Mumbai Court April 2008 Judgments

Appollo Tyres Ltd., Represented by Its Power of Attorney, Mahesh S/O J ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR1336; 2008CriLJ3758

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Challenge herein is to order dated 15th January 2005 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Criminal Revision Application No.205 of 2001. By the impugned order, learned Sessions Judge was pleased to recall process issued against original accused Nos.1 to 8, which was issued by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhule for offences punishable under Sections 403, 407, 409, 420 and 465 read with 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The applicant is private limited Company dealing in manufacturing of tyres. The applicant - Company has a sub-office at Dhule. The applicant deals in supply of motor vehicles tyres of different types through its office at Dhule. 4. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are Chairman, Manager and Bank, respectively, dealing in Banking business at Nasik. They may be referred hereinafter, for sake of convenience, as the 'Bankers'. 5. Respondent No.5 is a t...

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shashikant Gajanan Dighe

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR1465; 2008(4)MhLj929

R.S. Mohite, J.1. This is the first appeal filed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (thereinafter referred to as the 'Defendant' against one of their employee by name Shashikant Gajanan Dighe (hereinafter referred to as the 'Plaintiff' ) challenging the judgment and order dated 30.1.1996 passed by City Civil Court, Bombay.2. The brief facts of the case were as under.a) The plaintiff filed a civil suit bearing S.C.Suit No. 7699 of 1988 in the City Civil Court for recovery of transport allowance in the sum of Rs. 33.350.45ps. with further interest at the rate of 15% p.a. on Rs. 29,224.00. In his plaint the plaintiff averred that he was initially an employee with Caltex India Limited. On 7.7.1980 Caltex India Ltd. was merged with the defendant and the services of the former employees of Caltex India Ltd. were transferred to the defendant company. The former employees of Caltex India Ltd. sought protection of the conditions of their service after merger and in this view of the matter,...

Jeetmal Mangalchand Sakhlecha and ors. Vs. Neelkanth Building Corporat ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR535; (2008)110BOMLR1549; 2008(6)MhLj308

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 30-4-2004 passed in Suit No. 364 of 1978. Only ground on which the impugned decree is sought to be challenged is that inspite of answering all the issues in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs on the point of agreement between the parties, willingness and readiness of the plaintiffs to perform the agreement, the specific performance has been denied solely on the ground that the suit was pending for 25 years when that could not be a ground to refuse to exercise discretion in favour of the plaintiffs for grant of specific performance of the agreement.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants. None has appeared for the respondents, though served. We have also perused the records. 3. The suit was filed by the appellants for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 27-3-1976 by which the appellants had agreed to purchase the Flat No. 304 comprising of three rooms and a kitchen and other ...

Mseb Kamgar Sena Registered Trade Union Through Its President/Secretar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR258; (2008)110BOMLR1695; [2008(118)FLR126]; 2008(5)MhLj258

A.H. Joshi, J.1. This Petition is filed by a Trade Union as complainant No. 1 and by an affected employee/office-bearer as complainant No. 2.2. They allege commission of unfair labour practice under Items (3), (5) and (9) of Schedule-IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter to be referred as to the 'Act of 1971'), and they seek declaration of unfair labour practice and consequential relief.3. The Complaint has been decided against the complainants by learned Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur, by judgment and order dated 6.12.2006 against which they have filed this Petition.4. The complainants allege commission of unfair labour practice against the respondents as collective effect of narrations contained in the body of the complaint, which runs in 11 pages. Grievance is that:[i] The order transferring the petitioner from Thermal Power Station, Khaparkheda which is under the control of Thermal Power Station, Zone Kor...

Rakhi W/O Santhosh Deorankar Vs. Jayendra S/O Sadashiorao Deorankar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR851; 2008(5)MhLj98

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith and is heard by consent.2. Petitioner is daughter-in-law of the respondent.3. She claims that the Special Civil Suit No. 273 of 2007 filed by respondent her father-in-law, which is pending in the Court of Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati be transferred to the Family Court at Nagpur.4. According to the petitioner:(a) She was married to Santosh s/o respondent original plaintiff on 30-6-1998, and the matrimonial status subsists. She was required to file a proceeding No. A-415-03 in the Family Court at Nagpur.(b) In the conciliation before the Conciliator, a compromise was arrived at and she was taken back by her husband to matrimonial home.(c) The matrimonial home is the same which is the suit house subject-matter of special Civil Suit No. 273 of 2007 pending before the Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati.(d) The consent terms, which were filed in the Family Court, para 1 read as follows:1) Petitioner and respondent have fo...

Khojeste Mistree and ors. Vs. Bombay Parsi Punchayet and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR786; 2008(4)BomCR617

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By this Appeal, the appellants are challenging the order dated 8th February, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge which was passed with regard to an Originating Summons seeking opinion/answers on the following questions which were answered as indicated against each question:i) Whether under the provisions of the Scheme includingClause 61 read with Clause 49(g) of the Scheme for theelection of Trustees of the Funds and ImmovableProperties of the Parsi Punchayat of Bombay (Exhibit'B' hereto), defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have vacatedtheir office as Trustees of the 1st defendant Trust onsubmission of their resignation contained in the Letterof Resignation dated 19th June, 2006 (Exhibit 'C' hereto). NOii) Whether under the provisions of the Scheme includingClause 61 read with Clause 49(g) of the Scheme for theelection of Trustees of the Funds and Immovable Propertiesof the Parsi Panchayat of Bombay (Exhibit 'B' hereto),defendant No. 2 has vacated his office as Truste...

Khojeste Mistree and ors. Vs. Minoo Rustomji Shroff and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)MhLj783

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. In all the above three Appeals, the Appellants are challenging the order dated 5th April, 2007 passed by the learned single Judge in Misc. Petition No. 17 of 2006. We have heard all the learned Counsel as well as parties in person mentioned hereinabove. The brief facts pertaining to Misc. Petition No. 17 of 2006 are, that the petitioners at the time of filing of the said petition were six trustees for the time being of the funds and immovable properties of the Parsee Panchayat of Bombay, hereinafter referred to as the 'BPP' Scheme.2. The petitioners in Miscellaneous Petition No. 17 of 2006 are the six trustees for the time being of the Funds and Immovable Properties of the Parsee Panchayat of Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the BPP). The Scheme for the Election of Trustees of the BPP (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) was originally sanctioned by this Court on 18-6-1910 in Suit No. 689 of 1906 and thereafter amended from time to time by this Court. The ne...

Vilas Kundanmal Lodha Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009CriLJ452

ORDERV.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. This is an application for quashing of proceedings in a Criminal Case (STC No. 100/2003) pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Kopargaon.2. The applicant is original accused. He allegedly issued a cheque in favour of complainant/Respondent No. 2 for Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lacs) on 14-7- 2002, in order to discharge liability for re- payment of loan amount obtained by him. The cheque was drawn on Nagar Urban Co- operative Bank, Branch Ahmednagar. The cheque was presented by the complainant in his bank at Kopargaon on 26-11-2002. The cheque, however, bounced. The complainant therefore, issued a demand notice dated 9-12-2002 and called upon the applicant/accused to pay the amount. The applicant (accused) allegedly gave false reply to the notice on 24-12-2002.3. The present application is filed on the ground that the Court of Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) at Kopargaon has no territorial jurisdiction to try the Criminal case. The applicant w...

Sun Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ccex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This application is filed by the applicant for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of Service Tax of Rs. 4,39,620/- and equivalent amount of penalty.2. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records.3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the liability to pay Service Tax in respect of amount paid by them to foreign company from whom they received technical know-how for the purpose of manufacturing and marketing of "Acetylene Carbon Black". It is the contention of the Revenue that the applicant is liable to pay Service Tax as they have received the services of Consulting Engineer. On the other hand, the applicant submits that the issue is prior to 16.2.2002 and series of judgments including the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. CCE, AurangabadB Footwear (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Noida 2006 (2) STR 46 (Tri-Del) and Essel Propack Ltd. v. CST, Mumbai 2006 (1) STR 150 (Tri-Mum) will cover this case, in their favour.4. On perusal of the record...

Mazgaon Dock Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No. BR(25)25/STC/2005 dated 9.9.2005, vide which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the adjudicating authority that the appellant is covered under the service of "Port Services" and upheld the confirmation of demand and imposition of penalties.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant herein was providing services of chipping, painting and repairing of ships and vessels under authorization of Mumbai Port Trust under Dry Dock Licence No. 336 dated 1.7.2004, which appeared to fall within the meaning and definition of 'Port Services' under Section 65(67) of the Service Tax Act. These activities were carried out in the premises of the appellants and in the case of inadequacy of facility in their premises, they carried out these activities in the premises of Mumbai Port Trust. The premises of the appellant are situated in the jurisdiction of Mumbai Port Trust and are leased out to the ap...