Mumbai Court November 2001 Judgments

Laxmichand Kalyanji Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2002Bom217; (2002)3BOMLR518; 2002(2)MhLj210

V.C. Daga, J.1. Heard parties.Perused record and proceedings.These two appeals are directed against the two identical judgments and decrees passed by the Learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai in two different suits bearing L. C. Suit Nos. 638 and 639 of 2001, whereby the suits have been dismissed.FACTS 2. The facts, in nutshell, are :The parties are different but the issues are identical, so a single judgment will dispose of both appeals. In the suits, challenge was to two shove-cause-notices both, dated 23rd May 1994 issued under Section 351 of the BombayMunicipal Corporation Act ('BMC Act' for short) by the respondent/ corporation to the respective appellants calling upon them to show cause as to why unauthorised extensions made by them to their existing shops should not be removed or demolished. The said two show cause notices after hearing the respective notices culminated in two separate orders, both dated 2nd September 1994, passed by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner of Greate...

Dom Fernandez Vs. V.M. Shevade and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)MhLj281

D.G. Deshpande, J. 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Menon for the petitioner and learned APP for the State/respondent No. 2. 2. Mr. Menon states that he has given an intimation of today's hearing to the office of the inspector Shevade as directed by this court yesterday. However, nobody is present for respondent No. 1. 3. The question involved in this case is, whether the petitioner who was original accused No. 3 can be said to be an employer within the meaning of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and welfare) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). The word 'Employer' is defined in Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act and also there is a definition of word 'Principal Employer' : 'employer', in relation to a security Guard engaged by or through an agency or agent, means the principal employer, and in relation to any other Security Guard, the person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory or establishment and includes any other...

V.H. Patel and Company and ors. Vs. Hirubhai Himabhai Patel and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)BomCR479; (2002)3BOMLR221; 2002(2)MhLj578

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The present petition by the petitioners is clearly an attempt to overcome the order of this Court dated 25th October, 1999 in Arbitration Petition No. 175 of 1999. That order came to be challenged before the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 1701, 1702 and 1703 of 1999. By order dated April 18, 2000 the said S.L.Ps. were dismissed.2. On 5th June, 2000 the present petitioners who were also petitioners in one of the Special Leave Petitions filed before the Apex Court lodged the present petition, seeking to invoke this Court's powers under section 31 read with section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The relief as prayed for in the petition reads as under:--'That this Honourable Court be pleased to determine and decide the effect of said Award dated 25th January, 1999, including the effect of the relief granted by the learned Arbitrator to the Respondent No. 1 Hirubhai Himabhai Patel under Clause (c) of the Order contained in the Award, and to hold that ...

Swati Vasant Patil and anr. Vs. Kandivli Education Society and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR333; 2002(3)BomCR51

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. The petitioners herein are two teachers working in the Junior College run by the 1st respondent-Education Society. The 2nd respondent is the Headmistress of the Junior College run by the said Education Society. This petition is filed to challenge the orders of termination dated 3rd July, 2001 issued by the 1st respondent-Education Society to both the petitioners. Respondent Nos. 4 and 3 are the State of Maharashtra and the Deputy Director of Education respectively. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are the teachers who are appointed in place of the two teachers after their termination.2. Mr. Mihir Desai appears for the petitioners. Mr. Panickar appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mrs. Kalyanram, AGP appears for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. Gangan appears for respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 6 is served.3. Inasmuch as this matter is concerning the alleged wrongful termination of the petitioners services and since the petitioners are keen in going back on their duty at the e...

Mangesh Janardhan Mohite (President) and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR660; 2002(5)BomCR653

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. These two petitions raise important questions of law with respect to some of the provisions of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'MHAD Act') concerning development of acquired land as well as the provisions of the Development Control Regulations of Greater Bombay, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the D.C. Regulations' or 'D.C.R.') and particularly Regulation No. 33(7) read with Appendix III thereof framed under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The petitions raise important questions concerning public policy as to whether the provisions of one beneficial scheme can be insisted to be implemented on lands acquired by the State under other provisions of a statute.2. These questions have arisen in this matter which is concerning a large property known as 'Pimpalwadi' having an area of about 5716.91 sq. metres (or 6805.78 sq. yards) situated in the Mugbhat area of Girgaon, in Southern Mumbai. It consists of...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Grade-o-castings Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner(Appeals) who has extended modvat credit on foundry fluxes and chemicals used in the manufacture of sand moulds and cores which are then used by the assessee for the purpose of manufacture of the final product viz.castings.2. On hearing Id.departmental representative and perusing the records, I find that the issue in dispute squarely settled by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ramakrishna Steel Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Madras [1996(13) RLT 162]. wherein the Tribunal has held that chemicals and resins used in making sand mould further used in the manufacture of steel castings are eligible inputs for the purpose of modvat credit as they are used in relation to the manufacture of the final product i.e. steel castings. The Larger Bench decision has been subsequently followed in a number of decisions.3. In view of the above, I see no legal infirmity in the order of the Collector (Appeals) and uphold t...

Steel Fab (India) Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

3. It is claimed that the facts are akin to those disposed off by the Tribunal in order No. C-I/2701-02/WZB/2001 dated 03/09/2001. On perusal of the order I find that the appeal is capable of disposal since the issue already stands settled by the Tribunal. I therefore grant waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 61,038/-.4. Modvat credit taken by the assessees were denied on the ground that it was not shown that the trader issuing the modvatable invoices was a distributor/dealer of a manufacturer. The order of the Assistant Commissioner does not show how the invoices failed to come up to the mark in the face of the categorical assertion made by the assessees that the invoices were in terms of the notification. The assessees have not placed on record the contested documents. Even then it becomes clear that they claim has merits. In that situation there was no case for the Commissioner to have insisted upon pre-deposit.5. The appeal is allowed and the proceedings are remanded back to the ...

Vallabh Vidyanagar Concrete Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants in this case had filed a declaration under Rule 57G for availment of modvat credit on 07/11/1988 duly acknowledged on 09/12/1988. On 1/10/1993 they left the modvat avenue and availed of another scheme. They switched back to the modvat scheme w.e.f.14/12/1993 on which date they filed an intimation referring to their earlier declaration. This letter was received by the department on 20/12/1993. The Commissioner held that the benefit was available from this date and not for the intervening period 14/12/1993 to 19/12/1993.In this date and not for the intervening period 14/12/1993 to 19/12/1993. In doing so she relied upon the Tribunal decision in the case of Wox Coolers (P) Ltd. v. CCE 2. On perusal of the judgment I find that it does not support the presumption of the Commissioner. With the intimation of going back to the modvat scheme is given the earlier declaration filed is revived and comes into effect. The date on which the department received the second declaratio...

Bharat thermite Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case modvat credit of Rs. 1,82,006 has been disallowed on ferro alloys on the ground that the assessee did not claim the benefit of confessional rate of duty under Notification No.1/93 dated 1.3.93 for this item. A further amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- has been disallowed on the ground that this amount of credit has been taken on aluminium powder which is exempted from payment of duty under Notification No.217/86 and, therefore, the question of availment of credit does not arise.2. Since the applicants have asked for decision on merits, I have heard the departmental representative and perused the records.3. The applicants have made out a prima-facie case for waiver in view of the fact that it is well settled that the benefit of Notification cannot be denied only for the reason that such benefit has not been claimed in the classification filed by the assessee and also for the reason that there is no dispute that the duty was paid by the applicants on aluminium powder and the appl...

Kaiwal Paper Mills Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are not present in spite of notice. The appeal is taken up for disposal on perusal of the facts and documents on record and after hearing Shri Shaikh.2. The appellants manufacture paper. Any manufacturer whose investment in fixed assets, plant and machinery exceeded Rs. 20 lakhs was required to pay cess leviable under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. In March, 1990 the unit exceeded the value limit and were required to pay the cess. However, such cess was not paid by them up to May, 1993. Demand invoking extended period was raised. The Commissioner adjudicated the case on hearing the assessees, confirming the cess of Rs. 49,691.94 and imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. In rejecting the plea on time bar he maintained that the proprietor of the unit had confessed that in spite of knowledge that the investment had exceeded the given figure he had continued to show the value as less than Rs. 20 lakhs in all assessment documents.3. In pursuance of the...