Mumbai Court April 2008 Judgments

N.R. Jet Enterprises Ltd. Being a Company Registered Under the Provisi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR711; (2008)110BOMLR1444; 2008BusLR580(Bom); 2008(6)MhLj206

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. In both these petitions, the same order is challenged and therefore, both the petitions can be conveniently disposed of by common order. 2. By the order dated 12.6.2003 which is impugned in these petitions, M/s. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. which is petitioner in writ petition No. 4556 of 2003 and M/s.N.R. Jet Enterprises Ltd. which is petitioner in writ petition No. 4264 of 2003 have been jointly and severally held liable to deposit an amount of Rs. 25,00,78,500/- (Rupees Twenty five crores seventy eight thousand five hundred only) under para 13 of DPCO'95 and interest amount of Rs. 12,97,41,819/- (Rupees Twenlve crores ninety seven lakhs forty one thousand eight hundred nineteen only) under Section 7A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. As a result of written submissions filed on behalf of the respondents, now it is an admitted position that instead of Rs. 25,00,78,500/- the correct amount to be recovered is Rs. 22,35,72,889/( Rupees Twenty two crores thirty five la...

Abde Musa S/O Mulla Ali Saheb and ors. Vs. Lrs. of Shri Lalta Prasad ( ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR193; 2008(4)BomCR632; (2008)110BOMLR1316; 2008(5)MhLj350

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this Second Appeal, the appellants/landlords are challenging reversing judgment delivered by 13th Additional District Judge, Nagpur, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 665 of 1984. The landlords, after obtaining permission from the Rent Controller under Clauses 13(3)(v) (Alternate accommodation) and 13(3)(vi) (Bonafide need), issued notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, and then filed Civil Suit No. 988 of 1976, for eviction of respondent . tenant and for recovery of rent. The suit was decree by 19th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, on 9th May 1984. The respondent then filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 665 of 1984 which came to be allowed by observing that the suit ought to have been filed before Small Causes Court, in view of 1984 Amendment to Provincial Small Causes and Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. This Court admitted Second Appeal by accepting Question No. (1) in Memo of Appeal as substantial question of law. During hearing before m...

Manohar Shripad Bhat and anr. Vs. the Municipal Corporation of City of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR392; 2008(4)BomCR615; 2008(5)MhLj433

S.B. Mhase, J.1. Heard. Rule, returnable forthwith.2. The petitioners are the owners of Survey No. 6 (Part), situated at village Bapodi, Pune admeasuring 1691.50 sq.mtrs. The said land was belonging to the petitioners. The said land has been acquired by the Pune Municipal Corporation for the purpose of approach road to proposed Dapodi-Bapodi Bridge by Land Acquisition Case No. LA/375-A. The award has been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 5.5.1988. The area under acquisition has been shown 1691.50 sq.mtrs. The possession of the said land has been taken from the petitioners on 25.5.1988. However, the petitioners have not taken the amount of the compensation and, instead relying upon Section 126(i)(b) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, the petitioners claimed TDR from the respondents corporation equivalent to 1691.50 sq.mtrs. Thus the petitioners, being given up an amount of Rs. 1,08,502 so as to get the TDR. The petitioners claimed TDR to the extent of area equiv...

Electropneumatics and Hydraulics (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bharatiya Kamga ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008(117)FLR1005]; (2008)2LLJ845Bom

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the respondent waives service. With the consent of the learned Counsel, taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. These proceedings arise out of an interlocutory order passed by the Industrial Court on January 14, 2008 by which the petitioner has been directed to provide the same work to five workmen, which they were discharging prior to December 22, 2006.3. The five workmen in question to whom the complaint relates are (i) Sanjay Mungse, (ii) Saif Hayder, (iii) Sunil Kadam, (iv); Ramchandra Buchade and (v) Poolchand Ram.4. Mr. Sanjay Mungse, the first workman was according to the management employed as a helper/sweeper since he joined service. From the record before the Court prima facie it' appears that on December 22, 2006 the workman was in fact issued a show cause notice for refusing to carry out housekeeping work in the toilet/bathroom/s hop floor. The management imposed a penalty of two days' suspensi...

Jotiram Narayan Chechar Vs. President, Panchganga Shikshan Prasarak Ma ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR29; 2008(4)BomCR645; 2008(5)MhLj181

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk by the First Respondent on probation by an order dated 21st May, 1992. The First Respondent is the President of the Panchaganga Shikshan Prasarak Mandal which conducts a High School at Prayag Chikhali. The aforesaid order of appointment was issued to the petitioner under Section 9(5) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. The Headmaster sought the approval of the Education Officer (Secondary), Kolhapur. The appointment was approved by the Education Officer on 4th May, 1994. On 22nd March, 1994, a notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner by the Second Respondent claiming that the petitioner was appointed against a reserved post and that approval to his service was refused on 25th August, 1992. However, it was alleged that the petitioner altered the roster by showing the post as an open post and got it approved through the President of the Institution. It is allege...

Shobhita Rani Kaushal Vs. Ketty Jehangir H. Dhanjibhoy and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR114

Daga V.C., J.1. The plaintiff has filed this summary suit for the recovery of Rs. 66,500.00 with future interest thereon against the defendants.THE FACTS:2. The factual matrix brought on record is that the original defendant late Jehangir Dhanjibhoy was plaintiff's family friend That is how, the plaintiff and the original defendant were known to each other. The original defendant late Jehangir had represented that he had applied for Financial Assistance to the various financial institutions and banks and, shortly, he was likely to get financial assistance from them. In the meanwhile, since he was in need of money for his business establishment run under the name and style of 'Hotel Sai Village at and Restaurant at Shirdi', he had requested to the plaintiff for hand loan, which was granted to him by way of hand loan by the plaintiff in the sum of Rs. 35,000/-, secured by Promissory Note dated 1st May, 1985 executed in favour of the plaintiff Miss. Shobhita Rani Kaushal.3. According to t...

Commissioner of Cen. Excise Vs. Tata Ssl Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue in dispute in this appeal relates to classification of M.S. Tanks and vats fabricated by the respondents herein in their factory - whether, under Chapter Heading 84.19 as claimed by the assesses and accepted by the Commissioner in the impugned order or under Chapter Heading 73.09 as contended by the Revenue.2. We have heard both sides. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) whose order is challenged before us has entirely relied upon the earlier order of Dec. 2001 of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of the same assesses holding that M.S. Tanks fall for classification under Chapter 84.19. The relevant finding is reproduced herein below: Ms Ida Gonsalves, Sr. Account Officer of the Company appeared for personal hearing. She said that the issue relates to the classification of M.S. tanks manufactured from mild steel plates of 8 to 12 mm thickness. She said that there was specific entry available for their product in the HSN. The process of manufacture is also relevant...

Ahmednagar Forgings Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals are directed against order-in-appeal No.P-I/71-172/2000 dated 22.9.2000. Since these two appeals are arising out of common order-in-appeal and the issue being same, they are being disposed by a common order.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants herein during the period December 97 to March 98 and July 98 to September 98 presented cheque to the local bank for raising credit in the PLA, by presenting the same with the TR6 challan. On presentation of TR6 challan the appellants took credit in the PLA without waiting for acknowledgement receipt on TR6 challan. After scrutiny of the records the revenue came to the conclusion that the appellants have availed credit on the date of the cheque when it was issued and not on the date of realization of the cheque. Show cause notice was issued for imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants contested the show cause notice on the ground that there w...

Central Bank of India, a Body Corporate Constituted Under the Banking ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR126; 2008(3)BomCR553; (2008)110BOMLR1363

V.C. Daga, J.1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff - Bank for recovery of its outstanding dues, due and recoverable from the defendants with interest thereon.FACTUAL MATRIX:2. Factual matrix borne out from the plaint reveals that the the plaintiff is a nationalised Bank; whereas the first defendant is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act; and the third defendant was a Promoter of the said Company.3. The third defendant, as a Promoter of the first defendant, made application dated 18.9.1976 to borrow following financial facilities:(i) The term loan Rs.1,89,000/- with certain other cash credit facilities for the business of defendant No. 1-Company.(ii) Term loan limit in the sum of Rs. 1,36,000/- against hypothecation of machinery to be purchased costing Rs.1,70,000/- and furniture valued at Rs.10,000/-.(iii) The demand loan in the sum of loan Rs. 53,000/- against pledge of FDRs and MIDRs worth Rs. 78,000/- standing in the names of the promoter and his family members.(iv) Cl...

Taranjitsingh I. Bagga Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporatio ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR260; (2008)110BOMLR1245; [2008(118)FLR119]; (2008)IIILLJ273Bom; 2008(3)MhLj743

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This appeal by employee takes exception to judgment by the learned single Judge allowing respondent-employer's Writ Petition No. 4733 of 2005, whereby the learned Judge quashed and set aside orders passed by the Courts below granting to the appellant full back wages. 2. The appellant is serving as a conductor with the respondent Corporation. On 20th September, 1992 the bus, on which the appellant was on duty as conductor, was checked and on the basis of observations made by the Checking Party an enquiry was started against the appellant. According to the appellant, the enquiry was not conducted properly and the appellant was dismissed from service by an order dated 8th December, 1994. The appellant filed complaint before the Judge, Labour Court, Amravati under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. The learned Judge, Labour Court held that the appellant was not given opportunity of cross-examining emplo...