Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR2668
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of on 18.9.2002 by this Court and said Judgment was challenged in Special Leave Petition by the present appellants before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hon'ble Apex Court vide its Order dated 13.10.2004 delivered in Civil Appeal No. 1416/03, remanded the matter back to this Court in view of the Judgment of Full Bench of this Court in case of Rahul Sharad Awasthi v. Ratnakar Trimbak Pandit and Ors. : 2004(5)BomCR50 . It appears that on 18.9.2002, this Court took a view that Section 4 of Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, especially in relation to Section 100A thereof was applicable retrospectively and, therefore, letters patent appeals already filed were not maintainable. This Court, at that time, granted certificate under Article 134, r/w Article 133 of the Constitution of India to the appellants in LPA No. 7/96. In view of the orders dated 13.10.2004 of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the present appeal has been listed before t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR2507
J.N. Patel, J.1. Appeal No. 844 of 2007 is filed by Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) against Reliance Natural Resources Limited and Appeal No. 1 of 2008 is filed by Reliance Natural Resources Limited (RNRL) against Reliance Industries Limited, aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Company Judge on 15th October, 2007 in the matter of Company Application No. 1122 of 2006 filed by Reliance Natural Resources Limited against Reliance Industries Limited. As the two appeals filed by the parties to the application are filed impugning the judgment and order of the learned Company Judge, these two appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment.Factual Matrix2. The Company Application No. 1122 of 2006 came to be filed in Company Petition No. 731 of 2005 by Reliance Natural Resources Limited seeking appropriate orders and direction of the Company Judge for effective implementation of the scheme as a result of decision of the Company Judge in Company Petition No. 71 of 2005...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(4)MhLj242
S.B. Mhase, J.1. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6597 of 2007 has filed the Writ Petition in respect of various proceedings initiated under the Bombay Inferior Village Watan Abolition Act. Most of the annexures, including the impugned order in the said matters, are in Marathi. The petitioner prepared the Writ Petition and went for the purpose of filing the Writ Petition. However, the petitioner was told by the Registry that unless all annexures or, in any case, the impugned order was translated from Marathi to English, the Petition would not be entertained.2. According to the petitioner, the non acceptance of the Petition because the annexures are not translated into English was an act contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of India. The Registry brought to the notice of the petitioner the judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No. 6408 of 2006 delivered by the High Court (Rebello & Sawant, JJ.) wherein it has been declared that the proviso to Rule 2(i) of Chapter XVII ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(5)BomCR429; (2009)IVLLJ153Bom
Bhatia J.H., J.1. In both the matters, Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties the matters are taken for final hearing immediately.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.3. These are two counter petitions arising out of the order passed by the Industrial Court on 11th April, 2008 in Complaint ULPA No. 1032 of 1993. One petition is filed by the employer/Management of the Automotive . and second petition is filed by employee - Smt. Sweety Aranha. 3A. Admitted facts are that the employee was initially appointed as telephone operator and her services were confirmed. Thereafter she was posted as a Assistant Dispatch Clerk. In September, 1990, two employees of this employer had died and their dead bodies were in the mortuary of the Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur. Mr. Kalantari-Manager of the employer had been there. The employee was also present there. According to the management, the employee assaulted Mr. Kalantri and on his report an F.I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(4)BomCR414; 2009(111)BomLR502
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Common question involved in all these Writ Petitions is, .whether State Government can levy and demand any sum as amount of nonagricultural assessment from Petitioners WCL.... Petitioner- Company is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with its Head Office at Nagpur and it is Central Government Undertaking in public sector as also the Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of Companies Act. It is having coal mines in western part of the nation including State of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. Prayers in all Writ Petitions filed by it are to declare that orders assessing non-agricultural tax and demand notices issued consequentially are illegal. There is also similar prayer in relation to Zilla Parishad cess and Gram Panchayats cess with direction to Respondents to refund the amount already recovered from it on that account.2. In W. P. 1161/2007 challenge is to assessment orders dated 3/3/2005 and 4/3/2005 and consequential demand notices da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(2)BomCR407
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. In all these matters, overlapping issues have been raised by the respective Petitioners, for which reason, by consent, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. These matters broadly form two groups. One group pertains to land from erstwhile Central Provinces area (i.e. Nagpur, Bhandara, Gondia, Wardha and Chandrapur). The second group is in relation to lands from erstwhile Berar area (i.e.Amravati, Akola, Washim, Buldhana and Yeotmal). In most of the Petitions, it is asserted that the land in question is Nazul land. In other words, only in few matters the land in question may be a non-Nazul land. Nevertheless, the issue that needs to be addressed in all these matters is common. The term Nazul land as observed by the Apex Court in Narain Prasad Aggarwal v. State of M.P. reported in (2007) 11 SCC 736 means land or buildings in or near towns or villages which have escheated to the Government; property escheated or lapsed to S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(5)BomCR25; 2008(131)ECC102; 2008(157)LC102(Bombay); 2008(230)ELT22(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Revenue has preferred this appeal against the common order dated 5th April, 2005 passed by CESTAT in the Appeals and Applications which were filed before it. The Appeals were preferred against the common order in original dated 23rd March, 2005 of the Commissioner of Central Customs (Preventive) in the matter arising out of the show cause notice dated 7th August, 2003. The Appeals preferred were allowed, both as to objection as to jurisdiction as also on other points which are set out in para.7 of the impugned order. It is Revenue which has preferred this Appeal.2. One of the question of law which was urged before the learned CESTAT and which was framed, read as under:Whether the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) was the proper officer having jurisdiction to seize the rig in the EEZ and whether he was competent to issue a show cause notice and adjudicate the same to demand duties on goods imported, assessed and cleared on assessment orders of the proper officer of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR164; 2008(6)BomCR789; (2008)110BOMLR2621; 2009(2)MhLj56
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays that the orders dated 26/3/1999 and the order dated 12.10.1999 (Annexure P-1 collectively) be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to reinstate him in service with full back wages and consequential benefits.2. By the orders impugned in this petition, the petitioner challenges the imposition of major penalty of dismissal from services. This penalty was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, Dy. Director (Vigilance), Government of Goa. In review petition, being Review Petition No. 5/99 which was filed by the petitioner before the Governor of Goa, the Governor of Goa has, by his order dated 12.10.1999 modified the punishment of dismissal from service and substituted it by compulsory retirement.3. At the relevant time, the petitioner was serving as Asst. Director of Transport, Transport Department of Government of Goa. He joined the services in 1975 as Assist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2008(119)FLR887]; (2009)ILLJ658Bom
1. The order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court on March 28, 2007 in Writ Petition No. 79 of 2007 is under challenge in this appeal. By the said order, the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ Petition filed by the Appellant in limine.2. The Petitioner is a Union registered under the Trade Unions Act. The Respondent No. 1 is an employer dealing in dying and manufacturing of the cotton and is therefore, being textile industries as covered under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'B.I.R. Act' for short). The Respondent No. 2 namely Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh is registered representative Union in the Textile Industries and therefore, is entitled to represent and negotiate with the problems of the employees with Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 1 was in difficulty. Inspite of the several measures taken by Respondent No. 1 to stand in competition, the Respondent No. 1 has incurred continuous losses and therefore, their activities...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2008)219CTR(Bom)80; [2009]309ITR113(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Revenue has preferred this appeal on the following questions:(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amount received by the assessee under 'Optional Early Retirement Scheme of RBI' is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10C) of the IT Act?(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal, Mumbai, was justified in interpreting Rule 2BA in favour of assessee against the established norms of interpretation of the rules?(c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing relief to the assessee under Section 89(1) of the Act in respect of sum received under the VRS over and above a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 which is not prescribed under Section 89(1) of the IT Act nor under any of the prescribed categories as per Rule 21A of IT Rules, 1962?(d) Whether on the facts and in the ci...
Tag this Judgment!