Mumbai Court February 2008 Judgments

Rajesh Gorelal Gupta Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009CriLJ1002

A.P. Lavande, J.1. Both these appeals are being disposed by common judgment and order since they arise out of, the judgment and order dated 27-11-1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia in Sessions Trial No. 87/92.2. The accused has preferred the Criminal Appeal No. 385/1996 being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27-11-1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia in Sessions Trial No. 87/92 convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 304, Part I of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default to Undergo simple imprisonment for 6 month's.3. The accused has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The State of Maharashtra being aggrieved by the order of acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 85/1997.4. Briefly, the prosecution c...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Suryakantabai Wd/O. Shalikram ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009ACJ391; 2008(4)ALLMR797; 2008(4)BomCR851; 2008(4)MhLj351

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This is an appeal by Insurance Company i.e. the Ori. respondent No. 3.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal can be narrated as follows.3. The claimants/respondents are the heirs of deceased Dashrath Patle. They were solely dependent on him. Deceased Dashrath was 16 years old boy and was earning Rs. 20/- per day by working as Hamal (coolie). On the date of the incident, he was working as a coolie on a Tractor owned by original respondent No. 2 Laxman Baghale. The said Tractor was being driven by original respondent No. 1 Sahasram. At the material time, the deceased was travelling in the said tractor, which was carrying building material etc. The driver was driving the vehicle very rashly and negligently, as a result of which the Trolly got detached from the Tractor. As a result of that, the Tractor met with an accident. Dashrath suffered injuries of which he died. The claimants, therefore, claimed compensation.4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 though duly served did not f...

Manu Narang (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Smt. Aminabai Abdul Rehman Pirsahe ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR799; 2008(5)BomCR348; 2008(4)MhLj40

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. Before going to the disputed facts, it will be necessary to point out certain facts which are admitted or not in dispute. 2. The plaintiff - Mrs. K.P. Bharucha filed RAE Suit No. 1240 of 1977 for eviction and possession of one of the two garages situated at plot No. 110, 30th Road, TPS III, Bandra, Bombay-50 against the original defendant Abdul Rehman Pirsaheb. It was contended that the garage was let out to the defendant by the plaintiffs husband. The eviction was sought on several grounds, including failure to pay the arrears of rent inspite of notice.3. The suit was contested by the original defendant and the suit came to be decreed by the judgment dated 1.10.1991. The original defendant preferred Appeal No. 157 of 1991. Pending that Appeal, the original defendant-appellant died and his legal heirs who are respondents before this Court, were brought on record. They prosecuted that appeal. However, by the judgment dated 20.1.1995, that appeal was also dismissed. The...

Jaysingpur Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and ors. Vs. Mr. Balasaheb Yashwan ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)MhLj682

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition arises from the judgment and order rendered by the School Tribunal on 30/4/1998 thereby allowing Appeal No. 79 of 1997 filed by the respondent No. 1 - teacher. The School Tribunal by the impugned order has held that the termination notice dated 29/3/1997 was illegal and ineffective and, therefore, it was set aside, the petitioner - management was directed to reinstate the appellant on the original post as being a permanent employee and to pay him backwages including pay and allowances from the date of termination till reinstatement in the prescribed scale.2. While granting Rule as per the order dated 19/8/1998 this Court had turned down the petitioner's prayer for interim relief and, therefore, the petitioners had filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 291 of 1998 which was finally disposed by the Division Bench on 7/12/2001 with the following directions:(i) The order dated 19.8.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge is modified by further directing that t...

Manda Ashok Patliputra (Hotel Amrapali) Vs. the Commissioner of Police ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR649; 2008(5)BomCR414

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Perused the relevant documents on record as well as the Orders passed by the two authorities below. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. Ms. Gaidhani waives notice for Respondents. 3. In so far as first contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner that the action initiated by the authority was founded on the stale instances is concerned, that does not commend to me. Indeed, show cause notice refers to 10 cases registered in relation to the Restaurant operated by the Petitioner, which pertains to period between February, 2003 to August, 2005. However, that is one of the ground on which, action of cancellation of license was proposed.4. The Authorities have also found that the Petitioner had violated license condition, which was breach of Rule 8(1) of the Rules 1953. The Authorities have concurrently found that the Petitioner permitted third person to conduct the business in her absence. That fact is cand...

Rajarshi Chhatrapati Shahu Vidya Prasarak Mandal and anr. Vs. Surekha ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR785; 2008(5)BomCR215; 2008(3)MhLj433

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Both the petitions impugn the judgment and order dated 16-7-1998 passed by the School Tribunal at New Mumbai thereby allowing Appeal No. 144 of 1997 (old Appeal No. 34 of 1996) filed by the respondent No. 1 in the first petition. The first petition has been filed by the management i.e. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the School Tribunal and the second petition has been filed by the respondent No. 3 before the School Tribunal.2. As per the appellant on 12-6-1994 she came to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the primary school run by Rajarshi Chhatrapati Shahu Vidya Prasarak Mandal at Ulhasnagar on the basis of her qualifications of S.S.C. + D.Ed, and the said appointment was only upto 31-3-1995. The said appointment was terminated as per the notice dated 20-3-1995 and in response to a fresh advertisement released and the application submitted by the appellant thereto, she was issued an appointment order dated 13-6-1995 but again for the academic year 1995-96. ...

Padmashri Dr. V.V. Patil Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The assessees herein were paying 8% of the price of rectified spirit manufactured by them in compliance with the requirement of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Scrutiny of their records revealed that the price of rectified spirit cleared for captive consumption was less than the price of the same goods cleared for home consumption and hence it appeared that they were reversing lesser amount than required. They had reduced the price of rectified spirit for captive consumption from Rs. 7/- per litre to Rs. 5/- per litre by passing a resolution on 2.8.1996. The price for home consumption was raised to Rs. 7/- per litre by resolution dated 23.7.96. On being pointed out by the department, the assessees paid differential amount of duty of Rs. 28,00,385/- being the amount payable on differential value calculated upon the basis of comparable price of similar goods sold and cleared from the factory to other country liquor manufacturers for clearances effected during the period ...

Umesh Dattatray Naik Vs. the Hon'ble Minister of State Ministry of Urb ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR280; 2008(3)MhLj747

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. 2. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 25.6.2007 passed by the State Government disqualifying and removing him from the post of President of Nallasopara Municipal Council. The order is passed under Section 55A and 55B OF the Maharashtra (Municipal Councils) (Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships) Act, 1965. (for short, the Act) 3. The facts leading to the petition are that the petitioner was elected as a President of the Council in the election held on 10.4.2005. He continues to be the President of the Municipal Council. It appears that a complaint was lodged by the respondent No. 4 alleging that the petitioner had carried out unauthorised construction. Similar complaint was made by one Rakesh Madhukar Zaveri. The Government did not take any action initially on the complaints and even the Collector, Thane rejected the representation of the said, R...

Tata Metaliks Limited, a Company Incorporated Under the Companies Act, ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)BomCR853; 2008(126)ECC183; 2008(152)LC183(Bombay); 2009(234)ELT596(Bom)

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule in both the Petitions.2. Heard forthwith. 3. Both these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment as the reliefs prayed for are interconnected. Writ Petition No. 759 of 2006 was filed by the Petitioner as their application for registration in terms of the Central Excise Rules was rejected. A learned Bench of this Court by order dated 27.3.2006 confirmed the ad interim order dated 10.2.2006 which was earlier continued by order dated 28.2.2006 in terms of Prayer Clause (g-i). Pursuant to the grant of the interim relief, the respondents were directed to grant provisional registration so that the Petitioner may be allowed to remove the goods manufactured from the factory at Redi on payment of the usual excise duty as leviable on the goods so manufactured and in accordance with law. The order, confirming the ad interim of 27.3.2006 also imposed some additional conditions directing the Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 Crores (Rupees Five Crores) with...

Marico Limited a Company Registered Under the Companies Act, 1956 Vs. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2008Bom111; 2008(3)BomCR659; (2008)110BOMLR638; 2008(37)PTC109(Bom)

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The Appellants/ Original Plaintiffs are the registered proprietor of the designed article, for reference called 'Parachute Cap', since 1999. The Respondents Application for registration of their cap i.e. for reference called 'Cocoraj Cap' was rejected some time in the year 2004. 2. In the month of September, 2006, the cause of action arose, when the Plaintiffs learnt about the use by the Respondents-Defendants of the impugned caps for which they have registered and acquired copyright of the said design. 3. On 8th September, 2006, the Appellants/ Original Plaintiffs vide their Advocates letter called upon the Respondents/ Original Defendants to desist from using the impugned caps of which they are the proprietor of registered design bearing No. 181063. 4. On 19th September, 2006, the Defendants vide their Advocates letter denied the allegation of the Plaintiffs and claimed to be using the impugned caps since 2002.5. On 3rd October, 2006, the Plaintiffs vide their Ad...