Latest Cases

Ramchandra Chowdhary and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Patna

.....in class-iv which existed at the time of advertisement of the 1997 panel has already been filled up. he has also drawn my attention towards the order passed in c.w.j.c.no. 222 of 1995 and analogous cases, which were imposed, of on 22-8-1995. a bench of this court had given similar directions and further observed that though the panel has not been made strictly in accordance with the requirement of merit, as merit alone ought to have been the criteria for seniority in the panel but as the appointments have already been made and those persons who have been appointed have not been made party respondents, as such their appointment was not to be disturbed. however the said order further went to show that the current panel must be the sole basis for making appointments. persons who found their places in earlier panel must find their places no the merit list as evaluated by the committee and seniority shall not be automatically conferred on persons whose names may have been included in the earlier panel. it was also directed that a panel has to be made for each subsequent year following the same procedure.5. in view of the aforesaid directions, this court though satisfied that the.....

Pooja Engineers Private Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Patna

.....well as for a direction to the respondent-authorities to refund, to the petitioner the amount of sales tax collected unauthorisedly. 2. the admitted fact is that the petitioner-firm is engaged in manufacturing bakery products from maida, which is the raw-material. the petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the bihar finance act. it was also registered as a small scale industrial unit in 1987. the state government with a view to accelerate the industrial production in the state issued industrial policy giving benefits under different heads including sales tax incentive to the units since 1986. the petitioner-unit commenced production on 12-11-1987 and availed benefit of set off of sales tax under the industrial policy of 1990 up to the period of 31-12-1994. 3. in the year 1993, the government came out with another industrial policy providing for exemption from the payment of sales tax from the purchase of raw-materials for industrial units mentioned in the said policy. the said exemption was also given to the old industrial units whose investment on plant and machinery did not exceed rupees fifteen crores as on 1-4-1993. the said exemption was to remain in force.....

Damodhar Tukaram Khadse Vs. Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative S ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2003(3)BomCR847; (2003)2BOMLR582; 2003(1)MhLj602

.....appeal by the divisional joint registrar, co-operative society, amravati, rejecting the petitioner's appeal against his order of dismissal. 3. the facts of the case are as under : (a) on 24-12-1968, the petitioner was appointed as a group secretary. (b) on 24-12-1981, the petitioner was promoted as a head clerk. (c) on 9-9-1986, the charge sheet was framed against the petitioner, containing four charges. (d) on 20-11-1990, the petitioner filed his reply to the charges as framed against him in the charge sheet. (e) after due enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report in which only charge numbers 1 and 2 were held to be proved and charge numbers 3 and 4 were held to be not proved. (f) on 14-8-1987, the appellate authority i.e. divisional joint registrar, co-operative societies, amravati, rejected an appeal filed by the petitioner against his order of dismissal which had been filed under rule 18 of the bye laws of akola zilla supervision co-operative society limited, akola, read with rule 18 of the service rules for the posts of group secretary, framed by the said society. (g) on 9-11-1987, the present writ petition came to be filed impugning two orders as mentioned.....

Manikgarh Cement Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2003(2)ALLMR185; 2003(1)MhLj1022

.....the order dated 29-11-1988 passed by the additional commissioner, nagpur division, nagpur, in appeal no.nap/34/gadchandur-5/ 1986-87. 3. the brief facts of the case are as follows : (a) the petitioner company is in the business of manufacture of cement. it has lands situated in village gadchandur, ta. rajura, district - chandrapur. (b) on 4-2-1985, the sub-divisional officer, rajura, issued an order under section 110 of the maharashtra land revenue code, fixing the non-agricultural assessment in respect of lands owned by the company at rs. 0.75 paise per square metre for industrial land and 0.50 paise per square meter for residential land. (c) on 30-12-1985, the same sub-divisional officer, purporting to review his earlier order in view of the audit objection raised by the government auditor, fixed the fresh non-agricultural assessment at one paise per square meter in respect of both categories of land. (d) on 23-10-1986 an appeal filed by the petitioner company under section 247 of the maharashtra land revenue code came to be rejected by the resident deputy collector, chandrapur. (e) on 6-8-1987, the village gadchandur was categorised as an urban area and the said.....

Vidushi Wires Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2003(156)ELT168(Bom); 2003(1)MhLj1015

.....in exercise of the powers conferred under section 37 of the claimed under the provisions of the central excise act, 1944 (the 'act' for short),facts2. the petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing steel wire, having its factory at anandnagar, m.i.d.c., ambernath (maharashtra). the product manufactured by the petitioners attracts payment of excise duty under the provisions of the act. the petitioners were enjoying facility of payment of duty on fortnightly basis under rule 8(4) of the rules. the relevant rule 8 reads as under :--'(1) the duty on the goods removed from the factory or the warehouse during the first fortnight of the month shall be paid by the 20th of that month and the duty on the goods removed from the factory or the warehouse during the second fortnight of the month shall be paid by the 5th of the following months : provided that in the case of goods removed during the second fortnight of the month of march, the duty shall be paid by the 31st march: provided further that where an assessee is availing of the exemption under a notification based on the value of clearances in a financial year, the duty on goods cleared.....

Arun S/O Balwantrao Mahurkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2003BomCR(Cri)1685; 2003(1)MhLj927

.....be so, there is no reason to think that the charge-sheet or a complaint can straightway be filed before such special court for offences under the act. neither section 4 nor can section 5 of the code be brought in aid for supporting the view that the court of session specified under the act can obviate the interdict contained in section 193 of the code as long as there is no provision in the act empowering the special court to take cognizance of the offence as a court of original jurisdiction.'5. the learned advocate for the applicants has himself stated that process under section 3(i)(x) of the said act had been issued in these cases by the magistrate. in view of the issue of process the petitioner has approached this court for quashing of complaint under section 482, criminal procedure code on various grounds. in view of the judgment of apex court referred to above, the action of magistrate in issuing process obviously is illegal. of course, issue of process has not been made a matter of challenge in these applications. however, this court has to take cognizance as to what has transpired. in terms of the judgment of the apex court, the magistrate has to follow the procedure.....

Arjun Sambhaji Khade and ors. Vs. Mangal Ankush Kharmate and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2003(1)ALLMR986; 2003(2)MhLj295

.....by his notice dated 24th august, 2001 convened a special general meeting of the grampanchayat on 30th august, 2001. there is no dispute about the fact that the special notice was forwarded to all the members of the grampanchayat including the first respondent. the application moved by the petitioners before the tahsildar was annexed to the notice. similarly, there is no dispute about the fact that at the meeting of the grampanchayat that was held on 30th august, 2001, the resolution of no confidence was passed by a majority of 8:1 the sole dissenter being the first respondent.4. the first respondent challenged the resolution by filing an application before the additional collector, satara. the additional collector allowed the appeal on the ground that copies of the requisition which have been submitted for the holding of the special general meeting had not been submitted in seven sets to the tahsildar and that the notice was not in the prescribed form. the order of the tahsildar has been affirmed by the divisional commissioner, pune.5. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has urged that the requirement of furnishing seven copies of the notice to the.....

Dilip Mahendra Thapa and Two ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2003(2)ALD(Cri)110; 2003BomCR(Cri)1706; 2003CriLJ4280; 2003(3)MhLj864

.....amounts to a statement made to such police officers during the course of investigation, is hit by provisions of section 162 of criminal procedure code. thus, the evidence of p.w. raju chandwani in context with identification of the appellants before the police, as indicated above, is absolutely of no use for prosecution. if that is ignored, what remains is the statement made on oath by p.w. raju chandwani identifying the appellants in the court. the incident pertains to the year 1994 and this witness was giving evidence in the year 1998. when this witness was giving evidence after nearly 4 years, and when all the appellants were strangers, it is not a good evidence for basing conviction. 6. the learned trial judge has not considered the evidence in proper perspective and has dealt with the evidence in a sweeping way and therefore, he has landed in error of accepting that evidence and basing conviction on it. when the judgment is studded with such reasons leading to the conclusion of the guilt of the appellants, that judgment cannot be upheld. it will have to be set aside. the appellants will have to be acquitted of the charge levelled against them. 7. thus, the judgment and.....

Shamrao Narayan Wankhede Vs. Municipal Council and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2003(3)MhLj814

.....judicial administration that judges should be able to act impartially, objectively and without any bias. in such cases then test is not whether in fact a bias has affected the judgment; the test always is and must be whether a litigant could reasonably apprehend that a bias attributable to a member of the tribunal might have operated against him in the final decision of the tribunal. it is in this sense that it is often said that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done.' 6. in state of u.p. v. mohammad nooh air 1958 sc 86, a departmental enquiry was held against the employee. one of witnesses against the employee turned hostile. the officer holding the enquiry then left the enquiry, gave evidence against the employee and thereafter resumed to complete the enquiry and passed the order of dismissal. the supreme court quashed the order of dismissal by holding inter alia that the rules of natural justice were grievously violated. 7. in ranjit thakur v. union of india and ors., : 1988crilj158 , the court held that it is the essence of a judgment that it is made after due observance of the judicial process; that the court or tribunal passing it observes at least.....

Vishnu Vijay Packagers (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2003(2)BomCR35; 2003LC557(Bombay); 2003(158)ELT132(Bom)

.....duty on the 'dival multi-layer coater machine', imported by the petitioners without affording benefit of the exemption notification no. 125/86. the facts 2. the facts in narrow compass are that petitioners had imported a 'dival multi-layer coater machine' which was fully covered by entry no. 32 of exemption notification no. 125/86, dated 17-2-1986. on 13-4-1987 the petitioner had filed a bill of entry for warehousing of the said machines, claiming benefit of exemption notification no. 545 of 1986. on 15th december, 1987 the petitioners filed an ex-bond bill of entry for clearance of the said machine from warehouse for home consumption and once again claimed the benefit of the said exemption notification no. 125/86. 3. on 22nd december, 1987, the petitioners once again requested the respondents to assess the said bill of entry stating that the draft towards payment of import duty amount was lying ready with them. this letter dated 22nd december, 1987 addressed to the asstt. collector of customs is on record at exhibit-c (page 27 of this petition). the respondents for the reasons best known to them, did not assess the bill of entry as the officers of the respondents were.....