Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-11-2002
Reported in : (2003)ILLJ619Bom
R.J. Kochar, J.1. Heard the learned advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent Rule is made returnable forthwith in view of the nature of the Petitions which are being disposed of at this stage itself.2. The Petitioners, the Head Mistress of Fatimadevi English High School and the Trustees and the Secretary of Lucy Education Society, are aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in Appeals filed by the respondent-Teachers against the Order dated December 29, 2000 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Act.3. The respondent-Teachers having put in total service of 39 years, 38 years and 34 years respectively in the School, stood superannuated on May 5, 1997, January 31, 1998 and September 20, 1999 respectively. According to them, they were entitled to get gratuity but on failure of the Petitioners to pay they approached the Controlling Authority for the purpose of getting gratuity. It appears that the Con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-05-2002
Reported in : [2002]122TAXMAN532(Bom)
R.M. Lodha, J.Whether there is anything wrong in the decision dated 24-4-1990 taken by the Institute of Company Secretaries of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institute') not to allow the advocates to practise as company secretaries is the principal question in these two writ petitions and, therefore, these writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In Writ Petition No. 398 of 1990 Shri T.U. Khatri is the petitioner. According to Shri Khatri, he was granted certificate to practise law by the Bar Council of Maharashtra on 30-6-1973. Shri Khatri claims to have passed final examination conducted by the Institute and was admitted as an associate member of the Institute with effect from 30-10-1970. Subsequently, Shri Khatri was made fellow member of the Institute with effect from 23-8-1976. Upon application made by Shri Khatri to the Institute and upon fulfilment of requisite conditions including the no objection from the Bar Council of Maharash...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-17-2002
Reported in : 2003(4)ALLMR231; 2003(4)BomCR787; 2003(3)MhLj379
R.G. Deshpande, J. 1. This petition raises an important question pertaining to the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, and the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, precisely relating to the provisions of Sections 126 and 127 of the M. R. T. P. Act. If for 10 years from the date of final publication of the Development Plan, the land reserved is not acquired by acquiring body or the authority for which it is to be acquired but before issuance of the Notice under Section 127 of the M. R. T. P. Act by the owners, some steps are taken by the acquiring body which thereafter are continued, whether in such a case could be it said that the reservation is lapsed in accordance with the provisions of that Act.2. The facts, in short, necessary can be narrated as under : In the year 1977, Survey No. 114, area 0.93 hectare of mouza Chikhali belonging to the petitioners and their brothers and sisters, was reserved for the purposes of Agricultural Produce Market...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-15-2002
Reported in : AIR2002Bom502; 2003(1)BomCR140; 2003(1)MhLj373
ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1.This Civil Revision Application takes exception to the order dated March 19, 2002 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Palghat below Exh. 1 in Special Civil Suit No. 9 of 2002. This special Civil Suit has been filed by the Respondent for declaration and specific performance and consequential reliefs against the Applicants. The Applicants Nos. 1 and 3 are the English Public Limited Companies incorporated under the English Law. Whereas, the Applicant No. 2 is an Indian Company and having its office at Mumbai; and whereas, the Respondent Company is incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Mumbai. The Respondent claims that it is engaged in the business of manufacture, sale, marketing and distribution of pharmaceutical products. The Respondent has its manufacturing facilities located at various places, including at Palghat. By a 'Distribution Agreement' dated August 1, 1997, the parties agreed to gi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-31-2002
Reported in : 2002(4)ALLMR10; 2003(1)BomCR284
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. All the twenty-four writ petitions involve similar facts and common issues and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking directions to the respondent No. 2 to consider them for admission to the courses in Health Sciences in the reserved categories such as Scheduled Caste, Nomadic Tribe, Other Backward Class, Vimukta Jati etc. and not in the open merit category. Except last five writ petitions bearing lodging Nos. 1634, 1644, 1645, 1646 and 1647 of 2002, in all other petitions, we had issued rule and passed interim orders in terms of prayer Clause (a), thereby directing the respondent No. 2-Director of Medical Education and Research (for short DMER) to consider the petitioners for admission to the courses in Health Sciences in the reserved category, which each of the petitioners has claimed in his/her respective writ petitions, and not in the open merit category. Prayer Clause (a) is identical in al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-13-2002
Reported in : (2003)105BOMLR609
A.B. Palkar, J.1. Applicant No. 1 - Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. (D.M.L. for short) is a party notified under the provisions of Special Courts (TORTS) Act of 1992. Applicant No. 2 - Killick Financial Services Ltd. (K.F.S.L. for short) is a wholly owned subsidiary of respondent No. 3 - Killick Nixon Ltd. (K.N.L. or Killick for short). Respondent No. 1 - Global Trust Bank (G.T.B. for short) is a banking company. Respondent Nos. 3 to 15 are all judgment debtors of D.M.L. Decrees have been passed by this Court against these respondents by consent and the total amount payable under all these decrees is Rs. 50,10,65,560/-. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have guaranteed payment under all the decrees and defaults have been committed by respondent Nos. 3 to 15 in payment of decretal dues probably as they are all belonging to the group of K.N.L. Respondent Nos. 5 to 15 have filed various applications in this Court for reliefs specially for reduction of Interest in decrees passed against them and these appli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-02-2002
Reported in : 2003(162)ELT25(Bom); 2003(2)MhLj84
V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ('CEGAT' for short) dated 20-4-1989, upholding the order of the Collector of Customs, except modification of reducing the redemption fine of Rs. 10 lakh to Rs. 5 lakh in respect of the order dated 13-6-1988.THE FACTS 2. The facts leading to filing of the petition in nutshell are as under, The petitioners are the exporters of 'Colour Picture Tubes' ('CPT' for short) to USSR. They were awarded contract for supply of CPT to USSR sometime in the month of December 1987. On 23rd February 1988, they entered into a contract with one M/s Samsung Co. Ltd. of Korea ('M/s Samsung' for short) for import of CPT to fulfil their obligation under the said contract. Accordingly, on 29-2-1988, the petitioners opened irrevocable Letter of Credit in favour of M/s Samsung for import of CPT.3. Upon publication of the new Import policy on 30th March 1988, petitioner No. 1 came to kn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-03-2002
Reported in : (2004)(1)SLJ152CAT
1. By the present O.A. the applicant is challenging the notification dated 11.10.2001 issued by Respondent No. 1 appointing Respondent No. 4 i.e. V.T. Thomas of the State Forest Service of Goa to the Indian Forest Service with immediate effect.2. The applicant was initially appointed as Assistant Conservator of Forests on adhoc basis vide order dated 20.1.1987 and has been working as Assistant Conservator of Forests/Deputy Conservator of Forests in the Goa Forest Department. The applicant was appointed on regular basis as ACF from 8.8.1990 and was confirmed on 8.8.1992 vide order dated 1st September, 1999 after completion of two years of probation. The State Forest Service Assistant Conservator of Forests (ACF for short)/Deputy Conservator of Forests (DCF for short) is the feeder grade for promotion to the IFS, The promotion to the IFS from the feeder grade is regulated by the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 and Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-15-2002
Reported in : 2002(4)BomCR187
Pratibha Upasani, J.1. These two Notices of Motions which are taken out by the plaintiff and now transposed defendant No. 5, who had initially filed the suit as a next friend of the plaintiff respectively, can be disposed of by this common order.2. This is a case where two former employees of the deceased Hoshang Dalal, who was the brother of the present plaintiff Perin A. Dalal, are arraigned against each other for the noble(?) interest of protecting the estate of the plaintiff who is at the moment, because of her age and physical and psychological condition, is beyond understanding what the whole matter is about. But a few facts to understand the controversy which can be briefly narrated are as follows:The plaintiff Perin Dalal is the sister of one Hoshang Dalal (deceased). She is the sole heir of the deceased in accordance with the laws of succession governing parsi males dying intestate. Defendant No. 1 Roshan Minbattiwala was the secretary of the said deceased Hoshang Dalal for ab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-12-2002
Reported in : (2003)(159)ELT446Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner revoking the licence issued to the appellant to function as a Custom House Agent at Kandla under the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 1984 (hereinafter Regulation).3. We are not able to accept the ground in the appeal that the order was passed by the Commissioner ex parte without giving the appellant opportunity of being heard, in that the Commissioner passed an order without granting hearing in spite of a request made in letter 21-12-99.In this letter, while the applicant denied each of the charges in detail, it did not ask for any hearing. Regulation 23 of the Regulations which prescribed the procedure for suspending or revoking the licence contained in Sub-regulation (6) provisions for the agent to submit within a period of not more than 60 days from the receipt of the enquiry officer any representation he may wish to make against it.Sub-regulation (7) provides that after considering the report and representation the...
Tag this Judgment!