Mumbai Court August 2007 Judgments

Workmen Employed Under It Rep. by Shramik Sena Vs. Raptakos Breet and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2007(115)FLR558]; (2008)ILLJ1062Bom

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. Civil application No. 1916/2006 has been filed by the Union representing the workmen claiming wages payable under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act for all the workmen listed in Exhibit A to the Civil Application. Civil Application No. 1554/2007 has also been filed by the Union, the applicant in both the Civil Applications, for a direction against the respondent company (the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3079/2006 in which the present Civil Applications have been filed) to provide regular wages and other benefits which are paid to other employees working with the respondent company.2. When Civil Application No. 1916/2006 came up for hearing on August 29, 2006, the learned single Judge (MArlapalle, J.) observed thus:4. ...The only issue that remains to be sorted out is regarding the wage-scale. The learned Counsel for the applicant-Union submitted that on reinstatement the workmen concerned must be paid wages at the rates applicable to the permanent empl...

Asstt. Cit, Rg. 4(1) Vs. Claridges Investments and

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These cross appeals arise out of the order dated 31-3-2006 of the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 2001-02. We have heard these appeals together and dispose the same by this consolidated order.2. The first dispute in the revenue's appeal is directed against the disallowance of loss of Rs. 13,11,01,153 relating to purchase and sale of units of mutual funds. The learned Commissioner (Departmental Representative) vehemently relied upon the discussions in the assessment order and the case of the revenue according to him is fully supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Vaneet Jain v. CIT 3. The learned Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, strongly argued that the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Wallfort Shares & Stock Brokers Ltd. v. ITO (2005) 96 ITD 1 (Mum) completely covers the issue in favour of the assessee. He also relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of C...

Naigaon Education Society and anr. Vs. Shri M.S. Bhavar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR744

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This petition challenges the order of the School Tribunal granting reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages to the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Library Attendant on 9.9.1989 and worked as such till 28.2.1990. An advertisement was issued by the petitioners inviting applications for the post of Library Attendant. The respondent No. 1 appeared for an interview and was selected. He was issued an appointment order on 1.4.1990. According to the petitioners, respondent No. 1 discontinued attending the school w.e.f. 23.2.1992. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent No. 1 that his services were terminated by the petitioners and instead of continuing him as a Library Attendant pursuant to the appointment order of 1.4.1990, he was issued an order of appointment as a Peon. It was the case of the respondent No. 1 that the petitioners could not appoint him as a Peon having selected him as a Library Attendant.2. Aggrie...

Charak Pharmaceuticals (India) Limited and anr. Vs. Glenmark Pharmacet ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR596; (2007)109BOMLR1532; LC2007(3)164; 2007(35)PTC708(Bom)

A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This order will dispose of the prayer for ad-interim relief pressed on behalf of the plaintiffs during pendency of the Notice of Motion. 2. In substance, the plaintiffs' case is that the plaintiffs are the originator of the trade mark 'EVANOVA' and have adopted the same for its Medicinal and Pharmaceutical preparation since 1999. It is the plaintiffs case that the plaintiffs have got the trade mark registered bearing No. 849756. The plaintiffs are relying on documents to support its claim that the trade mark 'EVANOVA' which is a registered trade mark under Class-5 in respect of its Ayurvedic Medicinal preparation, is being manufactured and marketed by the plaintiffs since the time of registration. According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs learnt about the illegal activities of the defendants of infringement of the plaintiffs' registered trade mark 'EVANOVA' and of passing off their product as that of the plaintiffs product. That came to the plaintiffs notice in...

Amrut Pusaji Ilme Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR147; 2008(2)BomCR343; 2007(6)MhLj330

R.C. Chavan, J.1. These two petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment, since the question involved in the petitions is the same.2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3070 of 1998, Dr. Ilme, and the respondent in Writ Petition No. 3776 of 2001, Dr. Smt. Bhagwat, were serving as Medical Officers, Class-III, at Nagpur. There was a scandal of bogus medical reimbursement bills and a crime had been registered at Police Station Ambazari, bearing No. 199 of 1976. Dr. Ilme was suspended in 1976 and Dr. Smt. Bhagwat was suspended in 1974 pending investigation of the crime. On writ petitions filed by the doctors, the criminal proceedings were quashed. In view of this, by an order dated 2-2-1991, the Government of Maharashtra in Public Health Department decided to drop the charges against the two doctors and some others and ordered the entire period of suspension to be treated as duty period.3. Dr. Ilme, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3070 of 1998, was accordingly reinstated on 8-2-1991....

A. Shenoy and Co. and ors. Vs. N.D. Kadam and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008]297ITR419(Bom); 2007(6)MhLj211

V.C. Daga, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.P.P. for the State.2. The applicants have invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) to challenge the order dated 5th May, 2007 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (47th Court), Esplanade, Mumbai rejecting the prayer for discharge of the accused in Case Nos. 5474/1990 to 5836/1990.Factual Matrix:3. Applicant No. 1 was a partnership firm carrying on business as Civil Contractors, whereas applicant No. 2 (since deceased) and applicant No. 3 were the partners thereof. The applicants have contended that during the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86, applicant No. 1 made interest payments to various parties who were its creditors. Such interest payments to some of the parties were more than Rs. 1,000/- in aggregate, in a single previous year. The applicant No. 1 failed to deduct tax at source (TD...

Janardan Urkuda Waghmare Vs. Ratanlal Kashinath Gudekar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR800; 2007(6)BomCR584; 2007(5)MhLj536

Chaudhari A.B., J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. Heard Mr. A.C. Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel for petitioner and Dr. Anjan De, learned Counsel for respondent.2. Petitioner has challenged order dated 25.4.2007 passed by the Civil Judge, J.D. Rajura in RCS No. 6 of 2006 rejecting his application (Exhibit 41) for amendment of plaint.3. Petitioner is original plaintiff who filed RCS No. 6 of 2006 for grant of permanent injunction. In his suit, he claimed that his neighbour/defendant ought to have left 1.1/ 2 feet space towards the house of the petitioner, so also on the side of the respondent/defendant. An application for grant of temporary injunction filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff was rejected. The respondent then made construction on his plot. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for amendment of suit. In his application for amendment, he averred that at the time he filed suit, there was a great hurry. He then got the land measured through a retired Govern...

Yamunabai Pundalik Khachane Vs. Vijaya Dnyandeo Ingale and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR875; 2008(1)MhLj518

ORDERS.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.This petition takes an exception to the order passed by Additional District Judge, Jalgaon below application Exhibit-23 filed in Misc. Civil Application No. 98 of 2001 dated 21st April, 2005.2. There is no dispute that respondent No. 1, in this writ petition, Smt. Vijaya had filed Special Civil Suit No. 222 of 1995 for partition and possession, in the Court of learned 3rd joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon. Present petitioner was defendant No. 1 in that suit. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in the suit. This suit, after recording evidence, came to be decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon. The defendant No. 1 petitioner filed first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Court of learned District Judge, Jalgaon. The appeal was beyond the period of limitation and, therefore, application i.e. Misc. Civil Application No. 98 of 2001, seeking condonation ...

Mabelaranah Niranjan Puthran Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR1749

Ranjana Desai, J.1. The petitioner is the wife of one Niranjan Puthran (for short, 'the detenu'), who is detained under order of detention dated 16/8/2006 issued by respondent 2, the Principal Secretary, (Appeals & Security), Home Department, Government of Maharashtra under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, 'the COFEPOSA Act') with a view to preventing him in future from smuggling goods. The order of detention along with the grounds of detention and the material in support thereof was served on the detenu on 2/11/2006.2. Admittedly, the detenu is a Custom House Agent. The grounds of detention indicate that based on a specific intelligence that two import consignments in the name of M/s. Orbit International (IEC No. 0392022320) and M/s. Drashti Overseas (IEC No. 0300007442) which have arrived in Mumbai on board Cathay Pacific Airlines on 18/19th February, 2006 and which have been declared to contain `plastic...

Deepak Revachand Talreja Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2008)DMC629

A.A. Sayed, J.1. The above Appeal is preferred against judgment and order dated 28th June, 2002 of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan, in Sessions Case No. 111 of 1998 sentencing the Appellant, who was the accused in the Trial Court, to life imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his wife and to pay a fine of Rs. 400/, and in default to suffer R.I. for two months. The Appellant was also tried for offences punishable under Section 498(A) and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, in respect of which the Appellant was discharged, as no evidence was found on those counts by the Trial Court.2. The prosecution's case in a nutshell is thus The victim Heena @ Kavita Deepak Talreja (hereinafter called 'the deceased') and the Appellant were husband and wife and were married some time in the year 1994 and were residing at 706, 7th Floor, Dream Land Apartment, Gol Maidan, Ulhasnagar. It was a love affair which culmin...