Mumbai Court November 2001 Judgments

Pune Municipal Corporation and ors. Vs. Ashok Sakharam Jadhav and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR104; 2002(2)BomCR47; [2002(93)FLR523]

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. Mr. R.G. Ketkar appears for the petitioners in all the four writ petitions, while Mr. K.S. Bapat appears for the respondent in Writ Petition No. 3429 of 1995. None appears for the respondents in other three writ petitions, namely, Writ Petition No. 2247 of 1995, Writ Petition No. 3430 of 1995 and Writ Petition No. 3431 of 1995 though duly served. Since the question involved in these writ petitions is identical, these writ petitions can be disposed of by common judgment.2. These four petitions impugn the common order passed by the Industrial Court in complaints filed by the employees of the petitioner corporation under Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MRTU & PULP Act').3. The respondent workmen in all the four petitions were employed in the Printing Press run by petitioner No. 1 Pune Municipal Corporation, in various posts like Junior Binder, Baller...

Atlaz Degi-tel Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Atlaz Technology Pvt. Ltd. and a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR70; 2002BomCR(Cri)325

D.S. Zotting, J.1. Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 27/2001, 123/2001, 124/2001 & 125/2001 have a common grievance & hence, these petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment and learned Counsel for the respective parties also agree for the same.2. Heard Mr. D.G. Aras, Advocate, holding for Mr. A.D. Shinde, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. A.P. Mundargi, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mrs. J.P. Akolkar, learned A.P.P. for the respondent No. 2-State.3. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 27/2001, Rule has already been issued.Rule in Cri.W.P. Nos. 123/2001, 124/2001 & 125/2001. With consent of the parties, rule is made returnable forthwith.4. The above petitions have been filed by the original accused. They pray this Court to invoke powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as well as inherent powers under section 482 of Cri.P.C. for the purpose of quashing complaints in Criminal Case Nos. 1572/2000, 1218/1999, 1685/2000 and 2625/2000; filed under section 138 ...

Roop Niketan Vs. Asstt. Cit (inv)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Mumbai)1097

ORDERI.P. BANSAL, J.M.:The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), dated 1-3-1993, for assessment year 1989-90. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are lengthy and narrative.2. At the time of hearing the learned counsel of the assessee contended that the issue involved is only one, i.e., in respect of addition made by the assessing officer for a sum of Rs. 2,46,552 as a result of survey conducted on the premises of the assessee. Narrating the facts, he contended that a survey was carried out at the premises of the assessee on 26-10-1988, wherein it was found that the stock of the assessee was less as compared with the stock as per books to the tune of Rs. 2,97,050. He contended that physically counted stock was arrived at Rs. 17,77,161 whereas as per books the stock of the assessee was Rs. 20,74,211. When the assessee was asked to explain the discrepancy, the answer of the assessee was that he was unable to explain the difference. H...

Jayantilal Bhogilal, Usha Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT608Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This group of appeals has been filed by advance licence holder as well as letter of authority holder and others in respect of free import of aromatic chemicals, paper board and LAB. The question involved in this group of appeals is whether the importer has violated the provisions of Customs notification 159/90 and whether reversal of modvat credit by the importer would absolve him from the rigors of the conditions mentioned in the said notification.2. The appellant in Appeals C/260 to 562 was a merchant exporter. He obtained five advance licences for the import of linear alkyl benzene, aromatic chemicals and paper board. The export product was synthetic detergent powder. The advance licence holder, the appellants in three appeals did not have manufacturing facility. Therefore it had contacted the other appellants, namely Mili Detergents and Jayantilal Bhogilal as supporting manufacturers. The names of these two persons were indicated in the application for advance licence as suppor...

Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 43.38 lakhs, and a penalty of Rs. 50.00 lakhs. A fine for redemption of the goods confiscated under Clause (m) of Section 111 of the Act of Rs. 50.00 lakhs has also been imposed.2. The duty has been demanded, and the other actions ordered, on the finding of the Commissioner that the value of the oil well logging truck imported by the applicant was underdeclared. The value was declared in the bill of entry that it filed in 1995 of Rs. 1.34 crores approx. The show cause notice issued to the applicant which invoked the extended period contained in Section 28 of the Act took as the value of Rs. 2.80 crores. This value was based upon the gross book value of the truck, and the various specialised components that it contained rendering it suitable for use in oil exploration. The extended period has been invoked on the ground that individual value of these components were not separately shown.3. The first contention of the counsel for...

Mahavir Food Products, Vijay N. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicants by Mahavir Food Products (2624/01) and by Vijay Naginbai Suraya, its partner (2625/01) are for waiver of deposit of penalties on them of Rs. 50,000/- imposed under Rule 173Q and of Rs. 5000/- under Rule 209A respectively. The application by Raj Food Products (2626/01) is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 28,232/- and penalties totalling Rs. 33,232/-. Application by K.A. Alirajpurwala (2627/01) its partner is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 5000/-.3. The notices issued to the manufacturers alleged that the poha of Maize that they manufactured was classifiable under heading 19.04 of the tariff. The adjudicating authority has confirmed the proposal, demanded duty and imposed penalties. On appeal from that order, the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand issued to Mahavir Food Products on the ground that the extended period contained in Section 11A of the Act would not be applicable but ordered quantification of duty payable for the normal six months perio...

Vimal S. Roy (Captain) Vs. N.E.P.C. Airlines, Chennai and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)BomCR506; (2002)3BOMLR214; [2002(93)FLR956]; 2002(2)MhLj378

Nishita Mhatre, J. 1. The petitioner joined the respondents as a 'Senior Co-Pilot' in January 1995 and was confirmed as 'Captain' in March, 1996. The petitioner was not paid earned wages and several other amounts and, therefore, he filed a complaint under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as MRTU and PULP Act) on 3-6-1997, claiming an amount of Rs. 8,43,200/- as remuneration for the period from 1-1-1997 to 3-5-1997 and an amount of Rs. 6,800/- as lay off compensation. The petitioner further sought a direction against the respondents for detailing the petitioner on any scheduled flight for a mandatory route check. 2. An ad-interim order was passed by the Industrial Court in complaint (ULP) No. 474 of 1997 by which the respondents herein were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lacs in Court or to furnish a solvent security for the same amount and a further direction was given to the respondents to detail ...

Shripat C. Mahajan Vs. Sanjay Radheshyam Jaiswal and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2002Bom211; 2002(2)ALLMR769; 2002(3)BomCR752

P.S. Brahme, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard with consent of parties.3. This revision application is directed against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in Civil Suit.4. The factual matrix of the controversy involved is as under :Respondent No. 3 had issued a licence to sell country liquor in the name of the applicant. Respondent No. 1 claiming to be the partner of the applicant in this liquor business carried out under the name of respondent No. 2 partnership firm. The licence which was for Ramtek area was later on transferred to Nagpur and the business was run accordingly by the firm constituted by the applicant and respondent No. 1 as partners. Respondent No. 1 claimed that by the deed of dissolution of partnership dated 14-3-2000 this partnership is dissolved and accounts have been settled and amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been paid to the applicant and the business has become proprietary concern of respondent No. 1....

Union of India (Uoi), Through General Manager and ors. Vs. Ram Pal Sin ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)BomCR509; [2002(93)FLR945]

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. These writ petitions challenge the order of the Labour Court passed while dealing with the applications under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). These applications were filed by the workmen for overtime during the half period at outstations. These writ petitions are being disposed of together by this common judgment as they challenge the same order.2. Writ Petition No. 581 of 1999 has been filed by the Union of India through the General Manager, Western Railway (hereinafter referred to as 'the employer') against an individual workman Rampal Singh. Writ Petition No. 573 of 1999 is a cross petition by the workman. Writ Petition No. 1375 of 1999 is a petition filed by 16 workmen against the employer challenging the same order of the Labour Court.3. The facts giving rise to these petitions are as follows :The workmen were appointed as first class coach attendants but asked to work in air-conditioned coaches on lo...

Vidyaram Steel Re-rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both the sides we find that the parent Order-in-Original No. 27 to 84/TECH/COMM/2000 dated 24.10.00 has been challenged by the appellant by way of filing Appeal No: E/264/01. In the application for stay filed along with appeal, the bench by order No. CII/1541-42/01WZB dt. 11.06.01 has fixed the appeal itself for final hearing and directed that the revenue shall not take any action to recover the duty by coercion. Since the present impugned order is consequent to the main order which itself is listed for hearing after dispensing with pre-deposit, in this case also we waive pre-deposit of duty and stay recovery thereof and fix this appeal for hearing along with Appeal E/264/01....