Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-25-1998
Reported in : 1999(1)ALLMR405; 1999(1)BomCR643; (1999)1BOMLR687; [1999(81)FLR767]; (1999)IILLJ109Bom; 1999(1)MhLj489
ORDERB. N. Srikrishna, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the Award of the 2nd respondent. First Labour Court, Mumbai, dated 16th April, 1996, made in Reference (IDA) No. 439 of 1986.Facts:2. The petitioner is a foreign Airline Company incorporated under the laws of Saudi Arabia and owned by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is engaged in the transportation of passengers, cargo and mail by air and has offices at various places all over the world including one at Mumbai. The 1st respondent is an ex-employee of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is the Presiding Officer of the First Labour Court, Mumbai, exercising adjudicatory jurisdiction under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')3. The 1st respondent, Mrs. Shehnaz Mudbhatkal, joined the service of the petitioner on 16th November, 1978, as Secretary to the Station Manager. Prior to joining the petitioner's service, she was wor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-13-1998
Reported in : 1998(3)ALLMR223; 1998(4)BomCR58
ORDERP.S. Patankar, J. 1. Both these Petitions can be disposed of by this common order as they involve the same point. The point involved is 'whether the Court of Small Causes at Bombay under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as SCC Act), in its pre-1976 form as also post-1976 form, has jurisdiction to entertain and try an application or suit for ejectment against a gratuitous licensee'?FACTS IN WRIT PETITION NO.2336 OF 1997: The suit premises involved are the upper floor (mezzanine floor) of the garage premises situated at Napeansea Gringe, 91, Napeansea Road, Bombay 400 006. In 1959, the Respondents permitted the Petitioners to use the said premises on license basis without payment of any compensation. The parties are closely related. By notice dated 29th March,1968 the permission granted to the petitioners to occupy the premises was revoked. No reply was given to the said notice. The petitioners refused to deliver the premises. Hence,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-03-1998
Reported in : 1998(4)ALLMR586; 1998(4)BomCR209
ORDERR.K. Batta, J. 1. The original respondent/landlord (since deceased) now represented by his widow; son and daughter had filed eviction proceedings before the Additional Rent Controller, Ponda against the present petitioner on the grounds contained in section 22(2)(a), (b) and (f) as well as section 23 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent, and Eviction) Control Act. 1968 (hereinafter called the said Act). 2. The original respondent/landlord is owner of the building denominated 'Durga Prasad' commonly known as 'Borkar's House' at Tisk, Ponda, Goa and this building consists of six tenements. Two of the tenements are in the basement and four tenements are on the ground floor. Each tenement has two rooms, one independent balcony with independent entrance, one W.C. and one bathroom. One of the said tenements was leased to the present petitioner sometime in September, 1974. The case of the original respondent is that the present petitioner fell in arrears of rent from June, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-24-1998
Reported in : 1998(5)BomCR671; (1998)2BOMLR719; 1998(2)MhLj727
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Though this petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the next friend of the detenue Abdul Kadar Andunhi (a) Kamaruddin Puthu Parambi) Sayed Mohammed, hereinafter referred to as the detenue, has impugned the detention order dated 11th December, 1996, issued by the respondent No. 2, Shri P.M.A. Hakeem, the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department. (Transport), and the Detaining Authority, Mantralaya, Bombay, detaining the detenue under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974), hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act.The detention order and the grounds of detention, which are also dated 11th December, 1996, and true copies of which are annexed as Annexures 'A' and 'B' respectively to the petition, were contemporaneously served on the detenue on 4th July, 1997.2. The prejudicial activities of the detenue are contained in the grounds of de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-18-1998
Reported in : 1999CriLJ236
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. By means of this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner who is the wife of the detenu Nahim Noor Qureshi alias Haji has impugned the detention order dated 8th April, 1996, passed by the 1st respondent Mr. A. K. Srivastava, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, (Department of Revenue) New Delhi, detaining the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PIT NDPS Act').2. At the very outset we would like to point of that the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Shirish Gupte candidly stated that an earlier writ petition preferred by the petitioner in respect of the said detenu (Criminal Writ Petition No. 839 of 1996) challenging the same detention order was disposed of as withdrawn by a Division Bench of this Court on June 20, 1997 on a statement made at the bar that the period of detention of the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-04-1998
Reported in : (1999)(63)ECC45
1. The appellant Vandana Dyeing Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in processing of manmade fabrics given by various customers. Appellant V.R. Pungunar is its director. On 15/2/1989 the Central Excise Officers of Mumbai II Commissionerate intercepted a vehicle carrying certain quantity of processed suiting fabrics and the officers brought the vehicle to the appellants factory from where the goods had been loaded. On a check of their stock and accounts, the officers seized the fabric for action under Central Excise Rules, as they believed that there was misdeclaration of the weight of the fabric to evade duty. As a follow up, on 17.2.1989 the officers of Mumbai III Commissionerate visited appellants factory and on verification of stock and accounts, found a quantity of manmade fabric for which the declaration as required under the Statute, was not made.2. Verification of the declartations filed and the investigations carried out with the merchant manufacturers, sending the grey fabrics to the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-14-1998
Reported in : (1999)(106)ELT447Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal by party is filed against the impugned Order No.1279/90-BCH, dated 28-8-1990 of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai, praying for setting aside the same.1. The facts of the case are that the Appellant imported one Perrari Car with foreign Registration No. TED 274 cleared out of Customs by Yogesh Mehra as a power of attorney holder under Bill of Entry No.870/16, dated 31-7-1984 against the CCP No. P/J/CL 8497/N/NF/88/H/88, dated 30-9-1983. After clearance, it was parked in M/s. A.V. Auto Works garage. Getting information about the ITC Violation in the import of car, the said car was detained along with two other cars No. MEF 3765 and GRJ 5314, which were also cleared from the Customs by Yogesh Mehra, as a Power of attorney holder of Surendra Kumar Mehta. After investigation and issue of show cause notice and receiving reply and personnel hearing, all the three cars were absolutely confiscated on 2-3-1989 by Deputy Collector of Customs, SIIB, and Rs. 1 lakh each was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-02-1998
Reported in : 1999(5)BomCR146
ORDERN. Arumugham, J. 1. By virtue of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the mother of the detenue by name Mr. Mohamed Sadakat Hussain Shaikh who was detained by Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay by virtue of the Detention Order in D.O. No. 25/PCB/DP/Zone-VIII/1998 dated 29th January, 1998 detaining the prisoner by virtue of section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 as amended 1996 and r/w Government Order No. DDS-1397/1/ SPL-3(B) dated 12th December, 1971 impugned the same for want of regularity and propriety. The order of detention shown in Exh. 'A' and the grounds of detention shown in Exh. 'B' and the documents relied upon shown in Exh. 'C' were contemporously served on the detenu on 31-1-1998. 2. The prejudicial activities of the detenu said to have been committed and referred to in the grounds of detention Exh. 'B' are briefly sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-20-1998
Reported in : 1998(3)ALLMR601; 1998(3)BomCR355; (1998)1BOMLR326; 1998(2)MhLj135
ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. This petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the Award dt. 4-2-1995 passed by the II Labour Court at Ahmednagar in Reference IDA No. 60/1992, by which the petitioner Department of the Maharashtra State has been directed to reinstate respondent employee, with continuity in service and backwages w.e.f. 14-6-1990. 2. The respondent was appointed on daily wages as Unskilled labour in Kukadi Irrigation Project, Division No. 2, Narayangaon w.e.f. 22-5-1979 and he continued to be employed as such till 24-3-1985 and thereafter, he did not report for duty. On or about 16-4-1990, the respondent, for the first time, made an application for re-employment and there was no response. By his letter dt. 25-6-1990, he was informed by the Executive Engineer, Kukadi Irrigation Project, Division No. 2, Narayangaon, that as there was no work available in the said Project, he could not be re-employed. The respondent, thereafter, submitted a Notic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-22-1998
Reported in : 1998(3)ALLMR424; 1998(3)BomCR343; 1998(3)MhLj667
ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. Petitioner Netram Ganpat Ingale was a tenant of house located on Municipal Plot No. 170, City Survey No. 1847-B/1, Bhavanipeth Jalgaon, of which one Mrs. Kantabai Tatyaba Hazare was the original landlady. One Dattraya Hazare sold the said house to the present respondents sometime in the year 1975. The respondents were in business even prior to 1975, of sewing machine repairs in the adjacent lane which was also a rented premises. The suit premises were taken on lease by the defendent from the original landlady without executing any lease agreement and the defendants continued as tenants in the same way even after plaintiff purchased it. The suit premises consist of 1 room of 171/2 ft. X 151/2 ft. with a toilet block on the ground floor and two rooms and a kitchen on the first floor. Defendent was paying a rent of Rs. 27.50 p.m. and the tenancy was as per the English Calendar month. 2. On 7-8-1977 the plaintiffs issued a legal notice to the defendants to vacat...
Tag this Judgment!