Mumbai Court November 2001 Judgments

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....

Sampatraj M. Bothra Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application seeks restoration of the appeal which has dismissed by the order passed on 19.12.2000 by the Tribunal for failure to comply with its stay order.2. The applicant is absent and unrepresented. The contentions in the application are as follows. Out of the amount of Rs. 1 lakh which the Tribunal by its order dated 27.7.2000 ordered to be deposited, the applicant had deposited Rs. 25,000/- as fist instalment and hence by its order dated 15.11.2000, the Tribunal extended period for deposit of the rest by a month. By 19.12.2000, the applicant had deposited Rs. 25,000/- more. It deposited the remaining Rs. 50,000/- on 5.3.2001.Hence the appeal ought to be restored.3. It will be clear from the above narration that the applicant has deposited half of the amount required by the Tribunal almost after the initial time that was granted and three months after the expiry of extended time. There is no ground whatsoever shown in the application for this inordinate delay. It is difficu...

Bharatbhai B. Gala, Gujarat Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT169Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Duty of Rs. 12.20 lakhs has been demanded from Gujarat Industries, and penalty of equal amount are required to be deposited. Penalties of Rs. 35,000/- on Bharatbhai B. Gala, Rs. 15,000/- on Manoharmal B. Jain, Rs. 20,000/- on Kapoorchand M. Malvi and Rs. 10,000/- on Kamlesh M.Bhavsar are also required to be deposited.2. The duty has been demanded, and penalties imposed on the finding of the Commissioner that cold rolling of steel strips that Gujarat Industries undertook to reduce their thickness, resulted in the hardness of that strips and other technical characteristics being modified, as a result of which it concludes that the processes were not manufacture and the result product was liable to duty. The three persons on whom penalties under Rule 29A have been imposed had supplied on job work the strips that were subjected to reduction.3. In its order on stay application by Lalit Engineering Works (application No. E/stay-177/2001 in appeal E/185/2001), the Tribunal had taken note ...

Mahadeo Ramgonda Patil and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR180; 2002(2)BomCR110; 2002(2)MhLj370

D.B. Bhosale, J. 1. The petitioners seek to challenge the acquisition of their Jand for the purposes of resettlement of Dudhaganga Project affected persons. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing and setting aside of the notice under Section 4, dated 9th August, 1990 and Section 6 notification of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'Act of 1894'), as published in the newspaper on 29th November, 1990, qua their land Gat No. 1551 admeasuring 81 Ares, situate at village AbduI-Lat, Taluka Shirol, District-Kolhapur. 2. Now, before we look at the relevant provisions and consider the challenge made, it would be perhaps better just to state briefly what credentials of the petitioners are and what is the ground for this petition. The petitioners are the heirs and legal representatives of the original landlord Ramgonda Patil. According to the petitioners, their total holding is within the permissible limit and not liable to be acquired under the provisions of the Maharashtra Resett...

Jasbir Kaur Dhaliwal Vs. Nepc Airlines and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)BomCR514; [2002(93)FLR951]; 2002(1)MhLj606

1. The short question involved in this writ petition is whether the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) has jurisdiction to determine whether lay-off compensation is payable to the workmen.2. A few facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner was appointed as a Trainee Air-Hostess by respondent No. 1 on 16-6-1994. In October, 1994, she was promoted and appointed as a Line Hostess and was confirmed in the said post in Grade V on 1-9-1995. Later, the petitioner was promoted as Check Cabin Crew. Till May, 1997, the petitioner performed her duties as rostered. The petitioner continued to report for duty till June, 1997, however, no job was allotted to her as the aircraftwere grounded due to shortage of fuel. On 10-11-1997, the petitioner was given a letter of termination of service. The reason mentioned in the said letter for terminating the service of the petitioner was that she had refused to report for work at Ch...

Eagle Cement Pipes Company Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2002(93)FLR9]; (2002)ILLJ916Bom

P.S. Patankar, J. 1. The short question involved in this petition is whether the petitioner is covered under Section 16(l)(d) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereafter referred to as the Act of 1952), so that it can claim immunity from making contribution to employees provident fund for five years. The said Section 16(l)(d) reads as under:'16. Act not to apply to certain establishments.-(I) This Act shall not apply - (a)......... (b) ......... (c) ......... (d) to any other establishment newly setup, until the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which such establishment is, or has been, set up.' 2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner by his order dated December 13, 1989 has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not covered under Section 16(1)(d) and the Act is applicable to the petitioner since January 1, 1981 itself and the claim made by the petitioner that it is not covered till January 1, 1986 cannot be accept...

Anant Bapu Kharat Vs. General Manager, B.E.S.T. Undertaking and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ67Bom

Nishita Mhatre, J. 1. The short question involved in this petition is whether an approach letter under Section 42(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'BIR Act') can be sent after the period prescribed under Rule 53(1) of the BIR Rules. 2. The petitioner was employed as a Bus Conductor from February 1, 1978. He was issued a charge-sheet, inter alia, for unauthorized absence. An enquiry was held against him and he was dismissed from service on June 29, 1990. The petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the dismissal order. On July 31, 1990 the appeal was rejected. The petitioner filed second appeal which was also rejected on November 21, 1990 by the respondents. It appears that after rejection of these appeals, the union representing the petitioner approached the respondents to re-employ the petitioner. After several meetings, union was informed on December 11, 1991 that the respondents were unable to re-employ the petitioner. The petitioner then...

Girdharilal Radhakishan Madhyan Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR544; 2002(2)BomCR201

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, filed by Proprietor of Deepali Theatre, Ahmednagar challenges order Exhibit 'F' dated 23-10-1989 issued by respondent No. 2 Collector and District Magistrate, Ahmednagar, by which petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs.14,207.65 Ps. towards the entertainment duty on exhibition of tax free movie 'Salam Bombay'. Further amount of Rs. 1,634.15 Ps. is claimed by way of interest. Petitioner is also cautioned that in case of failure to deposit the amount within ten days, the amount would be recovered as if arrears of land revenue, in view of section 9 of the Bombay Entertainments Duty Act, 1923 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter the Act of 1923). Petition also prays a declaration that Clauses (f) and (g) of section 3(3) of the Act of 1923 are illegal and hence inoperative.2. Petitioner is the proprietor of Cinema House, styled as 'Deepali Theatre' at Ahmednagar and holds valid licenses in forms 'E' and 'F' gr...

G. Tech Stone Limited Vs. Bfil Finance Limited

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)BomCR271

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. The facts that are material for deciding this petition are that the petitioner is a public limited company, having its registered office at Chennai, engaged in the business of manufacture and export of granite slabs. The respondent is also a public limited company having its registered office at Bombay, carrying on business in finance and investments. 2. On 22nd February, 1995 the parties have entered into an agreement for the placement with the respondent of 540000 secured optionally fully convertible debentures issued by the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 95/- per Debenture, carrying interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum. The recitals in the petition show that the petitioner proposed to increase the paid up equity capital to a minimum of 300 lakhs and a maximum depending upon the conversion price and get the equity shares of the company listed on all of the recognised Stock Exchanges, or failing listing on the recognized Stock Exchanges in the over the Counter Exc...

Rashtriya Kamgar Kranti Union Vs. Darabshaw B. Cursetjee's Sons (Bom.) ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)BomCR519; [2002(93)FLR801]

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner had impugned the Award dated 20-9-1997 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in reference CGTT No. 1 of 1999.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:Respondent No. 1 company is engaged in clearing and forwarding business and various other related activities in the Mumbai Port. At the relevant time, respondent No. 1 engaged 62 workmen in their Barges Department. These workmen had worked for about 30-35 years with respondent No. 1. The National Dock Workers Union which represented the workmen at that point in 1989 signed a settlement on 14-8-1989 with respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 agreed not to retrench any workman. Thereafter a group of workmen joined the Transport Dock Workers Union. On 5-6-1990, respondent No. 1 displayed a notice of retrenchment on three barges retrenching all the 62 workmen of the Barges Department. A dispute was raised by both National Dock Workers Union as well as the Transp...