Mumbai Court September 2007 Judgments

Deccan Merchant Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Avdhoot Marutirao Rane and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008(116)FLR993]; (2008)IILLJ40Bom

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This petition has been filed by the Bank contending that no bonus is payable under the Payment of Bonus Act on subsistence allowance. The issue is directly covered by the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court (B.N. Srikrishna, J., as he then was) in the case of Motor Industries Co. Ltd. v. Popat Muralidhar Patil and Ors. : (1997)IILLJ1206Bom . It has been held in that case that bonus is not payable on subsistence allowance firstly because the employee does not actually work during that period and secondly because the subsistence allowance cannot be considered as salary or wage.2. In view of this judgment, the petition succeeds and Rule made absolute accordingly.3. No costs....

Rajesh S/O. Pralhad Bagde, Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Its Po ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR2426

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Mr. A.S. Manohar, Adv. for the Appellant no.2, Mr. R.M. Daga, Adv. for the Appellant Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. D.B. Patel, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State. 2. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt. 19.8.2004 passed by the 7th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.178 of 2003 whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable Under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-each. The appellant no.1 Rajesh Pralhad Bagade is dead. 3. The circumstances which have given rise to the prosecution of the appellants are as follows : On 8.11.2002 at 9.00 P.M. Chandrabhagabai (PW 1) along with her son (deceased Kisan) was going to hospital of Dr.Shende for treatment of Kisan. However, when they reached near the public toilet, Kisan told his mother Chandrabhagabai that he would go to the hospital next day and theref...

Sambhaji S/O Nagoba Kendre, Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through P.S. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008CriLJ1123

B.R. Gavai, J.Rule. Rule made returnable forth with. Heard by consent.1. By way of present application, the applicant 2 challenges the order dated 5th October, 2006, vide which the application of the respondent No. 1 for summoning the present applicants with one Chandrakant Vithal Puttewad as the accused person for being tried together with the accused Vasant Darade has been allowed.2. The facts in brief, giving rise to the present application are as under:That, a crime came to be registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the father of the deceased (respondent No. 2 herein), vide crime No. 31/2001. It is alleged in the said crime that on 28th of February, 2001, the daughter of the complainant namely Anita while returning from Shekapur, where she had gone to give her examination, alighted from the auto-rickshaw near 'Hindu Smashan Bhumi', Kandhar. It is alleged that her brother Ravindra was accompanied by her. It is further alleged that thereafter, one girl namely Sindhu, on th...

Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (of Brihan-mumb ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR402; 2007(6)BomCR420; (2007)109BOMLR2240; 2008(2)MhLj246

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 14th July, 2005 passed by the Ombudsman, appointed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short, 'MERC') under Section 42(6) of the Electricity Act-2003 (for short, 'the Act') filed the present writ petition.2. The facts underlying are:Respondent No. 1 in or about February, 1999 applied to the petitioner for increment in electricity supply for total connected load of about 35 KW for commercial purpose at Commercial (C-2) tariff and removal and substitution of said 4 meters by higher capacity Meters.3. On 15th March, 1999 the petitioner removed said 4 meters and substituted them by high capacity meter Nos. 0903961 and X950090. The petitioner changed electricity tariff applicable to respondent No. 1 from Commercial (C-1) tariff to Commercial (C-2) tariff.4. On 2nd March, 2000, respondent No. 1 by letter dated 2nd March, 2000 addressed to petitioner applied for replacement of Meter Nos. 0903961 and ...

Nutan Vidarbha Shikshan Mandal and anr. Vs. Ramakanth Mahadeorao Khot

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR798; 2008(1)BomCR267; 2007(6)MhLj310

C.L Pangarkar, J.1. This is an application for review of the judgment delivered in Civil Revision Application No. 930 of 2000.2. Review application has been filed by the applicant in Civil Revision. A few facts may be stated thus:Applicant is a defendant in civil suit instituted by the non-applicant against it seeking an injunction restraining it from recovering an amount from his salary. The applicant is a Society which runs a school while the non-applicant is a Clerk working in the said school. It was the duty of the said employee to take care of the grants received from the Government, to draw the amount for running the school and the society. Defendant No. 2 is the Head Master of the said school. The school receives two grants namely salary grant and non-salary grant. For the said two grants two separate accounts are maintained in the bank. Those accounts have been opened in Amravati District Central Co-operative Bank. It is contended by the plaintiff that many a times no intimatio...

Dhananjay Sawant Vs. Vilas Shripati Kesarkar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR691; 2008(3)BomCR871; 2007(6)MhLj832

D.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties.2. By this petition, review is sought of our order dated 24th July, 2007 on the ground that Section 5B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act was not in existence on the date on which the petitioner was elected and, therefore, the petitioner is not disqualified to be a Councillor.3. The petitioner was elected as a Councillor in a seat reserved for other backward class. The petitioner, who had produced a caste certificate of belonging to a Kunbi Caste, got elected to the reserved seat. The caste certificate which was found to be incorrect and the caste certificate has been invalidated by an order dated 20th April, 2007 by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Even though Section 5B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act was not in force on the date on which the petitioner was elected, still we are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to an interim relief to continue as a Councillor for the reasons indicated below.4. The Legislatur...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Krishna Metal Works

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(123)ECC379

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondents M/s Krishna Metal Works was visited by Central Excise Officers and after observing the process of manufacture and the machinery installed therein and the statement of one of their partners Mr. K.K Shah came to the conclusion that what the respondents were manufacturing were cold rolled stainless steel strips instead of hot rolled pattas/patties as claimed by them.They accordingly seized semi finished and finished goods valued at Rs 14,14,864/- along with other incriminating documents and drew samples of finished goods as well as raw materials. Technical opinions were also obtained from one Mr. Arun Shah. B. Tech and Chartered Engineering and one Mr. Shailesh C Gupta, Quality Control Inspector of M/s Graham Firth Steel Products (I) Ltd, who by having a visual examination of the samples concluded that they were cold rolled strips of stainless steel.Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued seeking to demand duty amounting to Rs 47,89...

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. Sedgwick Parekh Health Mfg. Pvt.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue. The relevant assessment year is 2001-02. The appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A) VII at Mumbai dated 02/08/04 and arises out of the assessment completed Under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The first ground raised by the Revenue is that the CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the payments Under Section 43B on account of employers contribution to Provident Fund amounting to Rs. 1,60,277/- and employees contribution to Provident Fund amounting to Rs. 1,52,410/-, made after due dates specified in the PF Act.3. Even though the payments towards PF have been made by the assessee company after the due dates prescribed under the respective enactment, the payments were in fact made before the due date of filing of return for the impugned assessment year 2001-02.4. Where the payments towards Provident Fund, ESI etc have been made by the assessee on or before the due date of filing of the return for the concerned assessment year, ...

Ms. Subhadra Sushil Anand, Principal of National College and ors. Vs. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008CriLJ672

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. Shri Gadkari, the learned APP for the respondent No.1 and Shri Lanke, the learned advocate for the respondent No.2 waive service. 3. The petitioners seek direction for quashing the FIR No.130 of 2007 lodged at Khar Police Station, Mumbai. 4. Some time in July, 2006, the complainant Vidya Bansode came to be appointed in teaching faculty at M/s. R.D. National College at Bandra. A complaint came to be lodged by father of the said Vidya Bansode as well as by the complainant Vidya herself to the Education Officer in November, 2006 making various allegations against the Management of the college. It appears that being dissatisfied about the reaction from the management and the Education Officer, the complainant lodged a complaint with Khar Police Station which came to be registered as FIR No.130 of 2007. The complaint relates to the alleged humiliation caused to the complainant on account of the alle...

Yogeshwar Vikas Sanstha and ors. Vs. Rajendra T. Shinde and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR297; [2007(115)FLR1043]; 2007(6)MhLj698

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The Petitioners have challenged the order of the School Tribunal dated 3.10.1997. Petitioner No. 1 is the Institution which runs the school of which Petitioner No.3 is the Headmaster. Petitioner No. 2 is the President of Petitioner No. 1. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. Respondent No. 1 was appointed on 26.7.1995. The appointment order issued to him mentioned that he was appointed temporarily from 28.7.1995 to 30.4.1996. According to the petitioners, Respondent No. 1 submitted his resignation, but later filed an appeal before the School Tribunal being Appeal No.7 of 1996 alleging wrongful termination from service. It was contended by Respondent No. 1 that he had been appointed against a clear permanent vacancy and, therefore, ought to have been appointed as a probationer rather than a temporary employee. It was further contended that he had not resigned from service but was in fact prevented from signing the muster roll. Respondent No. 1 also plea...