Mumbai Court June 2009 Judgments

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Lever Employees Union and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ814Bom; 2009(6)MhLj612

1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order made by the learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1861 of 2008 dated September 23, 2008. That petition was filed by the appellant challenging Part I of the Award made by the Labour Court. By that Award the Labour Court has held that the departmental inquiry held against the respondent was not valid and proper. The learned single Judge, from the order impugned it appears that, dismissed the petition relying on the observation of the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case Cooper Engineering Limited v. Shri P.P. Mundhe : AIR 1975 SC 1900 : (1975) 2 SCC 661 : 1975 II LLJ 379. Without going into the merit of the finding recorded by the Labour Court in Part I of the Award, the learned Counsel appearing for appellant submits that the learned single Judge while declining to entertain the petition, has not considered the problems that were pointed out by the petitioner, in leading evidence before the Labour Court because...

Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sadashiv Saran Srivastava Vs. State Bank of India H. ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. Complainant Mr.Prabhat Kumar Sadashiv Saran Srivastava (herein after referred as complainant) and his family members have opened Saving as well as Current accounts with O.P. State Bank of India (Herein after referred as bank) in its Madame Cama Road branch Mumbai. Complainant referred to Saving bank account no.0119010721 and Current Account no.0109010721 in this complaint, amongst those accounts. One Mr.Narendra Ramchandra Haldankar, who was working associate of the complainant earned his confidence and used to handle the banking operations on behalf of the complainant. At that time Mr.Haldankar was working in the secretarial staff of the complainant and the complainant was Chairman of Shipping Corporation of India. Complainant also used to take advice and help of Mr.Haldankar in making new investments from time to time on his behalf and on behalf of his family members. Mr.Haldankar represented to the complainant that investme...

Vodafone Essar Ltd. Peninsula Corporate Park Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Low ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mrs. S.P. Lale, Honble Member This appeal filed by org. O.P./Vodafone Essar Ltd. is directed against the order dated 18/08/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.22/2008 by Central Mumbai District Consumer Forum, whereby the Forum below directed the O.P. to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for mental agony and physical strain caused to the complainant. Forum below further directed O.P. to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceeding. Being aggrieved by the said order, org. O.P. has filed the present appeal. The complainant is having Mobile No.9820428608 of O.P. On 08/09/2007 the complainant requested O.P. by sending SMS for DND (Do Not Disturb). The O.P. gave complaint registration No.276503944. However, even after sending SMS for DND, the complainant again started getting unwanted calls. Thereafter, complainant made 10 emails to the O.P. for the calls which he has received even after sending DND message. On 08/02/2008 the complainant received unwanted call from M...

Shri George L. Fernandes Vs. State of Goa Through Its Chief Secretary,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR393; 2009(111)BomLR2869; 2009(6)MhLj388

U.D. Salvi, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Rule, returnable forthwith, by consent taken up for final hearing. 2. Challenge to the propriety and legality of the notifications dated 18.04.2008 and 22.01.2009 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for construction of Bridge across the river Sal along with approach road at Varca passing through Survey No. 45/3 at Village Varca, Salcete, Goa arises by way of the present petition. 3. The initial challenge to the notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(4) dated 18.04.2008 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the said Act, issued by the respondent No. 1 State of Goa upon invoking special powers ordinarily used in cases of urgency under the said Act, fructified with liberty to the petitioner George L. Fernandes, resident of Varca, Salcete, Goa, to raise objections to the proposed acquisition under Section 5A of the said Act vide order dated 13.08.2008 pass...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Damodar Mangalji Mining Company

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR2740; (2010)228CTR(Bom)160; [2009]185TAXMAN391(Bom)

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been admitted by formulating the following 3 questions on 2.8.04 : (1) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the IT Act, relying on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Alfa Laval India Ltd. v. DCIT reported in : [2004]266ITR418(Bom) which is not applicable to the facts of the case (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was legally correct in placing reliance on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Alfa Laval India Ltd. v. DCIT reported in : [2004]266ITR418(Bom) , which has held that having accepted interest income as part of the business profits, the same could not be excluded from business profits, while calculating deduction under Section 80HHC of the IT Act, which is not the question involved in the present case (3) Whether the...

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Vs. Fibre Foils Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR3589; 2009(169)LC27(Bombay); 2009(241)ELT201(Bom)

Ferdino I. Rebello, J.1. Appeal was admitted on the following question:Whether the mandatory penalty imposable under Rule 57(1)(4) can be reduced by the Hon'ble CESTAT?2. A few facts may be set out:A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner company for recovery of duty and imposition of penalty by notice dated 8th June, 1999. One of the penalties sought to be imposed on the respondent herein was under Rule 57-I(4) of the Central Excise Rules 1944. Respondents showed cause. The Assessing Officer thereafter by his order was pleased to confirm the duty in the sum of Rs. 1,30,510/on raw materials and some other finished goods and also ordered for appropriation of Rs. 2,950/-. The A.O. Has imposed penalty of Rs. 1,30,510/-on the assessee under Rule 57-I(4) of the Rules.3. The Respondent aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise and Customs. By order dated 20th March, 2001 the learned Appellate Authority in para.6 was pleased to hold that the A.O...

Shri Ramchandra S/O. Balkisan Wagh Vs. Smt. Rajashree W/O. Ramesh Bhoo ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)MhLj972

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This petition by tenant is directed against orders passed by the Rent Controller and Additional Collector, holding that the landlady was entitled to issue quit notice to the applicant under Clause 13(3)(vi) of the C.P. & Berar Rent Control Order.2. The facts, which are material for deciding this petition, are as under : Respondent Rajashree is owner of the premises comprising of a shop block situated at Sitabuldi, Nagpur, occupied by the petitioner on monthly rent of Rs. 60/. The respondent sought possession of the said block on the ground that one of her sons was in fourth year of LL.B. and wanted to start his office after completion of his studies. She had also sought possession on the ground that her daughter Sushma was doing Post Graduation at Medical College at Nagpur and intended to start her clinic in the shop block in the same building which had been vacated by another tenant. This application was filed on 7th July, 1987. During pendency of the application lan...

Rajya Parivhan Yantrik Kamgar Sanghatana Through Its Regional Secretar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(1)MhLj948

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This petition by an unrecognized union is directed against the orders passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur, below Exhibits 34 and 14 respectively in Complaints No. 283 of 1989 and 967 of 1992 on the ground that the petitioners had no locus to file the said complaints.2. Facts, which are relevant for the decision of this petition, are as under:On 6-8-1992, the petitioner-Union filed a complaint in respect of discrimination practiced by the respondent- employer amongst employees working in establishment - administration section, who were not members of complainant-Union on one hand and the mechanical staff, who were members of complainant-Union on the other. Mechanical staff was required to punch their cards to ensure punctuality. The workers in the establishment and administration section were not required to punch the cards. The complainant, therefore, alleged that the respondent employer indulged in partiality and favouritism by discriminating again...

Ramkumar Vaidyanath Pal Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Police Statio ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010CriLJ333

Prasanna B. Varale, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10.10.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Amravati thereby convicting the appellant/original accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/original accused.2. The prosecution case, in short, is as under:On 31.10.2001, Police Constable - Buckle No. 619 Prafulla Wadatkar (PW5) and Police Constable - Buckle No. 988 Kishor Aagle (PW2) were on fixed point duty at Yashodanagar square and were discharging their duties. On hearing noise at about 1 O' clock, they rushed to the spot which was at a distance of 200 ft. from Yashodanagar Square and found that there was a fight going on in between two persons. One person, who was holding knife, gave blows of the knife to the other person. Prafulla Wadatkar gave a stick blow on the hand of the assailant in order to make the accu...

Shrikant R. Palkar Vs. Indian Airlines and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(6)BomCR380

Kanade V.M., J.1. By this petition which is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and award passed by the Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 in Reference No. CGIT-2/31 of 1992 wherein the Presiding Officer dismissed the reference and held that the order of termination of the petitioner herein was just, proper and legal. Brief facts are as under:2. The petitioner was appointed by the respondent No. 1 as a Loader and thereafter, he was confirmed in the said post. It is alleged that on 14.6.1985 while he was on duty, one Mrs. Devaiah was going to Bangalore by flight IC 107, was holding Lufthansa tickets and she reported at the Chennai counter. It was found that she had eight pieces of baggage weighing 190 kgs. She made a request that she was traveling with three small children the said weight may be reduced and accordingly, Mr. Creado, Traffic Assistant on duty, reduced the baggage weigh...