Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-27-2001
Reported in : 2001(4)ALLMR600; 2002(1)BomCR152
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. In this proceedings the dispute is essentially between the sisters on one side and the brothers and mother on other-for declaration and for recovery of money and partition of family properties. In this view of the matter, the parties were told to explore the possibility of settlement, for which reason the matter was adjourned in the past. However, it appears that the parties are under some misconception and are unwilling to have a meaningful dialogue with positive attitude of settlement, nor the Advocates representing them have succeeded in persuading their respective clients in this behalf or to impress upon them the exigency for an amicable resolution of their dispute, which process would obviate avoidable delay and more particularly heavy litigation expenses. From the submission made across the Bar it is evident that the respondents-original defendants have taken a stand that they are not interested in settling the matter with the appellants. This submission is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-19-2001
Reported in : (2002)(147)ELT629Tri(Mum.)bai
1. D.S. Kothari Hospital, Mumbai, imported two consignments of medical equipment, consisting of gastro fibrescope with accessories and fibre optic endoscope with accessories in 1991 and August, 1993. The hospital claimed and was granted benefit of notification 64/88. The notification exempts medical equipment from payment of duty subject to condition prescribed therein. Consequent upon reports of vide spread misuse of the notification, a committee referred to as the Rosha Committee was appointed on the orders of the Supreme Court to enquire into various aspects of the matter. The Committee by its letter dated 7.4.1998 requested the Commissioner of Custos to institute an enquiry regarding fulfilment by the appellant the conditions subject to which the exemption was granted to it. Enquiries were taken up by the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, through which the goods are imported. In the course of enquiry the hospital submitted a statement of patients treated by it for the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-20-2001
Reported in : (2002)(79)ECC667
1. D.S. Kothari Hospital, Mumbai, imported two consignments of medical equipment, consisting of gastro fibrescope with accessories and fibre optic endoscope with accessories in 1991 and August, 1993. The hospital claimed and was granted benefit of Notification 64/88. The notification exempts medical equipment from payment of duty subject to conditions prescribed therein. Consequent upon reports of vide spread misuse of the notification, a committee referred to as the Rosha Committee was appointed on the orders of the Supreme Court to enquire into various aspects of the matter. The Committee by its letter dated 7.4.1998 requested the Commissioner of Customs to institute an enquiry regarding fulfilment by the appellant the conditions subject to which the exemption was granted to it. Enquiries were taken up by the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, through which the goods are imported. In the course of enquiry the hospital submitted a statement of patients treated by it for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-12-2001
Reported in : 2001(4)ALLMR118; (2001)3BOMLR809; (2001)IILLJ292Bom; 2001(4)MhLj64
ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. Ailing patients cannot be left ailing and unattended. Hospital beds are not the lifeless rattling machines in a factory which can be deserted by the striking workmen. To strike work in a hospital is to strike at the patients to deepen their unhealed wounds. This would apply to all - doctors, nurses or ward boys. Following this philosophy the Legislature did a wise thing to exclude 'hospitals' from the net of 'industry' and to take them out of the clutches of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. What was legislatively conceived was however administratively aborted. The 1982 amendment has not been yet brought in force even after 18 long years. The new century has dawned but the Executive is still groping in dark in search of courage to enforce the legislative mandate.2. It is clear from the Union's letter dated 29.12.1986 that the strike was not for any economic demands. Needless to mention that the Petitioners have severely suffered as a hospital at the hands of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-11-2001
Reported in : 2001(4)ALLMR26; 2001(4)BomCR365
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Rule.2. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.3. Respondents waive service.4. By consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal.5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.6. By this writ petition, the petitioners have taken exception to the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Appeal) M.D. Mumbai, dated 9th October, 2000 in Appeal No. 101 of 1989.7. The above numbered appeal was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 challenging the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, dated 12th April, 1999 approving the amendment in the bye law of the petitioner society. The said appeal has been allowed by the Divisional Joint Registrar. The Appellate Authority took a view that the amendment to the bye law of the petitioner society shall not be applicable to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 until they induct new tenants/renew or enter into fresh contract with the existing tenants and receive increase...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-13-2001
Reported in : 2002(2)ALLMR517; 2002(3)MhLj895
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the Indian Medical Association, Nandurbar Branch through its President, Dr. Sunil Shah. The petitioner No. 1 is the branch of Association of Medical Practitioners at the national level and the petition is filed in public interest by the said association at Nandurbar. The Indian Medical Association at the national level is a legal entity, the petitioner No. 2 is the resident of village Dangri, Tq. Amalner. The petitioner No. 3 is the resident of Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar. The petitioners have challenged the decision of the Government of Maharashtra to establish Government Medical College with 100 seats intake capacity at Kolhapur and have further sought directions against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to establish a new Medical College or increase the seats available in the existing Medical Colleges for M.B.B.S. course in the Marathwada and Vidarbha regions. The petitioners have also sought a Wri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-05-2001
Reported in : 2002(2)BomCR537
R.M. Lodha, J.1. The learned Single Judge while dismissing Notice of Motion No. 2455/2000 with regard to prayer (a) taken out by the Vessel m.v. 'Sea Success I' and her owners S.S. Shipping Corporation Inc. in Admiralty Suit No. 32/2000 has referred to the Division Bench the following question for its decision:'Whether a claim for unpaid insurance premia in respect of a ship amounts to 'necessary supplies' within the meaning of section 5 of the Admiralty Courts Act, 1861 so as to constitute maritime claim?2. The aforesaid question is also involved in Appeal No. 739/2000 arising out of Notice of Motion No. 1376/1998 in Admiralty Suit No. 30/1998 and, therefore, both the aforesaid appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Besides the aforesaid question common to both appeals, there are distinct and separate issues involved which we shall deal with at an appropriate stage.3. At the outset, we may observe that we afforded extensive hearing to the learne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-21-2001
Reported in : 2003(151)ELT486(Bom)
D.D. Sinha, J. 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard Mr. Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Palshikar, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India/ respondents. 3. This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated30-8-2000, passed by the respondent No. 1, whereby the Custom Duty Exemption Certificate (CDEC) under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988, issued by the respondent No. 1, in exercise of powers, conferred on itunder Section 25(i) of the Customs Act, was revoked/cancelled by the respondent No. 1. 4. Mr. Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel, states that in exercise ofpowers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962,the Central Government, being satisfied, that it is necessary in the public interest to do so, exempted all equipments, apparatus and appliances includingspare-parts and accessories thereof and the import of which was approved ineach case, by the Government of India in the Ministry of Hea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-21-2001
Reported in : 2002(1)ALLMR1; 2002(3)BomCR219
H. L. Gokhale, J.1. All the writ petitions in Group (A) above invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise common questions with respect to the correctness and legality of the Maharashtra Health Sciences Common Entrance Test (MH-CET 2001) conducted by the State of Maharashtra and the Director of Medical Education and Research of the State of Maharashtra and the results of this Common Entrance Test. Some of these petitions have been filed on the Original Side of this High Court whereas some of them are filed on the Appellate Side and one writ petition is arising out of a letter sent by a student Miss Priyanka Dinkar Borde from Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar, which letter has been converted into a suo motu writ petition. These petitions raise questions with respect to the legality and validity of the results of this examination which were declared on 17th May, 2001 and the consequent admissions to various medical courses. These petitions are undoubtedly of urgent nature. All o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-14-2001
Reported in : 2001(4)ALLMR143; 2001(3)BomCR652
B. B. Srikrishna. J. 1. This appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenges the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 6th/7th November, 2000 dismissing the petition to set aside the arbitral Award. FACTS 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, concisely stated, are as under :- The appellant is a nationalised bank, carrying on the business of banking in its various branches and offices in the city of Mumbal. The respondent is a company registered under Companies Act, 1956 doing business in real estate including the business of hiring out built up areas of business premises. The respondent, at the material time, was the owner of certain premises situated on the ground floor and basement of Maker Chamber No. IV. Nariman Point. Mumbai 400 021. These premises were offered to the appellant under agreements of leave and licence dated 23rd May. 1988 and 27th June, 1989. Under the agreement of 23rd May, 19...
Tag this Judgment!