Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-08-2003
Reported in : III(2004)ACC574; 2004(2)ALLMR798
S.T. Kharche, J.1. Heard.2. In these two appeals common questions are involved and, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 22,000/- with interest @ 15% per annum from 9.6.1987 till realisation to the claimant-injured by name Abdul Samee Abdul Rehman in Claim Petition No. 30/1988 filed by him under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, the Act). This award has been challenged by the claimant on the ground that compensation awarded to him was neither just nor reasonable and fair in this First Appeal No. 834/1991. Whereas the Tribunal made the owner of the scooter said to have been involved in the Accident liable to pay compensation and the same is challenged by the owner in the First Appeal No. 409/1991 on the ground that the scooter was not at all involved in the Accident.4. Brief facts are as under:The Accident occurred of 3.12.1986 on Karnptee Road near Kumbhare's building of Ganpati at abou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-10-2003
Reported in : AIR2004Bom38a; [2003]117CompCas651(Bom); [2004]50SCL440(Bom)
H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Mr. Andhyarujina for the Appellants and Mr. Sibal for Respondents Nos. 2 to 5.2. We have gone through the impugned order. Mr. Andhyarujina submits that it is erroneous on facts as well as on law. Mr. Sibal, learned counsel appearing for Respondents Nos. 2 to 5, submits that the impugned order is primarily on facts and correct one. We are, however, of the view that there are important questions of law which are as well involved in this matter.3. Mr. Sibal has raised a question with respect to maintainability of this Appeal.4. This Appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act seeks to challenge the order dated 2nd September 2003 passed by a learned Single Judge under Section 10-F of the Companies Act in an appeal arising out of the order passed by the Company Law Board and petition initiated by the Appellants under Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act.5. Mr. Sibal and Mr. Dwarkadas, learned counsel appearing for the respective Respondents, submit that Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-02-2003
Reported in : AIR2004Bom38; (2004)1BOMLR833; [2003]117CompCas506(Bom)
D.G. Karnik, J.1. Both the appeals are directed against an order dated April 2, 2003, on Company Petition No. 45 of 2002 passed by the Principal Bench of the Company Law Board, since reported in Maharashtra Power Development Corporation Ltd. v. Dabhol Power Company [2003] 117 Comp Cas 467. Appeal (Lodging) No. 4 of 2003 is filed by the original petitioner while Appeal (Lodging) No. 6 of 2003 is filed by the original respondents Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 before the Company Law Board. For the sake of convenience, the original petitioner is hereinafter referred as 'the appellant' and original respondents are referred to by their respective numbers before the Company Law Board. Respondent No. 1 is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Respondent No. 2 is a director of respondent No. 1-company. Respondent No. 3 was also a director of respondent No. 1 till he resigned on June 4, 2002, and was replaced by respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 5 purports to be the managing d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-28-2003
Reported in : 2004(2)BomCR821; 2004(1)MhLj177
S.T. Kharche, J.1. Heard Mr. Madkholkar, learned counsel, for the petitioner, Mr. Sonare, learned A.G.P., for respondent No. 1 and Mrs. Deshpande, learned counsel, for respondent No. 3.2. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the relief for quashing the order dated 15-10-1985 passed by respondent No. 3/ Caste Scrutiny Committee and the order dated 5-10-1988 passed by respondent No.2/Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, dismissing the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner claims to be a 'Thakur' belonging to the Scheduled Tribe as specified by the President after consultation with the Governor of the State in accordance with the provisions of Article 342 of the Constitution of India. By virtue of the impugned orders, petitioners' caste claim has been invalidated and it has been held that he belongs to 'Kshatriya Thakur' caste which is outside the purview of entry No. 44 in part IX of Schedule II to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-25-2003
Reported in : 2004(1)MhLj121
D.B. Bhosale, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.6.1987 rendered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 67 of 1987 by which the respondents-accused have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498A read with Section 34 and 498-A, 109 or 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'). The respondents-accused (for short, 'accused') alleged to have committed the murder of Shaila Pote, wife of accused No. 1, in the intervening night of 29.10.1986 and 30.10.1986 in their house by pouring kerosene and setting her ablaze by lighting a matchstick. The deceased Shaila was also subjected to cruelty by the accused persons.2. During the pendency of this Appeal, accused No. 2, mother of accused No. 1, has died and in view thereof the appeal stands abated as against her. We, therefore, proceed to hear the instant Appeal against accused No. 1 only.3. The prosecution case, as unfolded from the evidence of the witnesses, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-14-2003
Reported in : 2003LC662(Bombay); 2004(1)MhLj18
1. The petition, makes a complaint that the respondents have arbitrarily and illegally withheld the amount of refund in the sum of Rs. 1,35,39,000/- due and payable to the petitioners which is in defiance of the order of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (West Zonal Bench) at Mumbai ('Tribunal' for short) and, constitutes breach of principles of judicial discipline which require that the orders of the higher authorities are required to be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities.The Facts :2. The facts of the case in short are that the petitioners, a partnership firm imported various consignments of rough marble blocks. Two adverse adjudication orders; dated 31st August 2001 and 13th September 2001; came to be passed by the Commissioner of Customs, the respondent No.4 against the petitioners imposing redemption fine of Rs. 1.01 crore and Rs. 42,84,000/- with penalty in the sum of Rs. 29.40 lakh and Rs. 4.00 lakh on 16 consignments plus 1 consignment r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-03-2003
Reported in : 2003(4)ALLMR855; 2004(1)BomCR191
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Since common questions of the facts and law arise in both the petitions and are against the same order, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 69 of 2000 is the Corporation whereas the Writ Petition No. 1716 of 2000 is at the instance of the employees. The challenge to the impugned order at the instance of the Corporation is on the ground that the direction against the hospital, the opponent No. 2 before the Labour Court, is bad in law as there was no existing right in favour of the employees to claim wages under the provisions of law contained in section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The petition at the instance of the employees is mainly on the ground that the Labour Court erred in dismissing the application against the Corporation ignoring the facts that the assets and liabilities of the hospital, opponent No. 2 before the La...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-27-2003
Reported in : 2004(1)BomCR405; [2005]125CompCas615(Bom); (2003)4CompLJ89(Bom); [2004]50SCL77(Bom)
D.G. Karnik, J. 1. The petitioner is a company incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and deemed to be an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. Three other companies namely Recon Health Care Limited, Zydus Pathline Limited and Zoom Properties Limited along with the petitioner are proposed to be amalgamated and merged with Cadila Health Care Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'transferee company') under a common scheme of arrangement (hereinafter referred to as 'the scheme'). On a petition filed by Zydus Pathline Limited - one of the transferor companies having registered office in the State of Gujarat, bearing Company Petition No. 28 of 2003, the High Court of Gujarat has approved and sanctioned the scheme. Similarly in Company Petition No. 61 of 2003 filed by Cadila Health Care Ltd. the transferee company having its registered office in the State of Gujarat, the High Court of Gujarat has approved and sanctioned the scheme. The r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-17-2003
Reported in : (2003)(156)ELT134Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The common question which we are required to consider in these appeals by Nestle India Ltd. and Johnson & Johnson Ltd. is whether the activities undertaken by each of these companies on the goods imported by them amounts to manufacture within the meaning of Note 3 to Chapter 18, Note 3 to Chapter 19 and Note 5 to Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. Nestle India Ltd. imported chocolates. As required by the Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, it affixed on the retail packs of chocolates the name and address of the importer, maximum retail price, net weight, month and year of manufacture, whether vegetarian or not, and month of importation.3. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. imported, among other goods, two products, Topomac and Eprex. Both are life saving medicaments. The medicaments when shipped by the supplier abroad were packs intended for retail sale. Several such packs were placed in bul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-13-2003
1. The common question which we are required to consider in these appeals by Nestle India Ltd. and Johnson & Johnson Ltd. is whether the activities undertaken by each of these companies on the goods imported by them amounted to manufacture within the meaning of note 3 to Chapter 18, note 3 to Chapter 19 and note 5 to Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.2. Nestle India Ltd. imported chocolates. As required by the Standards of Weight & Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, it affixed on the retail packs of chocolates the name and address of the importer, maximum retail price, net weight, month and year of manufacture, whether vegetarian or not, and month of importation.3. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. imported, among other goods, two products, Topomac and Eprex. Both are life saving medicaments. The medicaments when shipped by the supplier abroad were packs intended for retail sale. Several such packs were placed in bul...
Tag this Judgment!