Mumbai Court February 2008 Judgments

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Universal Ferro and Allied Chem. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009[13]STR498

Vasanti A. Naik, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur under the provisions of Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1944' for the sake of brevity) whereby the orders passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT' for the sake of brevity) on 21-10-2005 in Appeal Nos. E/2691 to 2693/03 & E/1976/04 Mum, are impugned. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents to the maintainability of the appeal under the provisions of Section 35G(1) of the Act of 1944 before the High Court on the ground that the appeal would lie before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in view of the provisions of Section 35L(1) of the Act of 1944. According to the respondents, the order passed by the CESTAT and impugned in the present appeal relates, among other things, to the determination of a question having a relation to the rate of duty of the excise.2. Few facts giv...

Naiknavare and Associates, a Partnership Firm Vs. State of Maharashtra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR3073; 2008(6)BomCR147; 2008(5)MhLj355

Roshan Dalvi, J.1. Both the above Petitioners challenge the same action of the Respondents and have prayed for Writs of Mandamus in respect of the issue of Development Rights Certificate (DRC) under Regulation N-2.4.5 of the Development Control Rules (DCR) of Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC).(R-2). Hence, both the Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The Petitioners are developers of lands which have been reserved/acquired for economically weaker sections (EWS) of the Society in Pune as 'Retainable Land Declared under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulations Act, 1976.' (ULCRA). Such reserved lands would otherwise have to be surrendered to R-2 for housing EWS by their owners. The owners of such lands would be entitled to compensation for such acquisition. However, if such lands were not to be surrendered, but used for public housing, the owners would be entitled to have the lands developed if they handed over to R-2. 15% of the constructed built-...

Sahyadri Shikshan Sanstha and anr. Vs. Karanjkar Nishant Neelakanth an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008(118)FLR1110]; 2008(4)MhLj697

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition impugns the Judgment and order dated 23-10-1997 rendered by the School Tribunal at Kolhapur thereby allowing Appeal No. 115 of 1995 filed by the present Respondent No. 1 teacher.2. The Petitioners were directed to reinstate the appellant in the original post of Assistant Teacher and to pay him full backwages from the date of termination till reinstatement. The order of termination dated 24-4-1999 was quashed and set aside.3. The Respondent No. 4 be deleted forthwith. While admitting this petition vide order dated 29-4-1998, it is stated by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that Respondent Teacher was already reinstated as per the order dated 22-4-1998 and the said reinstatement was subject to the final order in this petition. The order regarding payment of backwages was stayed.4. Mr. Dighe, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent Teacher stated that he has no instructions whereas Mr. Gorwadkar, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated that ...

Shri Madhav Bhalchandra Joshi Vs. Vidya Vikas Mandal,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR725; (2008)110BOMLR717; 2008(3)MhLj858

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition arises from the order passed by the School Tribunal at Navi Mumbai on 14-10-1997 dismissing Appeal No. 175/1997 (Old No. 42 of 1992) filed by the petitioner.2. The Petitioner was appointed on 11-6-1973 as an Assistant Teacher at Saraswat Vidyalay run by the Respondent No. 1 Society. He was promoted to the post of supervisor on 14-6-1983. He had filed two separate civil suits in the Civil Courts at Thane on 17-11-1990. Civil suit No. 648/1990 was filed against the Head Master of Saraswat Vidyalay and Special Civil Suit No. 650/1990 was filed against the Chairman of the Respondent No. 1 Society and both suits were filed for recovery of damages. In the first suit an amount of Rs. 70,500/- and in the second suit an amount of Rs. 80,500/- with interest was claimed from the defendants. While these suits were pending, he came to be suspended from duty on 1-10-1991 but without obtaining permission from the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Thane....

Dhondiram S/O Shankarrao Patil and ors. Vs. Joint Charity Commissioner ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)BomCR589; 2008(3)MhLj801

ORDERA.H. Joshi, J.1. Heard Mr. P. S. Shendurnikar, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. V.C. Solshe, learned Advocate for respondent No. 3/caveator.2. The petitioners were seeking transfer of change report bearing No. 590/2005 from the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Latur, to Assistant or Deputy Charity Commissioner of any other region. This prayer has been rejected by the Joint Charity Commissioner.3. The grounds of transfer have been incorporated in para 15 of the application which are quoted below for ready reference:It is respectfully submitted that applicants have no faith on judicial work of respondent No. 10. Respondent No. 10 is against applicants in his behaviour and favouring to respondent Nos. 1 to 4. On the dais itself respondent No. 10 used to threat and insult the applicants while attending his Court. Respondent No. 10 is demanding huge amount in presence of all applicants on dais itself on 4-9-2007. On next date on 19-11-2007 applicants were present but his adv...

Atmaram Chapa Sandanshiv and anr. Vs. Shamshadbi Bashir Shah Fakir and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR740; 2008(3)MhLj906

R.M. Borde, J.1. Heard.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The matter is taken up for final hearing at admission stage with the consent of the parties.3. This petition is filed by the petitioners herein raising exception to the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik on 28-11 2005. The petitioners are the elected members of Village Panchayat, Biloli. The general elections to the Gram Panchayat were held on 28-8-2005 and the petitioners are the elected candidates from ward Nos. 1 and 3 respectively. It transpires that respondent No. 1 raised objection with the Collector by moving an application on 15-9-2005 to the effect that the petitioners herein are disqualified to contest the elections as well as to continue on the post of member of Village Panchayat as they have incurred disqualification as laid down under Section 14(1)(a)(ii) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958.4. The objection raised by the respondent No. 1 is to the effect that the petitione...

Vinaykumar Ratanlalji Jaiswal and ors. Vs. Nandranibai Kisanlal Jaiswa ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR658; 2008(4)MhLj167

R.C. Chavan, J.1. Fifty years ago while disposing of Special Civil Application No. 330 of 1957 raising similar questions between the predecessors of the present parties, concerning the same property, a Division Bench of this Court observed in para 2 of the judgment in Lala Jugalkishore (Landholder) v. Bombay Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur and Ors. reported at 1958 NLJ 355 that 'This case has a very chequered history'. History repeats and so we repeat those words.2. The appellant was a tenant in respect of certain agricultural lands belonging to the respondent-landlord in the Agricultural Year 1951-52. The extent of those lands was said to be about 84 acres. The appellant was entitled to be a protected lessee in respect of 50 acres of those lands in terms of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951. For the sake of ready reference, those sections may be usefully reproduced as under:3. (1) Every lease of land by a landholder entitling the less...

Susheela Sadashiv Mande Vs. Secretary, Latte Education Society and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008(117)FLR148]; 2008(4)MhLj667

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The petitioner impugns the judgment and order dated 3-2-1998 rendered by the School Tribunal, Kolhapur dismissing Appeal No. 115 of 1992 filed by the petitioner. The petitioner at the relevant time possessed the qualifications of M.A. B.Ed. and was appointed for the first time as an Assistant Teacher in the primary school w.e.f. 7-7-1989 and till the end of the academic year i.e. 30-4-1992. Similar appointments were given to her in the next two academic years i.e. 1990-91 and 1991-92. By notice dated 30-4-1992 she was informed that her tenure would come to an end by efflux of time and the said notice was challenged in Appeal No. 115/1992 filed under Section 9 of the MEPS Act, 1977 (the Act for short).2. By the impugned Judgment the School Tribunal has held against the appellant/petitioner for the following reasons:(a) the petitioner was over aged i.e. she was above the age of 28 years when she was appointed for the first time on 7-7-1989 and neither the management...

A.R. Marines Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner suspending the CHA licence of the appellant under Regulation 20(2) of the Custom House Agents Licencing Regulations, 2004 on the ground that an enquiry is contemplated against the CHA under Regulation 22 of the Custom House Agents Licencing Regulations, 2004. The impugned order lists out five cases involving misconduct on the part of the appellant.2. Ld. Advocate Shri. R.B. Pardeshi for the appellant submits that the appellant is a reputed CHA and the volume of work shows that the firm was handling more than 3000 export/import documents during the year 2003-06. It is his submission that under Regulation 20(2) of the Custom House Agents Licencing Regulations, 2004 suspension can be resorted to in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary. The events of misconduct cited in the Commissioner's order relate to the year 2001, whereas, the suspension order has been issued in December 2007.Therefore, if the misconduct has ...

Shri Ravindra Nainsukh Sanghavi Vs. Laxman Rangnath Nagarkar (Since De ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)BomCR650; (2008)110BOMLR903; 2008BusLR451(Bom); 2008(4)MhLj208

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. The respondents before this Court are the legal heirs of the original applicant, who was the landlord and owner of the suit property. The present revision applicant is the original opponent and admittedly he is residing in the premises of the respondent. The landlord filed Miscellaneous Application No. 33 of 1993 under Section 13A(2) of The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (In brief The Bombay Rent Act) for possession of the suit premises. According to him, an agreement of leave and licence had taken place between himself and the present applicant and as per that agreement, Block No. 4 admeasuring 467 sq.ft. carpet area, having three rooms, balcony and toilet bathroom situated on the City Survey No. 617/B was given to the present applicant for residential purpose. Agreement was entered into on 4th June, 1992. Leave and licence agreement was reduced to writing and was executed by the parties on the stamp paper. Period of licence was 11 mo...