Mumbai Court January 2008 Judgments

Shri Vassant Rauji Saval Dessai, Vs. Shri Upendra Raghunath Deshprabhu

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR783; 2008(3)BomCR592; 2008(3)MhLj344

N.A. Britto, J.1. Admit. By consent heard forthwith.2. Applicants in this petition are Defendants in R.C.S. No. 156/2000/A. This revision is directed by them against Order dated 4-10-2006 of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa by which the learned trial Judge has refused to decree the suit in terms of Order 12 Rule 6, C.P.C., based on an alleged admission, contained in letter dated 6-1-1999 sent by the Plaintiff to the Village Panchayat, prior to the filing of a suit. Respondent herein is the Plaintiff.3. The suit has been filed by the Plaintiff on or about 13-1-1999 for a declaration, permanent and mandatory injunctions. The declaration sought is that the Defendants which includes Defendant No. 3 Shri Chandroji Rauji Saval Dessai, are not the tenants of the suit property. It appears that on 6-1-1999 the Plaintiff sent two letters complaining of illegal construction, one to the Gram Panchayat and the other to the Block Development Officer. In the first letter, there are se...

Al-saleha Beig Son of Abdul Gani Beig Vs. State and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR567; 2008CriLJ1500; 2008(3)MhLj724

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Ms W. Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for the respondents.2. Mr. Lotlikar seeks leave to delete respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Leave as sought is granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.3. Rule. By consent, rule is heard forthwith.4. This revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.10.2007 rendered by the President, Children's Court for the State of Goa, Panaji in Special Case No. 28/2006 by which the application filed by the petitioner, who is accused No. 5 in the case, seeking pardon Under Section 307 r/w. Section 306 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.5. It appears that two such applications, one filed by the applicant and the other filed by accused No. 3 Shankar Tiwari, were considered and rejected by the common judgment, impugned in this Revision. The only question raised by the petitioner in the instant revision is whether or not the learned Judge while dealing with the application...

Sathaliya S/O Jalamsingh Wardawal Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008BomCR(Cri)819

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment rendered by Special Judge, Jalgaon, in Special Case No. 8 of 2004 whereby appellant-Sathaliya is convicted for offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (For short 'the N.D.P.S.Act, 1985') and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 (five) years and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/ (Rs.Twenty-five thousand) in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 3.10.2004, Purna-Khandwa passenger train was standing at platform No. 5 at about 2.00 p.m. The departure of train was scheduled at 2.20 p.m. As usual, Police Constable - PW-1-Baburao Padghel and another Constable - Pathan were carrying out random inspection of the bogies. While checking the train, PW-1 Baburao Padghel (P.C.B. No. 938) entered coach No. 817527. It was noticed that the appellant was sitting on a seat bearing berth Nos. 1, 2 ...

Gram Vikas Seva Mandal, Vs. Salunke Madhukar Dayaram,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)BomCR837; [2008(117)FLR903]; 2008(3)MhLj363

B.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. This petition impugns the Judgement and order dated 28-4-1997 rendered by the School Tribunal at Nashik thereby dismissing Appeal No. 30/1994 filed by the Petitioner challenging the alleged oral termination of service as an Assistant Teacher.2. As per the petitioner he had passed his M.com examination in 1989 and further completed the certificate course of Hindi Shikshak Upadhi Pariksha from the Mumbai Hindi Vidyapeeth and he had claimed that it was equivalent to the B.Ed degree. As per the appointment order dated 8-6-91 he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher from that date for the academic years 1991-92 and 1992-93. He was allowed to sign the muster on 16-6-1993 but thereafter he was prohibited to do so and from 17-6-93 respondent no.5 Shri Suresh Pawar was appointed as an Assistant Teacher for the academic year 1993-94 as a part time teacher and the said tenure had come to an end on 22-2-1994. He further submitted that he was orally terminated from service w....

Shri Anand Maruti Shinde Vs. Shri Patankrao Dadasaheb Patil,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)BomCR829; [2008(117)FLR982]; 2008(4)MhLj460

B.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. This Petition takes exception to the Judgement and order dated 21-10-1997 rendered by the School Tribunal at Kolhapur, thereby dismissing the petitioner's Appeal registered as Appeal No. 195/1993. In the said Appeal the petitioner had raised a grievance of his supercession to the post of Head Master and respondent no.3 was appointed to the said post w.e.f. 1-7-1993. 2. There is no dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed w.e.f. 1-7-1988 as an Assistant Teacher and it appears that he was served with a notice of termination dated 13-8-1990 and was terminated. The said termination notice was challenged in Appeal No.1/1990 and it was allowed by the School Tribunal at Mumbai on 9-10-1990 but ex-parte. The Respondents were duly served and the Head Master had appeared before the Tribunal on 10-7-1991 and filed an application for adjournment to engage an Advocate and also to file reply. On two subsequent dates i.e. 29-7-91 and 22-8-91 none appeared for the man...

Shri William Rosario Fernandes Son of Late Inacio Fernandes Vs. Shri C ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR850; 2008(3)BomCR675; 2008(5)MhLj435

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1. This revision application is directed against the Order of conviction in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court, vide Judgment dated 21.9.06, convicted the accused and sentenced him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo Simple Imprisonment of three months and to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. which includes cheque amount, costs and interest for the loss and expenses caused to the complainant, in default to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment. The complainant has not challenged this Judgment for enhancement of the compensation. During the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioner has deposited Rs.2,70,000/- in this Court. 2. The learned Counsel for the applicant, on instructions from the applicant, who is present in the Court, has agreed to deposit another sum o...

Shri Shantaram Pandhari Fotto (Since Deceased Smt. Madhuri Ratnakar Fa ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR147; 2008(5)BomCR222; 2008(3)MhLj228

N.A. Britto, J.1. This is defendants' second appeal arising from R.C.S. No. 8/96/C. 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellants/defendants and Shri R.G. Ramani on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs. 3. The dispute between both the parties is as regards property surveyed under nos. 2/12, 2/13 and 16/2 of Village Betqui. As per the plaintiffs, this property is the seventh addition/parcel (adicao) of property Cucrulem having land registration No. 12422, while according to the defendants, it is the second-cum-fifth addition/parcel (adicao) of the same property, and the same was purchased by them, by a sale deed dated 18/03/1982 from the heirs of late Gajanan N.B. Siurekar. 4. Both the Courts below, after assessing the evidence, both oral and documentary produced on behalf of both the parties, have come to the conclusion that the suit property is the seventh parcel (adicao) claimed by the plaintiffs. In my view, this is a concurrent finding of facts arrived at by both the ...

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, a Statutory Corporation C ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR806; 2008(5)BomCR546

Bilal Nazki, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears for the respondents. 2. This petition has come up after 18 years for final hearing and we see no wisdom in filing this Writ Petition, particularly by a Public Undertaking. The Writ Petition, if allowed, would entitle the petitioner an amount of Rs. 11,000/-and odd and we are sure that this public Undertaking must have spent much more on this frivolous litigation. The respondent No. 1, who is a consumer, had a service line which got disconnected and destroyed because of the construction of a flyover without her consent. Since the service line got damaged by the Railways, she wanted an alternate service line and the petitioner asked her to pay for the service line. She approached the Consumer Forum which dismissed her case and she filed an appeal before the State Commission which reversed the finding of the District Forum and allowed the appeal. The petitioner did not avail of the remedy of a revision before t...

Vijay Kumar Goenka Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009[16]STR370

ORDER1. Rule : Heard forthwith.2. It is not necessary to set out the facts in detail. The issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Arviva Industries (I) Ltd. v. Union of India reported in : 2004 (167) E.L.T. 135 (Bom.).3. Revenue aggrieved, preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court. That appeal was dismissed. The judgment is reported in Union of India v. Arviva Industries (I) Ltd. reported in 2007 (209) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.).4. Once the law was declared and the judgment of this Court was upheld by the Supreme Court, it is the duty of the respondents in every matter which came up before them and to which the judgment applied to have suo motu applied the same without driving the party to move this Court. We had at one point of time thought of imposing exemplary cost on the officer concerned for making the petitioners for moving this Court and incur costs. On behalf of the respondents, learned Counsel states that the respondents will dispose off the application at the earliest ...

Hoganas India Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. As the applicants have asked for a decision on merits we heard the learned DR and perused the records.2. Service tax of Rs. 49,147/- has been confirmed upon the applicants herein on the ground that during the period 9-7-2004 to 28-2-2005 they had processed goods on behalf of their clients and were hence liable to service tax under the heading 'Business Auxiliary Services'. Penalty of amount equal to service tax has also been imposed.3. The plea raised by the applicants, that they were only processing the goods 'for a client' and not 'on behalf of a client' and that processing of goods for a client become liable to service tax by widening of definition of 'Business Auxiliary Services' only w.e.f.16-6-2005 which is subsequent to the period in dispute, is debatable.No prima facie case for total waiver has been made out.4. We, therefore, direct pre-deposit of Rs. 25,000/- towards service tax within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order and on such deposit pre-deposit of...