Mumbai Court August 2007 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
V.B. Gadekar, Deputy Engineer, Konkan Housing and Area Development Boa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR45; 2007(6)BomCR579; 2008(2)MhLj640
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. By this judgment, we shall dispose of the above three writ petitions as common issues arise for determination in all the writ petitions on somewhat similar facts. For the purpose of convenience, we would refer to the facts of Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 1430 of 2007.2. The petitioner joined the services of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, for short 'MHADA', on 21st April, 1980. He was promoted to the rank of Deputy Engineer in the year 1989. He was then posted in the Vigilance Laboratory under the authority in Mumbai since 9th October, 2006, where he continues to work. Vide order dated 30th June, 2007, the petitioner has been transferred and posted at Nagpur in the office of the authority. The said order is at Exhibit-C which reads as under:By taking into consideration administrative interest, your transfer is being made in vacant post of Deputy Engineer in Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board in view of Government's above referred letter...
Kamla Pribhdas Nebhnani Vs. Haren Krishnakumar Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR573; (2007)109BOMLR1830; 2008(3)MhLj846
D.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. By this Appeal, the Appellant, who is the original Defendant, challenges the judgment and decree dated 11th October, 2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. 2. The facts that are material and relevant are that the Respondent filed Civil Suit No. 1097 of 1978 in this Court claiming a decree of declaration that the agreement dated 1st April, 1978 is valid and subsisting. He also prayed for a decree of specific performance of that agreement. He also prayed for certain incidental reliefs. The agreement dated 1st April, 1978 was an agreement to sell flat No. 30, Merryland Co.operative Housing Society Ltd., Worli, Mumbai. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant had entered into an agreement to sell the suit flat along with the fixtures and furniture for Rs. 1,65,000/-. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid as earnest money. The balance amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the conveyance and handing over of possession. By the agreement, it was a...
Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Sangh Maryadit Vs. State of Maha ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR704; 2007(6)BomCR562; 2008(2)MhLj231
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Respondent Nos. 5 to 65 in the present appeal had filed appeal under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Dairy), Mumbai, against the order dated 30th December, 2006, passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Dairy), Pune. The Deputy Registrar in that order had granted approval to the resolution passed in the Annual General Body meeting held on 11th November, 2005, under Section 35 of the Act which expelled 225 societies from its membership. The order dated 30th December, 2006, was challenged on various grounds, including that there was no proper meeting and no proper procedure was followed in accordance with law. The affected parties were not granted proper notices. Notices of the Annual General Meeting dated 11th November, 2005 were sent on 11th October, 2005 and were received by the concerned societies from 12th to 18th October, 2...
The State of Maharashtra Vs. Smt. Fulyabai Kisan Govardhane and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR207; 2008(1)BomCR386; (2007)109BOMLR2043; 2008(3)MhLj278
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. All the above 80 appeals have been preferred by the State against the judgment/award dated 31st March 2006 passed by 2nd Adhoc Additional District Judge, Nashik. As the appeals arise from the same judgment/award, they can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The facts giving rise to the present appeals fall in a narrow compass. The State of Maharashtra issued a Notification dated 2nd February 1994 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, (hereinafter called the 'Act') intending to acquire 265.54.39 hectares of land from the revenue village Sanjegaon, taluka Igatpuri, District Nasik, for public purpose, namely, for Mukane dam out of Nadurmadneshwar project. In furtherance to the above Notification the declaration under section 6 of the Act was issued on 10th June 1994. After having provided opportunity to the parties to present their case before the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) he had pronounced his award dated 14th December 19...
Mr. R.S. Keluskar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Railway Ministry,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR304; 2007(6)BomCR559; 2008(3)MhLj133
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. The petitioner in this petition, Mr. R.S. Keluskar, who is an advocate practising in the Railway Claims Tribunal at Mumbai, filed a claim application before that Tribunal on behalf of one Mr. Jayesh Sharad Bhavsar. This claim application was contested on behalf of the Railway. It was stated in the claim application that the claimant had fallen down from the local train and fingers of his right leg came below the wheel of the local train resulting in permanent partial disablement. In these circumstances he claimed the compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Areplywasfiledwhereinitwasstated thattheaccident in question was not an untoward incident within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 as he had trespassed on the track and not fallen from the train. It was further stated that the applicant is put to strict proof thereof.2. This claim application was dismissed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 6th February, 2006, which reads as under:A perusal of ...
Hindustan Lever Research Centre Employees' Union Vs. Hindustan Lever L ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2007
Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR734; 2008(2)BomCR831; [2008(117)FLR1112]; (2008)ILLJ681Bom
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith.This petition challenges the order of the President of the Industrial Court refusing to transfer Reference (IT) No. 21/2001 from the file of the Tribunal who is presently seized with the matter to the Court of Shri A.D. Kadlag, Member, Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai.2. The petitioner contends that the issue of parity, which has been recognised by this Court in respect of the workers in Reference (IT)Nos. 83/1997, 51/1998 and 56/1999 also arises in Reference (IT) No. 21/2001 and, therefore, it would be appropriate to club all four references together. It is further contended that if clubbing of the four references is not possible, then Reference (IT) No. 21/2001 should be decided by the same Tribunal who is seized of the other three references as the questions of fact and law in all four references are the same. The petitioner urges that in order to save time and avoid duplication of work as also the possibility of incongruous decisions by tw...
Shelatkar Construction Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Creative Enterprises and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-2007
Reported in: IV(2008)BC32
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard Mr. Marwadi, the learned Counsel for the common petitioners in all these three petitions and there is a common grievance. They are being decided by this common order.2. The petitioners are the accused in three different criminal cases filed by the respondent No. 1 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai and they are registered as C.C. No. 710/SS/2006, C.C. No. 711/SS/2006 and 712/SS/2006. During the trial of all these complaints, the complainant through its partner Mr. Narsiha N. Patel filed an affidavit by Way of evidence in examination-in-chief. Along with the same certain documents were brought on record. The accused therefore, filed separate applications for an order to issue summons to the accused and to examine him for recording his examination-in-chief with regards to the facts stated by him in the affidavit. A reliance in this regard was placed on the provisions of Section 145(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. These applications ...
Crompton Greaves Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2007
Reported in: (2007)(122)ECC391
1. The proceedings initiated against the appellants herein for recovery of modvat credit of Rs. 3,07,544/- of duty paid on reconditioned machinery on the ground that reconditioned machinery is not covered as capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, was dropped by the Dy.Commissioner both on merits as wells on limitation.The Revenue went up in appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) only challenging the finding of the adjudicating authority on the eligibility to credit, and not on his finding that the demand was barred by limitation as there was no suppression on the part of the appellants. The lower Appellate Authority has accepted the Revenue's appeal by holding that reconditioned machinery is not specified as capital goods. Hence this appeal before the Tribunal.2. I have heard both sides. The finding of the Dy.Commissioner that the appellants cannot be held to be guilty of any suppression, not having been challenged by the Revenue before the lower Appellate Au...
Siemens Nixdorf Information Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2007
Reported in: (2007)8STR480
1. The appellants challenge the penalty of Rs. 2,32,253/- imposed under Section 76 and penalty of Rs. 8,000/- imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for late payment of Service Tax and non submission of S.T. 3 return.D.R. Gade v. CC.Nasik 2006 (2) S.T.R. 205, the Tribunal relied upon Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 which provides that "Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of Section 76,77,78 and 79, no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any j failure referred to in the said provisions, if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure", to reduce the penalty imposed upon the appellants by noting that interest amount paid was about 40% of the Service Tax and therefore, any pecuniary advantage gained by the appellant is neutralized. The Revenue has challenged this decision by filing Central Excise appeal No. 213 of 2006 before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court which by its Order dated 26-7-2007 accepted that the reduction ...
Snl Bearings Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-2007
Reported in: (2007)(123)ECC64
1. Vide the impugned order the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has, upheld the adjudication order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs who had ordered confiscation of 'cold rolled steel strips in coil form' valued at Rs. 5,01,267/- and Rs. 3,59,186/- imported by the appellants under bills of entry dated 23/02/2001 and 26/04/2001 respectively under the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 70,000/- respectively and imposed penalties of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively upon the appellants under the provisions of Section 112(d) of the Act.3. While assessing the bills of entry it was noticed that the goods were covered by Notification No. 44/(RE-2000)/1997-2002 dated 24/11/2000 Appendix V, serial No. 100, IS 4397 covering "cold rolled carbon steel strips for roller and ball bearings cages" issued by DGFT under which the supplier of such goods was required to be registered with the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »