Mumbai Court March 2008 Judgments

Priya Anand Hombali (Dr.) Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(1)BomCR440; 2008(4)MhLj784

Roshan Dalvi, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith as affidavit in reply on behalf of the respondents has been filed. Heard Mr. Pathan learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mrs. Bhide learned A.G.P for the respondents.2. The petitioner was appointed as a Resident Anesthetist at ESIS Hospital, Worli, Mumbai under Appointment Order dated 23rd September, 1980, Exhibit-E to the Petition. That was a temporary post of M.M.I.S. Class II requiring the petitioner to officiate on the post until the post was filled on regular basis. The petitioner served initially at Worli and then at Mulund and Ulhasnagar. She is now serving at the E.S.I.S Hospital, Worli, Mumbai. She lives in Thane as is evident from the title of the Petition.3. The petitioner does not reside in Government accommodation. The petitioner claims to be paid House Rent Allowance (HRA) on the premise that she does not want and has rejected the government accommodation offered to her.4. The petitioner was initially offered government acc...

Pushpa W/O Purushottam Waghade Vs. Additional Commissioner and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)MhLj104

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable and is heard by consent.2. The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, in appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Collector rejecting the dispute, and upholding motion of no confidence.3. The challenge as argued, and spelt out in the petition, can be summarized as under:(a) While issuing notice by the Tahasildar to the members of special meeting, mandatory procedure laid down under Rule 2(2) of Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch Vote of No Confidence Rules has not been followed inasmuch as annexure of requisition notice was not provided to the petitioner, and thus on this count alone, the order is vitiated.(b) The notices of the meeting has not been served properly to the members and more particularly to the petitioner as per provisions of relevant rules resulting in depriving the petitioner of the opportunity of mustering the support and removing the misunderstandin...

Ajit T. Kossambe (Dr.) Vs. Goa State Co-operative Milk Producers Union ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR789

1. Heard.2. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of termination of his services by the respondent including the decision to abolish the post which the petitioner was holding till the date of his termination.3. The respondent has raised two preliminary objections. The first is relating to the non-maintainability of the petition on the ground that no writ lies against the Co-operative Society and the respondent is a Cooperative Society and secondly, on the ground that there is alternative remedy to the petitioner by way of appeal to the General Body of the respondent-Society in terms of the Society's Bye Laws as well as the petitioner being entitled to get the matter referred under Section 83 of The Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001.4. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has sought to rely upon the decisions of the Apex Court in (S.S. Rana v. Registrar, Co-op. Societies and Anr.) reported in : (2006)11SCC634 and {Bhadra Shahakari S.K. Niyamita ...

Mr. Rosarinho M. Fernandes Son of Mr. Estevao Fernandes and Mrs. Fatim ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR723; 2008(3)BomCR574

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard.2. Rule. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioner challenges Order dated 14.08.2007 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Margao, in Special Civil Suit No. 34/06, whereby the application for amendment of the pleadings in the plaint has been rejected. The rejection is on the ground that the facts which are now sought to be brought on record by way of proposed amendment were known to the petitioner prior to the filing of the application for temporary injunction; however, the amendment is sought for only after filing the application for temporary injunction. 4. It is not in dispute that the proposed amendment relates to the events which have occurred subsequent to the filing of the plaint. It is a matter of record that even the issues in the suit are yet to be framed. It is also not in dispute that the proposed amendment relates to the activities which have taken place in the property which is the subject matter of the suit. Undispu...

Sub-divisional Engineer, Irrigation Project, Investigation Sub Divisio ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR618; (2008)110BOMLR1293; (2008)IIILLJ737Bom; 2008(4)MhLj514

K.J. Rohee, J.1. The appellant/employer has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.11.1998 dismissing Writ Petition No.3407 of 1998 challenging the Award passed by the Labour Court, Yavatmal on 6.1.1998 in Reference (IDA) No.11/1995 directing the appellant to reinstate the respondent/workman with continuity of service but without back wages. 2. According to the respondent/workman he was serving with the appellant in Quality Control Laboratory at Yavatmal as Helper on daily wages of Rs.20.10 ps. from 1.5.1985. The respondent worked for more than 240 days in every year. He worked with the appellant till 2.2.1991. There was no complaint in respect of the services rendered by the respondent. However, in spite of availability of work, the appellant used to give technical break to the respondent in order to deprive the respondent of the benefit of coming on regular establishment. No reasons used to be given for the technical breaks. The services of the respondent were term...

Jimmy Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR729; 2008(4)BomCR648; 2008(3)MhLj141

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the original applicant to the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which came to be rejected by the District Judge.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:The appellant/applicant is a Contractor while respondent/N.A.I is Indian Railway. Non-applicants No. 2 to 4 are the Arbitrators. Non-applicant No. 1 invited tenders for Gauge Conversion of Railway Line running between Gondia and Jabalpur. The tender cost was Rs. 33,87,212/-. The tender of the applicant was accepted. The work was to be completed within period of twelve months from 31-12-1999 and the agreement was executed on 1-4-1999. The agreement provides that if a dispute arises between the parties, it will be referred to the Arbitrators. It is the allegation of the applicant/appellant that due to the hindrance caused by the officials of non-applicant No. 1, there was a delay in completion of the work. However, the time was extended...

Nanik K. Daryanani Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Registration and De ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)ALLMR778; 2008(5)BomCR490; 2008(6)MhLj618

Khanwilkar A.M., J.1. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and Order passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune dated 24th September, 2004 in Appeal No. 136 of 1998, which in turn confirmed the direction/ decision dated 24th August, 1998 of the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Deputy Controller of Stamps (Enforcement), Mumbai passed in exercise of powers vested in him under the provisions of Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') to call upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 28,79,980/- (Rupees Twenty-eight Lakhs Seventy-nine Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty) towards deficit stamp duty and penalty at the rate of 2% per month with effect from 29th December, 1995 till the date of payment of deficit stamp duty-within one month from the receipt of the order, failing which, action for recovery of the said amount along with penalty as arrears of land revenue in terms of Section 46 of the Act was to be initiated...

Duchem Laboratories Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is filed against the order-in-appeal No.ZBN/347/M-V/2001 dated 28/06/2001.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the appellants herein filed refund claim with the authorities for the refund of Service Tax paid by them on the services received from clearing and forwarding agents during the period February 98 to November 98. The said refund claim was scrutinized by the lower authorities and the said refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the Government has passed retrospective amendment to the Finance Act, vide which service tax liability has to be discharged by the receiver of the services provided by clearing and forwarding agents.Aggrieved by such order-in-original, the appellants herein filed and appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who also concurred with the views of the adjudicating authority. Hence this appeal.3. None appeared for the appellants despite notice nore there any request for adjournment.4. Ld. SD...

Bombay Mercantile Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Noor Mohammed Abdul Rehman Mull ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR590; [2008(118)FLR537]; (2008)IIILLJ139Bom; 2008(4)MhLj449

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr.S.C.Naidu waives notice for respondent. By consent petition is taken up for hearing forthwith as short question is involved.2. This petition takes exception to the order passed by the Controlling Authority under Payments of Gratuity Act namely Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central-III), Mumbai dated 20th June 2007 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the said Act dated 15th October 2007 confirming the order of the first authority thereby directing the petitioner to pay gratuity amount of Rs.3.50 lakh along with interest thereon @ 10% p.a. from the date of entitlement till the date of payment within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order.3. Briefly stated, the respondent availed of Early Severance Scheme propounded by the petitioner bank and decided to opt for early retirement. That request was considered by the petitioner and it was decided by the Chairman and Administrator to treat the offer of...

The Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation Through Its Commissioner and the ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR204; 2008(3)BomCR725

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. The respondent filed Special Civil Suit No. 38 of 2004 in the Court of Civil Judge,Senior Division, Kalyan challenging the notice dated 13th February, 2004 issued by the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation under Sections 53 and 54 read with Section 52 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as M.R.T.P. Act). In the said notice, it was contended that the plaintiff/respondent had erected/developed or construct ground plus 3 storeys without permission and by the said notice he was called upon to forthwith stop the erection/development/execution of work and he was also required to submit a statement in writing within 30 days from the receipt of the notice to show cause why such erection/building or work should not be removed, altered or pulled down. He was also informed by the said notice that if the plaintiff-respondent failed to show sufficient cause, the erection/development/building work shall be removed, altered or pulled down by...