Mumbai Court March 2008 Judgments

Jayaram Govind Bhalerao (The Legal Representative of the Deceased Sita ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2008Bom151; 2008(3)ALLMR302; 2008(3)BomCR585; 2008(4)MhLj58

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. This is an Appeal against rejection of the application made by the present applicant for being impleaded as legal heir of deceased appellant in Civil Appeal No. 113 of 2000.2. To state in brief, deceased Sitabai had filed the Special Civil Suit No. 161 of 1995 for partition and separate possession in the suit properties shown in Schedules 'A', 'B' and 'C' in the plaint. According to her, the property was the joint family ancestral property. According to her, her father-in-law Parshuram had two sons - Narayan and Balkrishna. The plaintiff was married to Narayan in 1938. Narayan died in the year 1942 during the lifetime of his father. Parshuram died in 1945. The name of Narayan, the husband of Sitabai, was never entered in the Record of Rights pertaining to the Joint Hindu Family property. After the death of Parshuram, name of his son Balkrishna was entered in the Record of Rights as per the prevailing custom. As Balkrishna was minor, his mother was shown as guardian in...

Suman Kanhaiyyalal JaIn and ors. Vs. Krantibala Vasant Kondalkar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)BomCR583

Joshi A.H., J.1. Rule is made returnable forthwith, and is heard finally by consent of parties.2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. P.K. Mishra for the petitioners and learned Advocate Mr. B.N. Mohta for the respondent sole.3. The petitioners have challenged the order passed below Exh. 37. By this application, petitioners had applied for permission to file on record the evidence relating to the location of suit house, to prove the fact that the suit house is located within the Slum Area notified under the statute.4. Learned First Appellate Judge found that the petitioners have failed to prove that in spite of due diligence, the evidence was not available and, therefore, the petitioners have failed to make out a case under Rule 27 of Order 41 of Civil Procedure Code.5. The application was opposed, which grounds are reiterated in this Court, contending that:2. ...Further, it is submitted that in fact the appellant has not made out a case to grant him permission as per the provisions laid down u...

Mahendra Panmal Duggad JaIn and anr. Vs. Bhararilal Panmal Duggad JaIn ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR699; 2008(4)MhLj803

ORDERR.C. Chavan, J.1. By this Civil Application the appellants in First Appeal No. 620 of 1994 sought re-transfer of the appeal to this Court. The appeal arose out of suit valued at Rs. 63,710/-, bearing Special Civil Suit No. 31 of 1983 which was decided by the 5th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur by his judgment and decree dated 26-8-1994. The appeal was filed before this Court and was pending when Bombay Civil Court Act, 1869 was amended w.e.f. 13-1-1999. As a result of this amendment the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court was increased from Rs. Fifty Thousand to Rs. Two lakhs. Consequently the Registrar of this Court, by his order dated 6-6-2000, transferred the appeal to the District Court in view of the administrative direction of this Court dated 24-2-2000. The applicants applied to the District Court for re-transferring the appeal to the High Court, contending that the appeals filed and entertained by the High Court prior to the amendment to the Bombay Civil...

Mohanlal Sharma Vs. Famous Cine Laboratories and Studios Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)IIILLJ119Bom

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition impugns the judgment and order rendered by the Industrial Court at Mumbai on October 25, 1996 thereby allowing partly Complaint (ULP) No. 686/1985. The petitioner had approached the Industrial Court seeking the benefit of permanency against the respondent No. 1 and by the impugned order the Industrial Court held that the complainant was the employee of the respondent No. 2 and the employer - employee relationship could not be proved between the respondent No. 1 and the complainant. Therefore, relief of permanency was granted to the complainant against the respondent No. 2 (permanent watchman) from October, 1986.2. There is no dispute that the complainant was dismissed from service after conducting a departmental enquiry in October, 1994 and the order of dismissal which was the subject matter of challenge in another complaint filed before the Labour Court at Mumbai.3. The respondent No. 1 as well as respondent No. 2 had filed Written Statement separat...

Smt. Reshmabai Govind Jadhav Vs. State

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009CriLJ885

ORDERD.G. Karnik, J.1. Heard.2. By this revision application, applicant challenges the judgment and order dated 9th April 1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Nashik, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1998.3. The applicant, who is the mother in law of Anita Raosaheb Jadhav (the deceased) is alleged to have committed offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution, on account of harassment at the hands of the applicant, Anita set herself ablaze, burnt herself alive and committed suicide. The applicant was arrested and was charged of the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. She was tried by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge Nasik, in Session Case No. 125 of 1997. After considering the evidence adduced on record, the 4th Additional Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had proved that Anita was subjected to cruelty by the applicant but had failed to prove that she had abetted her sui...

Ramesh (L.Rs. of Deceased Kalawati Wd/O Ramesh Akarte and ors.) Vs. Ba ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)BomCR56; 2008(4)MhLj314

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant who was unsuccessful in both the Courts below. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff and defendant. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows: Plaintiff is the owner of the suit house, the same having been purchased from one Krishnarao Armarkar by a registered sale- deed dated 12.12.1977. Before the sale deed came to be executed there was also an agreement of sale between krishnarao Armarkar and the plaintiff on 09.09.1977. The plaintiff submits that the possession was handed over to the plaintiff. One Kamlabai Rokde was residing in the suit property 3 to 4 years prior to the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant who is the neighboring plot owner, in order to grab the suit property got executed a sale-deed from Kamlabai Rokde in his favour on 30.09.1977. The defendant however could not take possession of the suit property and therefore he got annoyed and caused damage ...

Fulchand S/O Biharilal Rawat Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR734; 2008(6)BomCR694; 2008(4)MhLj202

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. These two appeals arise out of award passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) in land acquisition reference. One appeal is filed by the claimant while the other is filed by the State.2. Facts are as follows:The Government of Maharashtra decided to acquire the Land Survey No. 305 of village Narkhed for establishment of a Technical Secondary School. The extent of land acquired is 2.90 hectares/Ares. Government issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 18-8-1986. Subsequently, Notification under Section 6 of the Act was also issued on 12-12-1986. The Land Acquisition Officer thereafter held an inquiry and passed an award. He awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 38,000/- per hectare. The owner felt aggrieved by this award and sought a reference. The Reference Court recorded the evidence of owner and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per hectare. Being aggrieved by this order, the owner as well as the State have preferred these tw...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sunglow Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Sunglo Industries Pvt.Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee') are engaged in the manufacture of printing ink, organic composite solvents and thinner falling for classification under Chapter 32 and 38 of the schedule to the CETA, 1985. They filed a declaration under the provisions of Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the above mentioned products, claiming the benefit of SSI Notification 1/93-CE dated 28/2/1993 as amended and effected clearance of the said goods under the said notification in 1996-97. Intelligence was gathered by the Revenue that they had manufactured and cleared goods at concessional rate of duty by claiming exemption under the notification though the goods were affixed with the brand name SUNGLO' which did not belong to them but belonged to M/s. Sericol India Pvt. Ltd. As the benefit of SSI notification is not available to a manufacturer who manufactures and clears the goods carrying brand name of an...

Pandurang Gunda Patil and ors. Vs. Dattu Dada Patil and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR357; 2008(3)BomCR48

D.K. Deshmukh J.1. The parties to both these appeals are the same, both the appeals relate to the wills of the same person. Therefore, both these appeals can be conveniently disposed off by a common order. 2. Rama Krishna Patil, resident of Sangli, owned movable and immovable properties. Dattu Dada Patil, Raghunath Dada Patil, Ramchandra Dada Patil, Pandurang Dada Patil, Laxman Dada Patil, Narayan Dada Patil and Dhondiram Akaram Patil (hereinafter referred to as the applicants) filed miscellaneous application No. 1 of 1976 for grant of letters of administration in relation to the will dated 25th May 1972 alleged to have been executed by Rama Krishna Patil who expired on 10th February 1975. It appears that by that will dated 25th May 1972, Rama Krishna Patil had bequeathed a part of his property to the applicants. To this application, Pandurang Gunda Patil, Nivrutti Gunda Patil, Ganpati Gunda Patil, Vasant Gunda Patil and Smt Tanubai Gunda Patil were joined as opponents (hereinafter ref...

Vidyut Metallics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra Rajya Rashtriya Kamgar Sang ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008(117)FLR660]; (2008)2LLJ829Bom

ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard Mr. Naik with Mr. Salkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner - company and Ms. Singh with Ms. Chopda, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 - Union. The respondent no.2 be deleted forthwith.2. Both these petitions arise from the interlocutory orders passed by the Industrial Court at Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) Nos. 287 of 2007 and 2 of 1998, allowing the applications for interim relief filed at Exhibit U-2 and' directing the orders of deputation to be kept in abeyance. In the first complaint a group of five workmen and in the second deputed and, therefore, the respondent - Union approached the Industrial Court by filing two separate complaints under Item 9 of Schedule IV read with Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'). The company has challenged both these orders and hence these m petitions are being disposed off by this common order.3. As per the respondent - union, the petitioner - company does not have a right to send...