Mumbai Court October 2001 Judgments

Michael and Michael Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

This appeal was posted for admission. Appellants have requested for cancellation of the hearing on the ground that the appeal was disposed of by Commissioner (Appeal) 2. It is clear that the appellants are under a wrong impression. The facts being clear this appeal is taken up for disposal.3. The Appellants took Modvat credit on the strength of extra copy of the invoices. At the material time duplicate copy of transporter was the modvatable document. The Assistant Collector ordered reversal.Before the Commissioner (Appeals), It was claimed that the duplicate copy was misplaced. The original copy was available which could be taken on record. The Commissioner (Appeal) upheld the denial and hence the appeal.4. The appellant claimed that they have produced sufficient alternative evidence that the credit was available. It was claimed that the suppliers had given a certificate that the invoice was issued only to the present Appellants. Appellants have also filed an indemnity bond.5. In thes...

income-tax Officer Vs. Veena Estates (P.) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)81ITD401(Mum.)

1. This appeal by the Department is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which he cancelled the penalty of Rs. 33,34,096 imposed on the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.2. The appeal arises this way. The assessee is a company. It dealt in real estate and carried on business in construction. It purchased a plot of land in 1982 in Agripada, Bombay for Rs. 25 lacs. A sum of Rs. 26,61,283 was incurred towards development and construction. The balance in the account stood at Rs. 51,61,282. On 19-9-1983, a partnership was formed between the assessee and six others. The name of the firm was Nirmal Enterprises. The assessee revalued the kind at Rs. 1,04,53,500, being the market value as on 19-9-1983, and introduced the same into the firm as its capital.3. In respect of the assessment year 1984-85, for the previous year ended 31-3-1984, the assessee filed its return of income on 29-9-1984 declaring "nil" income. The Assessing Officer sought the inst...

Balu Sonaba Bhosale Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)4BOMLR221; 2002(3)MhLj368

J.G. Chitre, J.1. Heard. The petitioner is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the order which has been passed by the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Pune, while making the scrutiny of the caste certificate produced by the petitioner Shri Balu Sonaba Bhosale. At the time of recruitment the petitioner has produced Caste Certificate showing that he belongs to tribe 'Kokani'- S. T. (Scheduled Tribe). The said Committee scrutinised the caste certificate given to the petitioner. The petitioner produced the following documents in support of his claim that he belongs to said Scheduled Tribe. Those documents can be enumerated as mentioned below.1. Xerox copy of the Primary School Leaving certificate bearing Register No. 126101 dated 3-5-1974 issued by Head Master, Poona Corporation School No. 31, Poona.2. Xerox Copy of the Primary School Leaving Certificate bearing No. 10894 dated 7-9-1979 issued by the Pune Corporation School No. 24. 3. Xerox c...

Hanil Era Textiles Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(82)ECC264; 2002(144)ELT27(Bom)

R.M. Lodha, J. 1. The Petitioners though in the Writ Petition have prayed for various reliefs, during course of arguments, Mr. N.G. Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, said that Petitioners are only aggrieved by the order dated 24th November 1995 passed by Development Commissioner to the extent while considering the matter of Domestic Tariff Area sale (for short 'DTA sale') entitlement for the period from 6th January, 1994 to 30th June, 1995 the formula provided under Clause 119 of the Export and Import Policy (for short 'Exim Policy') providing for value addition which was effective from 1st April, 1993 has not been made applicable to the Petitioners.2. The aforesaid submission arises from the following facts and circumstances :-The Petitioners made an application dated 7th June, 1991 to the Department of Development Secretariat for Industrial Approval of Government of India seeking permission under the 100% export oriented scheme for manufacture of Acrylic Yarn and C...

Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. Sushilaben I. Patel

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(5)BomCR356; 2002(4)MhLj246

ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Appeal takes exception to the order passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay dated June 20, 2001 in Notice of Motion No. 450 of 2001 in S.C. Suit No. 3910 of 1996, By this order the trial Court has directed the Appellant-Corporation to reconstruct the second floor and first floor (part) of the suit premises of building Nos. 15 and 16 Patel Mansion situated at Kurla (West), Mumbai 400070, within three weeks from the date of the order. The Corporation was further directed to forthwith return the 287 iron bars to the respondent-plaintiff which were taken by them at the time of demolition, between August 2, 2000 to August 7, 2000; and in the event the same were not available and destroyed by the Corporation then the Corporation was directed to pay compensation for the same to the respondent-plaintiff within three weeks fromthe date of the order. This order is the subject matter of the present Appeal. In so far as the latter direction is concerned, the stand ta...

G.R. Didwania Vs. A.C. Choksey

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR187; 2002(4)BomCR793; (2002)2BOMLR716; [2004]120CompCas744(Bom); 2002(2)MhLj604

F. I. Rebello J.1. The petitioner by the present petition, impugns the award dated December 23, 1998, in Arbitral Reference No. 156 of 1997. There were transactions between the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent is a member of the Stock Exchange, Mumbai. The petitioner was his constituent. It was the case of the respondent that on January 15, 1997, the petitioner had placed an order with the respondent for purchase of 7,000 SIV shares. The respondent purchased the shares on the said date at the rate of Rs. 59.75 being the market rate on the relevant date. It was the case of the respondent that on January 15, 1997, while he was talking on the phone in his office with his O.C.B. client regarding GDR transactions on SIV shares, the petitioner who had been afforded BOLT facilities by another member-broker Sri Brij Mohan Sagarmal having his office just adjoining to that of the applicant, overheard the talk and showed interest in the transaction. The petitioner asked him to buy 7,...

Bhiva S/O Yadav Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR887; 2002(2)BomCR206

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the land acquisition award dated 30-3-1988 passed by respondent No. 3 under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, thereby acquiring portion of 1 H 90 R from Gut No. 84 at Village Wakati, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad, which is land owned by present petitioner. 2. Petitioner owns Gut No. 84, which admeasures 3 H 79 R. The canal of Nandur Madhameshwar Project passes through the land of petitioner. The work of the canal was started under the scheme to provide work to the labourers during scarcity. Possession of the land was taken by the acquiring body, by private negotiations with the petitioner, even before initiation of any acquisition proceedings. Subsequently, the Executive Engineer, Nandur Madhameshwar Project, sent a proposal for acquisition to Special Land Acquisition Officer, B & C Project, Aurangabad. Notification under section 4 of the Act without urgency cla...

Onkar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)BomCR247

A.P. Shah, J.1. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution involve common question relating to the right to receive pension and since this question is common to all the writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners were sailors. They joined the services of the Indian Navy as Artificer Apprentices for a period of 15 years from the date of their respective appointments. They were discharged from service on different dates before completion of 15 years of service. The petitioners had completed 14 years of service at the time of discharge. The question involved in these petitions is whether the petitioners are entitled to pension under Service Pension and Gratuity Pension Regulations (Navy), 1964 hereinafter referred to as 'the pension regulations'. 3. The terms and conditions of service of sailors such as petitioners are governed by the Navy (Ceremonial Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provision) Regulations, 1963, hereinafter r...

Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(103)LC523(Bombay)

ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. The Petitioners though in the Writ Petition have prayed for various reliefs, during course of arguments, Mr. N.G. Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, said that Petitioners are only aggrieved by the order dated 24th November 1995 passed by Development Commissioner to the extent while considering the matter of Domestic Tariff Area sale (for short 'DTA sale') entitlement for the period from 6th January 1994 to 30th June 1995 the formula provided under Clause 119 of the Export and Import Policy (for short 'Exim Policy') providing for value addition which was effective from 1st April 1993 has not been made applicable to the Petitioners.2. The aforesaid submission arises from the following facts and circumstances:The Petitioners made an application dated 7th June 1991 to the Department of Development Secretariat for Industrial Approval of Government of India seeking permission under the 100% export oriented scheme for manufacture of Acrylic Yarn and Cot...

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Jagson International Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR492; (2002)104BOMLR551

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Disputes were referred to Arbitration. An Award Came to be passed on 18.12.1999 directing payment of various amounts along with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the date the amounts became due till payment. The counter-claim filed by the present petitioners, has been rejected. By the present petition, Petitioners pray that the Award dated 18.12.1999 made and published by the learned Arbitrators, be set aside and or suitably modified. A few facts need to be set out considering the controversy in issue and the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioners. There was admittedly a contract entered into between the Petitioners and Respondents on 25.2.1989. Clause 1.3 of the contract provided for its duration. The said clause provided that the Agreement was initially to be for a period (Primary Term) of one working season i.e. upon 15th May, 1989 from the commencement date and that Operator shall have the right to extend the Primary Term of the agreement, in two ins...