Mumbai Court April 2008 Judgments

Nagnath S/O Venkatrao Hande and Shankarrao S/O Venkatrao Vs. Ramrao S/ ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR728; 2008(5)MhLj417

P.R. Borkar, J.1. This Second Appeal is filed by original plaintiffs. Regular Civil Suit No. 168 of 1984 filed by present appellants for declaration and possession was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Biloli on 25.7.1991. As against said judgment and decree, Regular Civil Appeal No. 230 of 1993 (Old No. 192 of 1991) was filed by the respondents. The learned Additional District Judge, Biloli on 30.6.2001 allowed the appeal, set aside the decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. Hence the appellants have preferred this Second Appeal. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, regarding which there is no dispute, may be stated below. Baliram was the original owner of the suit property. He died somewhere in 1920. He was survived by his widow Shivbai and daughter Bhagubai. Bhagubai first married one Narsing and gave birth to original defendant No. 1 Venkatrao of whom present appellants are sons. Narsing expired and after his death, Bhagubai married one Bhau...

Dnyanu Dadu Patil Vs. Shripati Dadu Patil Deceased by Heirs Smt. Sakhu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR796; 2008(5)BomCR427; 2008(4)MhLj931

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The appellant-original defendant being aggrieved by the concurrent judgment and order has preferred the present Second Appeal.2. The following substantial questions of law are involved:(1) Whether the present Suit is barred by Order 2, Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) as the respondent-original plaintiff filed the Suit for partition on the ground that he was not aware of the property when earlier Regular Civil Suit No. 408/1964 was decided? - No. (2) Whether the second Suit for partition is maintainable for the property left out in the earlier suit for partition for want of knowledge? - Yes.3. The relevant facts are as under:(1) The respondents are heirs of original plaintiff and the appellant is original defendant No. 1.(2) Original plaintiff filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 408 of 1964 for partition and possession of the joint family property. The said suit was decreed.(3) The respondent filed present Suit No. 351 of 1976 in the Court of the Civil Judge Juni...

R.S. Korvi Vs. Peico Electronics and Electricals Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR894; [2008(119)FLR60]; 2008(5)MhLj75

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. In this petition Part-I award and Part II award passed by the Labour Court, Pune on 18-1-1993 and 20-4-1995 respectively are challenged. By the Part I award, the Labour Court held that the enquiry instituted against the petitioner by the respondent No. 1 Company ('the management' for short) which culminated into dismissal of the petitioner from service was fair, legal and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. By the part II award, the Labour Court rejected the reference by holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved to the satisfaction of the Court and that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is not disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the petitioner.2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent No. 1 Company in September, 1966 at their Loni-Kalbhor factory. At the material time, the petitioner was working in the ECOM Loudspeakers Dept. and was also executive committee...

Jaywant Sukhadeo Gadekar Vs. Prakash Panjabrao Raut and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)MhLj179

A.P. Lavande, J.1. Heard Mr. A. Sambre, learned Counsel for the applicant. Mr. Bhalerao, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Mandpe, learned A.P.P. for respondent No. 2.2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short) the applicant, who is the accused in Complaint Case No. 309/1995 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ner takes exception to the Order dated 10-11-2005 passed by the learned Magistrate by which the application filed by the applicant to adduce his evidence on affidavit has been rejected with costs of Rs. 500/-. Learned Magistrate has held that there is no provision in law for the accused to lead evidence on affidavit.3. Mr. Sambre, learned Counsel for the applicant placing reliance upon Section 145(2) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') submitted that the accused is entitled to lead evidence on affidavit and there is no bar for an accused to lead his evidence und...

Ramesh G. Durve and anr. Vs. Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008(119)FLR70]; 2008(5)MhLj93

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Both the petitioners were employed as Typewriter Service Mechanics in the Service Department of the First Respondent at Lalbaug, Mumbai. The orders under which the petitioners were appointed inter alia contained a stipulation that the workmen could be called upon to work at any other establishment of the management. In April, 1994 the petitioners were transferred from the Lalbaug unit to the Vikhroli unit. Between December, 1994 and March, 1995 several letters were issued by the management to the petitioners inter alia informing them that they were not fulfilling the required norms of production. Eventually on 1st March, 1995 letters were addressed to the petitioners setting out that they have attained a poor level of performance in terms of the output generated, since April, 1994 and that the production levels achieved by the workers were far below the optimal production level. The two workmen were informed that despite a cautionary letter addressed on 27th Dece...

Madanlal S/O Tukaram Pashine Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corp ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR376; 2008(5)MhLj616

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. This petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 31st July, 1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur, in Complaint (ULPN) No. 338/ 1989. The said complaint was filed by the petitioner under Section 28 read with Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act, 1971') for the following reliefs:(a) It may be declared that the respondent has engaged in/has been engaging in unfair labour practice;(b) The complainant be granted relief by directing the respondent to treat the complainant as continued in the alternative employment in the post of Peon or Helper w.e.f. 25-4-1989 (AN) with consequential benefits;(c) Any other relief which may be deemed fit.3. Briefly stated, the petitioner was working as Driver since 7th October, 1963 in the establishment of the respondent. He was removed from service as he was found medically unfit, o...

Korvi R.S. Vs. Peico Electronics and Electricals Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)ILLJ135Bom

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. In this petition Part-I award and Part II award passed by the Labour Court, Pune on January 18, 1993 and April 20, 1995 respectively are challenged. By the Part-I award, the Labour Court held that the enquiry instituted against the petitioner by the respondent No. 1 Company ('the management' for short) which culminated into dismissal of. the petitioner from service was fair, legal and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. By the Part-II award, the Labour Court rejected the reference by holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved to the satisfaction of the Court and that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is not disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the petitioner.2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent No. 1 Company in September, .1966 at their Loni-Kalbhor factory. At the material time, the petitioner was working in the ECOM. Loudspeakers Dept. and was also exec...

Ms. Gopika Chandrabhushan Saran and anr. Vs. Xlo India Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2009]148CompCas122(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. Heard.2. Perused record.3. The present revision application arises from the complaint made by respondent No. 1-M/s. XLO India Ltd., Mumbai, against the applicants-accused under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act' for short).4. The subject-matter of the present revision application is the third floor residential premises of the building known as 'Devonshire House', West-field Estate, at Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the 'said premises') held by respondent No. 1-company on tenancy/ licence basis since 1968.The facts:5. The facts in brief are that the complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act ('the Act' for short) was filed by one Mr. Gul Motumal Krishnachandani, a whole time director of respondent No. 1-company against the accused, i.e., (i) Smt. Meenal, w/o. Chandra Bhushan Saran ; (ii) Ms. Gopika, d/o. Chandra Bhushan Saran ; and Mr. Kunal Gautam Thakkar.6. The factual matrix surfaced on record during the course of hearing...

Avaya (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is filed by the applicant for granting waiver of pre-deposit of amount on service tax confirmed and the penalties imposed.2. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records.3. Confirmation of the demand has arisen on the ground that the applicant is providing "Market Research Agency Services". It is the allegation by the Revenue that the applicant is providing services regarding research of the product for the foreign company and reporting him the results which has been arrived at by them, hence services are falling under 'Market Research Agency Services'. We find the payment received in India is in convertible foreign exchange may get covered under Notification No. 6/99. We find that the ld. Commissioner's order seems to indicate that the applicant have been providing the services of Research of the products marketed by the client and they were submitting the report regarding the joint venture between the upcountry party and owner of the compa...

Shewalkar Hotels Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This stay application is directed towards waiver of pre-deposit of amount of Rs. 1,22,160/-. Confirmation of this amount of service tax has occurred on the ground that the applicant is providing service under Business auxiliary services but did not discharge the Tax. The ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the issue is regarding the amount received by the applicant from the Franchiser. It is his submission that the amount is actually a rent received under the agreement.2. Ld. Jt. CDR on the other hand, drew our attention to the Clauses 14 and 15 of the agreement and submits that the applicant has sold goods from his premises. It is also his submission that the services as rendered would be covered under the Clause (1) of the definition of the 'business auxiliary services'.3. It is seen from the records that the agreement is franchisee agreement. We also note that in an identical issue in respect of Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading, who gave an identical fr...