Mumbai Court November 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Magnaplast Technologies (i) P.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. One of the issue that would come up for consideration in this appeal by the department is the possible liability to duty of drawings and designs which may have been supplied to the respondent by its German collaborators in pursuance of the technical know-how agreement. The departmental representative cites the Supreme Court's judgment in ACC v. CC 2001 (128) ELT 21 to say that these drawings should have paid duty.3. The representative for the respondent contends that the importation took place in 1992-93 and suggest that the period of limitation contained in Section 28 has run out. He also contends that, when these drawings were imported, they were exempted from duty.4. After hearing both sides, we think that in view of the continuous imports to be made by the respondent, it would be in the interest of both sides to have the issue decided finally. Before doing so, however, we would to know the exact position as to much how of the know-how for which payment was made consisted of dra...

Sandvik Asia Ltd. Vs. Secretary, Pune Mazdoor Sabha and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2002(92)FLR900]; (2002)IILLJ125Bom

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The respondent union filed complaint (ULP) No. 170 of 1987 under Section 28 r/w Item 1(a) and (b) of Schedule II and Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'MRTU & PULP Act') seeking a declaration that the petitioners had committed an unfair labour practice by not obtaining licence under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act despite employing persons on contract labour. The declaration sought for is that these persons who were employed as contract labour were in fact employees of the petitioner. The second complaint (ULP) No. 88 of 1994 came to be filed by the respondent union in respect of security personnel for similar reliefs as in the earlier complaint. The complaint in respect of the security guards was heard and an order was passed by the Industrial Court rejecting the complaint as not maintainable as the Industrial Court took the vie...

Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. and anr. Vs. Adil K. Patel

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)IILLJ383Bom

R.M. Lodha, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal was admitted by the Division Bench of this Court on June 22, 1994 by the following order:CORAM : H.H. KANTHARJA and A.P. SHAH, JJ: Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 given an undertaking to this Court to reinstate the 1st respondent in his original position effective from tomorrow, June 23, 1994 and pay him 50% of the back wages within one week from today. The appeal is admitted. Appellant No. 2 shall file the undertaking in this Court in the course of the day. The undertaking is accepted. Certified copy expedited. June 22, 1994.2. It appears that present respondent No. 1 took out a precise on August 20, 2001, Para 6 of which reads thus:'6. However, when the Appeal came up for final hearing before Their Lordships The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PALSHIKAR and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice VAZIFDAR on August 14, 2001 the Appellants sought to contend that the Appeal was admitted in respect of the entire issue of reinstatement and back wages, while the Respondents sought ...

Ratnakar Samuel Gaikwad Vs. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR986; [2002(93)FLR347]; (2002)IVLLJ63Bom

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the award of the Labour Court wherein a reference for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service has been rejected.2. A few facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner was in service of Respondent No. 1 for about 14 years and claims to be an active trade unionist of the Pune Workers' Union. It is the case of the petitioner that he was ill on October 26, 1979 and, therefore, could not report for duty from that date till October 30, 1981. On October 31, 1981 after recovering from his sickness, the petitioner reported for duty with a fitness certificate. According to the petitioner, he was not permitted to resume his work. A show-cause notice was issued to him on November 19, 1981. A list of dates was mentioned ranging from January, 1981 to October, 1981 on which he had remained absent from work without prior sanction. The explanation given by the petitioner to the show-cause notice was not accepted by ...

Woolworth (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appeal taken up for disposal after waiving deposit. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal before him on the ground of limitation. We record that although in response to a notice issued by him, the applicant had filed an application for condonation of delay, the applicant failed to explain the delay and did not appear for the hearing. Counsel for the applicant shows us its application for condonation of delay was filed on 14.11.00 in response to the notice dated 17.10.2000 which it received on 3.11.2000. It could not attend the hearing fixed on 8.1.2001 as notice received five days earlier was insufficient to get the counsel to appear. He further contends that the order was actually received by the appellant on 29.6.2000 and there will only be a delay of four days and advanced reasons for the delay.2. In the circumstances of the case, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner for disposing of the application for cond...

M. Visvesvaraya Industrial Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)83ITD511(Mum.)

1. These two appeals filed by the assessee on 1st Nov., 1993 and 31st March, 1994, respectively for asst. yrs, 1989-90 and 1990-91 were decided by the order of Tribunal, Mumbai Bench 'B', Mumbai, dt. 29th March, 1996, along with Department's appeal for asst. yr. 1989-90, being ITA No. 1810/Bom/1993, and assessee's cross-objection No.1035/Bom/1994. Thereafter the assesses filed two miscellaneous applications in relation to the assessee's appeals, being ITA Nos.6351/Bom/1993 and 1717/Bom/1994. These miscellaneous applications were rejected, whereupon the assessee filed Writ Petn. No. 2490 of 2000 before Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The assessee also moved two reference applications under Section 256(1), being RA Nos. 306 & 307/Mum/1996, whereupon reference was made to Hon'ble Bombay High Court for their esteemed opinion. Hon'ble Bombay High Court have thereafter delivered judgment dt. 15th March, 2001 [reported as M. Visvesvaiaya Industrial Research & Development Centre v. ITAT], ...

Saffron Trading Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)84ITD70(Mum.)

1. These are three appeals by the different assessees. Since common issues are involved, for the sake of convenience, these are disposed of by this common order. "1. The order passed by the CIT(A) is illegal, bad in law, ultra vires and contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case and without appreciating the facts of the case in their proper perspective. 2. (a) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 46,785, Rs. 44,025 and Rs. 15,630 in respective cases being interest granted to the appellant under Section 244A as income of the appellant on receipt basis as against accrual method of accounting following by the appellant. (b) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that interest granted along with intimation under Section 143(1)(a) is subject to withdrawal when the case is selected for scrutiny and accordingly the recipient has no indefeasible right over the said income, (c) The learned CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the interest amounting to Rs. 46...

Manik Guglaji Zine and ors. Vs. Director of Social Forestry, Maharasht ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR703; 2002(2)MhLj61

H.L. Gokhale, J. 1. Heard Mr. Bhide, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Badar, learned Special Counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioners herein are some twelve persons who were working as watchmen under the first respondent for different periods as pointed out in Annexure-1 to the petition, two of them starting from 1984 for that matter. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been kept on temporary basis for a long time and are deprived of the benefit of regularization.3. They have, in fact, for this purpose, filed two complaints under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ('MRTU & PULP ACT', for short). The first one is Complaint (ULP) No. 461 of 1991 filed by a Trade Union, whereas the second one is Complaint (ULP) No. 755 of 1994 filed by the petitioner No. 10. That Complaint invokes Item 6 of Scheduled-IV to the said Act, which declares the following practice as a General Unfair Labour Practice on the...

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and ors. Vs. Ratiloku Shetty

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2002Bom94; 2002(2)BomCR501; 2002(1)MhLj611

ORDERS.A. Bobde, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment and orderdated 1.4th February, 2001 [since reported in 2001(4) Mh.LJ, 624] by which the learned single Judge has held that illuminated neon signboard displayed by the respondent on her restaurant does not amount to an advertisement as contemplated under Sections 328 and 328A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.2. The respondent runs a restaurant by the name 'ASHOK RESTAURANT AND BEER BAR'. Above the entrance of the restaurant is a neon sign board. This sign board is approximately 3' x 4' and is wider than the entrance. The sign board bears the word 'ASHOK' in the centre : a little below, on left side is the word 'RESTAURANT' and to the right words 'BEER BAR'. Between these two is an artistic sign depicting two handsjoined in the traditional 'Namaste'. The whole thing is an illuminated neon sign board.3. The only question before us is whether the appellant Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai was right in treating t...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Tolani Bulk Carriers Limited

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)BomCR256

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This is a petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the award dated 15th April, 1999. The facts that are relevant and material for deciding this petition are that the parties had entered into a charter party agreement dated 19th May, 1995 whereby the respondent chartered their vessel M.V. Prabhu Gopal to the petitioners to carry certain goods. The vessel discharged at two ports, the first was Vishakhapatnam where the vessel discharged part of the goods. The vessel discharged at the second port being Haldia, the balance of the goods. According to the respondents the vessel incurred demurrage charges at the discharge port for which the respondents made a claim amounting to Rs. 1,08,00,431/-. On this amount of demurrage charge, dispute arose between the parties.2. In the agreement between the parties there was an arbitration clause. Therefore the disputes were referred to arbitration under the Act. The respondents i...