mumbai Court March 2007 Judgments

Philips Electronics India Limited and anr. Vs. the Workmen of Philips ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR500; 2007(6)BomCR441; (2007)IILLJ786Bom

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. P.C. Heard learned Counsel for both sides. This petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself. Hence, Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a finding on a preliminary issue rendered by the Court below vide its order dated 30th September, 2006 is sought to be quashed and set aside. The Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai has before it a reference made at the instance of first respondent herein. During the pendency of the said reference and pursuant to certain directions of this Court, preliminary issues have been framed. The same are as follows:(i) Whether the employees concerned in the proceeding are covered under the ambit of 'Workman' as per provisions of I.D. Act? (ii) Whether the grievance made on behalf of the employees is an 'Industrial dispute'? (iii) Whether the second party union has right to raise 'dispute' on behalf of the workmen? (iv) Whether the Reference is maintai...

Surendra Kapoor Vs. Prabir Kumar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ARBLR97(Bom); 2007(4)BomCR345; 2007(4)MhLj700

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. This appeal arises from the order dated 06.03.2007 passed in Chamber Summons No. 148 of 2007. By the impugned order, the Chamber Summons No. 148 of 2007 taken out by the appellant has been dismissed. The said chamber summons was taken out by the appellant raising the point that the award passed by the learned arbitrator was a nullity on the ground that the arbitrator could not have assumed powers of arbitrating the case in the absence of agreement between the parties to refer the dispute to arbitral tribunal and that there was no such agreement between the parties.2. Reliance was sought to be placed in the decisions of the Apex Court in the matters of Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation and Anr. v. Encon Builders (I)(P) Ltd. reported in : AIR2003SC3688 ; Kiran Singh and Ors. v. Chaman Paswan and Ors. reported in : [1955]1SCR117 and K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi and Ors. reported in : [1998]1SCR601 . Attention was also sought to be drawn to the decision...

Selina P. Shah Vs. Principal, Mithibai College of Arts and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR678

Kanade V.M., J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. The petitioner is challenging judgment and Order passed by the College Tribunal, Mumbai whereby Presiding Officer of College Tribunal was pleased to reject appeal which was filed by the petitioner against termination of her services.3. Brief facts which are relevant for deciding this petition are as under:The petitioner has completed B.S.C. in first class and also done her M.S.C. Research in Microbiology. Initially, the petitioner was working in M.V. & L.U. College, Andheri, Mumbai as full time Lecturer from 15th November, 1988 to 22nd July, 1999. The petitioner joined the respondents college as full time Lecturer. Thereafter, on 23rd July, 1999, the petitioner was appointed through local selection committee. In the appointment letter it was stated that she was appointed on ad hoc basis. Letter of appointment specifically states as under:Subject to...

Radhabai Khanduji Suryawanshi Vs. Rajendra Vinayakrao Dhule

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR483; 2007(4)BomCR867

Naik V.A., J.1. In view of the order passed by this Court on 15th January, 2007, this First Appeal is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellant is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent for specific performance of contract and by amending the plaint, the plaintiff also sought the possession of the suit property.3. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that in view of an agreement of sale dated 30.7.2002, the defendant agreed to sell 2.66 Hectares of land to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 2,99,250/- at the rate of Rs. 45,000/-per acre. The plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the defendant as earnest money. The parties agreed to execute the sale-deed on or before 30.10.2002 after receiving the balance amount of Rs. 2,49,250/- at the time of execution of the sale-deed. It is then pleaded by the plaintiff that it was agreed between the parties that the necessary document, i.e. 7/12 ext...

Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. Vs. Chandulal Dipchand Kale

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR310; 2008(3)BomCR897

Kingaonkar V.R., J.1. This first appeal arises out of eviction decree granted in Special Civil Suit No. 35/2002. Some undisputed facts may be stated at the outset. The suit plot bearing CTS No. 1916, to the extent of 1226.32 Sq.m. was previously owned by one Gajanan Saptarshi. The open plot was leased out in 1963 to ESSO eastern inc. Company for running its petrol pump at Kopargaon. The lease was initially for 10 years period and was continued from time to time. The lease period was to expire by 30.9.1982. When the lease was extended in 1973 then the ESSO Company was operating its business of petroleum products in India. The ESSO Acquisition of Undertaking in India Act, 1974, (For short, 'ESSO Act) came into force with effect from 13.3.1974. By operation of law, provisions of Section 5(2) of the said Act in particular, the appellant became the lessee of the landlord. There was deemed attornment of the tenancy due to the provisions of the said enactment.2. Thus, instead of ESSO Company ...

Exposure Insurance Services Ltd. Vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (No. 1)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008]146CompCas58(Bom)

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The petitioner claims to be the holder in due course of two bills of exchange dated December 15, 2002, in the amount US $ 2,165,000. The endorsement in favour of the petitioner is alleged to be dated January 28, 2003. The bills of exchange were payable on March 15, 2003. Certain goods were supplied by a company by the name of 'Sky Impex Ltd.' to the respondent. The claim of the petitioner is on the strength of the endorsement alleged to have been made in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner claims thereunder as a holder in due course.2. The defence to the company petition is that the claim is fraudulent and nothing is payable under the two bills of exchange. The supplier had issued two credit notes on February 27, 2003, to the petitioner confirming that the goods supplied to the respondent had been received back by the supplier at Dubai and that consequently no outstandings were due by the company against the invoices and the bills of exchange. Though the ...

Soldiers Industrial Security Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(120)ECC347

1. After hearing both the sides, I find that Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned orders, reviewed orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner confirming demand of service tax, confirmation of interest and imposing penalties. He enhanced the penalties equivalent to the service tax not deposited. It is seen that during proceedings before Commissioner (Appeals), appellant relied upon the Extraordinary Tax Payers Friendly Scheme under which if an assessee is registered up to 30.10.2004 and deposits the service tax along with interest, no penalty is to be imposed upon him. However, Commissioner (Appeals) did not apply the provision of the above scheme on the ground that the appellants were registered prior to the introduction of the scheme and as such will not be covered by the same.2. After hearing both the sides, I find that an identical plea was taken by the revenue before the tribunal in the case of CCE, Bhopal v.Bharat Security Services and Workers Cont. . The same was rejected b...

Status Car Rentals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide Order No. S/523/C-III/SMB/WZB/2006 dated 10.7.2006, the appellant was directed to pre-deposit 25% of penalty amount. Their application for modification of Stay Order was subsequently rejected vide Order No. M/73/C-IV/SMB/WZB/2007 dated 5.3.07. However, the period to deposit the amount was extended by another 15 days.2. When the matter was called today for ascertaining compliance with the above Order, neither anybody appeared nor is there any compliance report on record. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the above orders....

Shri S.K. Colombowala and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. All the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai vide which he has imposed penalties of varying amount upon the appellants in terms of the provisions of Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The said penalties stand imposed upon the appellants on the allegations and findings that they aided and abetted one M/s. Amrit Laxmi Machine Works, Bombay in duty free imports against duplicate advance licences.2. After hearing both the sides, we find that proceedings were also initiated against M/s. Amrit Laxmi Machine Works. However, the said noticee settled the dispute in Settlement Commission who vide its order No. 38/2002 dt. 5.9.02 settled the case on terms that an amount of Rs. 15,94,565/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs ninety four thousand five hundred sixty five only) deposited by the said notice be appropriated towards the admitted duty liability along with interest at the rate of 1...

NitIn S. Bhalerao Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(120)ECC342

1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of penalty, I take up the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides.2. The Original adjudicating authority confirmed the Service Tax of Rs. 56,145/- along with interest of Rs. 35,766/- against the appellant, who is an Architect, for the period October 1998 to March 2003. The said tax along with interest stand paid by the appellant. In addition he imposed personal penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. The said Order of the Asst. Commissioner was reviewed by the Commissioner, who vide his impugned Order enhanced the penalty of Rs. 2,000/- equivalent to Service Tax amount.3. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant relied upon the Extra Ordinary Tax Payer Friendly Scheme, i.e. if an Architect himself get registered by 31.10.2004 and pay Service Tax with interest, no penalty would be imposed upon him. The said scheme was taken note by the Tribunal in the case of CCE Bhopal v. Bharat Security Servi...