Mumbai Court June 2007 Judgments

Sandipan Bhagwan Thorat Vs. Ashok Dagdulal Lunawat and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008CriLJ154

ORDERJ.H. Bhatia, J.1. Heard Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Bodke, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1. and Ms. Gajre, learned APP for the State.2. The applicant is original accused, while respondent No. 1 is the complainant. The case of the respondent-complainant is that the accused had received amount of Rs. 20 Lakh from him and for repayment of the same he had issued a cheque in favour of the complainant, which was dishonoured and therefore, the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was filed. It appears that it is the case of the complainant that he had received a cheque of Rs. 20 Lakhs from Vithal Sikshan Prasarak Mandal and that cheque was credited in his own account with Madheshwari Urban Cooperative Bank Madha. On payment of Rs. 20 lakh to the accused by cheque against his own account with Madheshwari Urban Co-operative Bank, the amount was also credited in the account of the accused in the same bank. The accused had withdrawn th...

Vijay Galani Proprietor Vs. Noble Films Distributors

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)BomCR379

Mohta Anoop V., J.1. The petitioner has challenged the award dated 7th November, 2006 whereby the Arbitral Tribunal based on the mutual agreement which was culminated into the letter of arrangement dated 13.11.2004, passed the following award:1. That the letter of arrangement/agreement dated 26.10.2002 and the subsequent letter of mutual settlement dt. 13.11.2004 entered into between the complainant and the respondent is valid subsisting and binding on the parties.2. That the respondent Producers, M/s. Film Folks, Mumbai, are liable to refund to the complainant distributors M/s. Noble Film Distributors, Mumbai, in terms of the said agreement the balance un recouped advance of Rs. 50,00,000/- along with interest 12% calculated from 31.3.2006 till the date of final payment.3. That the respondent Producers M/s. Film Folks, Mumbai, shall pay the Complainant distributors M/s. Noble Film Distributors, Mumbai, the sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- as balance of refundable advance along with interest @ 1...

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Hari Tukaram Katake and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR249; 2008(1)BomCR913

Dalvi Roshan, J.1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 6th November, 1990 of the Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for Greater Bombay granting compensation of Rs. 1,11,350/with 12% p.a. Interest thereon to the claimant.2. The incident took place on 24th September, 1985 at about 5.10 p.m at J.P. Road and Daudbaug Road, Andheri (West) at Bombay. The deceased was a Commerce Graduate of 22 years. The claimants are his legal heirs. They have applied for compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/ on the ground of dependency, loss of estate etc. The opposite party is the BEST represented by the Municipality.3. The accident is stated to have been committed when a motor cycle, an auto rickshawand other vehicles were going on one side of the road and the motor cyclist tried to overtake those vehicles at that time. The bus of the appellant collided with the motor cycle. The motor cyclist was fatally injured by an impact with the right (driver's) side of the bus. The eye-witness...

In Re: Elpro International Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2009]149CompCas646(Bom); [2008]86SCL47(Bom)

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Petition before the Court has been instituted under the provisions of Section 101 of the Companies Act, 1956 and seeks an order of the Court for a reduction of the capital of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was incorporated on 27-7-1962 and is a Public Limited Company. The main objects of the Petitioner as provided in its Memorandum of Association, inter alia, include carrying on business of electrical and electronic appliances, apparatus and equipment. The Company was engaged in the business of manufacturing lightening arresters and isolators. In pursuance of the sale of the isolator Division of the Petitioner Company located at Hyderabad, the present business consists of the manufacture of lightening arresters. The Company was initially incorporated with an authorised share capital of Rs. 5 crores divided into 5 lakh equity shares of Rs. 100 each. The present authorised share capital is Rs. 5 crores divided into 50 lakh equity shares each of Rs. 10. The equi...

Alliance Inc. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This application is directed against the Order-in-Revision No.159/NSK/06 dt. 22.02.2007.2. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. The issue involved in this case is regarding the upward-revision of the penalty by the Revisionary authority under the provisions of Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994. It is seen from the records that the appellant had deposited the entire amount of the Service Tax along with interest thereof at the first instance, when the matter went before the adjudicating authority. Since the entire amount of Service Tax and interest thereof stands deposited with the Revenue, the application for waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of the appeal....

Ranjana Lau Salakar Alias Sunanda Shantaram Shetye Vs. State of Mahara ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR302; 2007(5)BomCR441; 2007(4)MhLj857

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule is taken up forthwith. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The Administrative Officer in the Maharashtra Labour Welfare Mandal, vide his letter dated 4th March, 2005, declined to accept the request of the petitioner for change in date of birth in the service record of the petitioner. The petitioner again made an application on 2nd January, 2007, which was also rejected by the Education Officer, respondent No. 3, vide order dated 3rd April, 2007. The legality and correctness of both these orders is questioned by the petitioner in the present writ petition on the strength of Rule 38 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rule, 1981, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'. The relevant part of Rules on which the petitioner relies on reads as under:38 (2)(f). When once an entry of age or date of birth has been made in a service book no alteration of the entry should afterwards be allo...

Shri Pawan Kumar S/O Jagdish Chander Vs. Admiral Superintendent for Pe ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)MhLj891

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The petitioner applied for the post of Apprentice in Naval Dockyard, Mumbai in 1996. He was selected on merit by the Naval Dockyard department to that post. The process of selection was conducted by the Naval Dockyard. Upon his selection in the year 1996, he was sent for 2 years' training, which he completed on 13th July 1998. Thereafter he got appointment in the Naval Dockyard on 13th July 1998 as a skilled welder (trade) and since then he has been working in that post.2. In response to the requirement of an advertisement published by respondent No. 1 in the Employment News dated 19th/25th November 2005 for the post of ship fitter, written examination was held on 21st August 2006, result of which was published and the petitioner was declared successful being in merit list on 22nd August 2006. This result was declared and the petitioner was enlisted at Serial No. 2 bearing Roll No. 19. A call letter was sent for interview to the petitioner on 24th August 2006 an...

Chinubhai Kalidas Patel, Through His Legal Representatives Smt. Suloch ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR376; 2007(4)BomCR564; (2007)109BOMLR1439; 2007(4)MhLj753

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Vide judgment and order dated 20th July, 2002, the learned Joint District Judge, Thane, partly allowed Land Acquisition Reference No. 119 of 1987, enhanced the compensation and directed the authorities to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per hectare with other statutory benefits including solatium. The claimant felt aggrieved from the said judgment has filed the present First Appeal before this Court praying for further enhancement. According to the claimant, the fair market value of the land in question is Rs. 25,000/- per sq.mtr. and the compensation awarded to him at the rate of Rs. 3/per sq.mtr. was entirely inadequate, unfair and unjust.2. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', was issued by the Commissioner, Konkan Division, on 11th June, 1984, intending to acquire the land in the revenue estate of village Yeoor, Dist. Thane, admeasuring about 10 hectares 39.9 acres in Survey No. 42...

Atv Projects India Limited, a Company Duly Registered and Incorporated ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2008)BC221; 2007(4)BomCR711; 2007(6)MhLj231

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner questions the legality, validity and propriety of the notice dated 31st May, 2006 issued by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner.2. The Central Bank of India informed the petitioner that there was outstanding a sum of Rs. 2,63,81,46,559.65 as on 10th January, 2006 and that the petitioner was sending the evidence of security given/charged to the bank with a view to delay action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Securitisation Act'); and issued certain directions. It was also stated that the bank, along with the consortium banks, is intending to take further action under Section 13(4) of the Act; and advised the petitioner and guarantors to fully co-operate.3. The necessary facts are that the petitioner was declared as a 'Sick Company' within the meaning of Section 3(1)(o) of the...

'Goenkarancho Ekvot', a Society registered under the Societies Registr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2007Bom184; 2007(6)ALLMR659; 2007(4)BomCR720; (2007)109BOMLR1121; LC2007(2)369; 2007(35)PTC957(Bom)

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The petitioner Society, which claims to be working for and on behalf of the people of the State of Goa, has filed the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that the respondent Union of India be directed to enforce the provisions of the Emblems And Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 against the use of the name of 'Goa' in relation to Gutka, Pan Masala or any other similar product; and further the respondents, and particularly respondent No. 3, be directed to quash and cancel the registration of the trade mark; and they be restrained from using the said expression as part of their trade mark.2. Respondent No. 4 is dealing in food products, while respondent No. 5 is an organisation and is the owner of the Trade Mark 'Goa 1000 Gutka', which is being used to promote harmful product in a manner which is contrary to law and against larger public interest. Respondent No. 4, amongst others, is engaged in the business of m...