Mumbai Court July 2008 Judgments

Pramod S. Sawant Vs. North Bombay Central Co-operative Society Wholesa ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008(118)FLR960]

R.P. Sondurbaldota, J.1. Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith. Service of Rule is waived. By consent the petition is taken up for final hearing.The petitioner filed a complaint before the Labour Court, Thane being Complaint (ULP) No. 154 of 1999 alleging unfair labour practice under Section 28 R/W Items 1(a), (b), (d) and (f) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 against the respondent. At paragraph No. 1 of the complaint it is stated that the complainant is making the complaint in the capacity of individual employee and also on behalf of the workmen whose names are appearing in Annexure-A to the complaint. Annexure-A enumerates nine workmen on whose behalf the complaint was sought to be filed.2. The respondents in their written statement raised no dispute or question whatsoever as regards filing of the complaint by the petitioner on behalf of other workmen.' It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of filing of the complaint the persons named in Annexure-A had given a letter of author...

Nicholas Piramal India Limited a Company Incorporated Under the Provis ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)BomCR69; (2008)110BOMLR2304; [2008(119)FLR424]; (2009)ILLJ2Bom

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. In these two Writ Petitions the interim order passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai on 5/5/2008 in Complaint (ULP) No. 118 of 2008 is challenged. By the said interim order, the Industrial Court has rejected the application of the Complainant-Union by declining to stay the transfer of the employees from Mulund in Mumbai to Baddi in Himachal Pradesh except in the case of 7 employees. 2. Complaint (ULP) No. 118 of 2008 was filed by the Nicholas Employees Union (Union for short) alleging unfair labour practice on the part of Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. (Company for short) in closing the Mulund Unit and transferring the permanent employees working in the Mulund Unit to Baddi a place in Himachal Pradesh. The Union contended that the decision of the Company in shifting the Mulund Unit and consequently transferring the employees is vitiated by malafides and constituted unfair labour practice under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. As the Industrial Court declined to grant interim...

Damodhar Namdeo Sase (Deceased Through His Legal Heirs Smt. Chandrabha ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR56; 2008(5)BomCR627; (2008)110BOMLR2480; 2009(1)MhLj263

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of judgment rendered by learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmednagar, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 462/1980, reversing decree rendered by learned Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), for rescission of an agreement of sale dated 11.4.1972 in suit (RCS No. 568/74). 2. Original plaintiff - Damodhar preferred this appeal. His legal representatives have continued the same. Respondent Namdeo was original defendant in the suit before the trial Court. For sake of convenience, I shall refer to the parties by their first names. 3. Indisputably, Damodhar owned 1/3rd share out of field bearing S. No. 1654/2A situated at village Sasewadi. Admittedly, by an agreement of sale dated 11.4.1973 he agreed to alienate the undivided 1/3rd share owned by him to Namdeo for consideration of Rs. 8,000/-(Rupees eight thousand). The terms of agreement were reduced into writing and the agreement was registered. He received amount of Rs. 4,000/( Rupees four thousand) from N...

Manali S. Kale Through Her Natural Guardian, Her Mother Mrs. Nisha Sad ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR37; 2008(4)BomCR497

A.A. Kumbhakoni, J.1. Gone are those good old days when the success at examinations used to be measured by 'the class' with which students used to clear the examinations. One use to feel proud to have cleared the examination' in First Class' rather than Second Class or Third Class.With the increase in the competition started an era where such success was being measured not in terms of 'ju st Class' as aforesaid but in terms of percentage of marks secured at the examinations, such as 58%, 63%, 72% etc. In this era started an additional concept of passing an examination in First Class ' with Distinction', meaning thereby passing the examination with more than 70% marks.Immense increase in the intensity of the competition, virtually 'cutthroat', for seeking admission to professional courses, has landed us in an era where the success in the examination is counted in terms of actual number of marks, rather than just 'a class' or ' just percentage', secured at a competitive examination. This...

State of Goa Represented by Executive Engineer, Works Division V (Aip) ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR736; 2008(3)ARBLR220(Bom); 2008(4)BomCR510; 2009(1)MhLj342

S.A. Bobde, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Goa against Order dated 29.10.1999 passed by the Addl. District Judge, North Goa, Panaji rejecting the appellant's application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the ex parte award of the Sole Arbitrator, dated 29.6.1998. The Arbitrator has awarded to the respondent a sum of Rs. 60,03,866/-with interest at the rate of 18 % p.a. from 26.9.88 till the date of the award.2. The appellant-State awarded the work of construction of an overflow and non-overflow masonry dam across Guleli Nallah at Anjunem Village, Sattari Taluka on 2.2.1978. The contract agreement dated 8.2.78 contained the arbitration clause in Clause 25. The relevant portion reads as follows:Subject as aforesaid, the provisions of the arbitration Act, 1940, or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof and the rules made thereunder and for the time being in force, shall apply to the arbitration proceedings under the c...

Dhondu S/O Bhanu Barsagade, Vs. Dharma S/O Bhanu Barsagade and

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR594

A.P. Bhangale, J.1. This appeal at the instance of original defendants assails judgment and order dated 23rd September 1993 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gadchiroli in Regular Civil Appeal No. 30 of 1993 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gadchiroli dated 29th March 1985 in Regular Civil Suit No. 18 of 1979 and thereby decreeing the suit of present respondents/original plaintiffs.2. It is admitted position on record that original plaintiffs Dharma and Ganpat and defendants Dhondu and Mohan are real brothers. Defendant No. 3 Janabai is wife of defendant No. 1 Dhondu; defendant No. 4 is wife of defendant No. 2 Mohan while defendants No. 5 and 6 Vasant and Maroti are sons of defendant No. 1 Dhondu. Respondents/plaintiffs averred in the suit that their grand-father Dharma belonged to village Kunghada, Tahsil Gadchiroli and since it was difficult for him to meet both ends together, their father Bhanu left village Kunghada for village Kur...

Ravindra D. Ahirkar Vs. Ravikishore S/O Ramkisanji Pashine and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)MhLj955

A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner made the following submission before me,(1) Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 does not permit default in payment of water charges as a ground for eviction of a tenant as the amount of water charges cannot be the constituent of the permitted increases. The notice dated 4-6-2001 claiming arrears of water charges for the period from 1-8-2000 till 31-5-2001 is defective because there is a claim in respect of future demand for water charges and Section 15 of the Act contemplates only the amounts due.(2) That the finding recorded by the Appellate Court holding that the petitioner/tenant has acted in violation of Section 16(1)(b) of the Act is incorrect and illegal because the petitioner sold cloth cut pieces in his shop and that is integral part of business of tailoring.3. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents made the following submiss...

Assuncena Do Rego (Mrs.) Vs. Simplicio P.C. Fernandes and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR49; 2008(6)BomCR304

Britto N.A., J.1. This appeal and cross objections are directed against the judgment dated 15/7/2000 of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji, by which the suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed.2. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the suit.3. By notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and award dated 4/10/1985, the Government acquired vast land situated at Calapur and other villages. In that they included the land belonging to the Communidade of Calapur/ defendant No. 3 of which the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 and 2 (defendants, for short) were the tenants. Compensation was paid to them on 50.50 basis i.e. to defendant No. 3/ Communidade half of the amount and to the plaintiff and the defendants the remaining half. The said payment was done on the basis of the survey records. Compensation relating to Survey No. 225 was taken by the plaintiff and Compensation relating to sur...

i.C.i.C.i. Limited and ors. Vs. Hico Products Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(6)BomCR171

Bhosale D.B., J.1. Chamber Summons No. 200 of 2008 is taken out by the applicants/purchaser of Lot No. 1 (part of suit property) for the following reliefs:(a) that the learned Court Receiver be directed to execute Conveyance of the property mentioned in Lot No. 1 in favour of M/s. The Ruby Mills Ltd., purchaser of Lot No. 1;(b) that the learned Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay be directed to hand over all the original title deeds of the property mentioned in Lot No. 1 to the purchaser M/s. The Ruby Mills Ltd.;(c) that pending the hearing and final disposal of this Chamber Summons, the learned Court Receiver be directed not to deal with the purchase price of Rs. 5,40,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores Forty Lacs only) to the detriment of M/s. The Ruby Mills Ltd., (Purchaser);(d) that pending the hearing and final disposal of this Chamber Summons, the learned Court Receiver be directed to resolve the labour issues and resolve any claims and/or disputes of the employees of defendant No. 1 inc...

Acit Vs. Bright Star Investment Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These appeals are preferred by the Revenue on common ground that the CIT (A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to treat the profit on sale of shares under the head long term capital gain, where as the Assessing Officer had segregated the capital gain income as shown by the assessee in the return of income into business income and capital gain for the detailed reasons given by him in the assessment order.2. Since, these appeals were heard together, we prefer to adjudicate them by this consolidated order. Since the facts of both the appeals are on common, we take up the facts of the case in ITA. No.6374/Mum/2004 in order to understand the issue involved and also to adjudicate it.2.1. The facts in brief borne out from the Orders of the lower authorities in ITA. No. 6374/Mum/2004 are that the assessee in the return of income had shown long term capital gain on sale of shares of Rs. 4,85,30,780/- for which statement of working of long term capital gain was attached with the r...