Mumbai Court March 2001 Judgments

Unirose Textile Processors, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC696

1. The applicants have filed three appeals against the order of adjudication dated 27.6.2000 whereby duty amount of Rs. 74,43,689 was confirmed. A penalty of equal amount has been imposed in terms of Section 11AC on the assessee, i.e. the applicant in appeal No.3058/2000. The other two appeals, namely appeal nos. 3060 & 3061 have been filed by Shakil G. Shirgave and Shahajahan G. Shirgave against the imposition of penalty of rupees five lakhs and rupees ten lakhs in terms of Rule 209A.2. The assessee is processor of man made fabrics, cotton fabrics and other fabrics. On 1.2.1996 officers of the Central Excise department visited the factory and they observed inter alia that there were gods which were fully. manufactured, yet they were not accounted for in the respective registers. The officers after examining various persons which included traders, merchants who have supplied grey fabrics, drivers who transported the goods which resulted in issuance of show cause notice dated 31.10...

B.A. Shelar Vs. M.S. Menon and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)812; (2001)3BOMLR63; 2002CriLJ788; 2001(3)MhLj105

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. On a reference made by Mr. B. A. Shelar. Metropolitan Magistrate, 21st Court, Bandra, Mumbai, under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of the Courts Act to this Court, for taking cognizance of the criminal contempt committed by M. S. Menon, Advocate, a Division Bench of this Court (Coram : G. D. Patil, and A. M. Khanwilkar. J.J.) vide its order dated 4.12.2000, issued notice to M. S. Menon, Advocate.2. The factual matrix from which this notice arises, in short, is as under :In the Court of Mr. B. A. Shelar. Metropolitan Magistrate. 21st Court, Bandra, Mumbai. two criminal cases, namely. Criminal Case No. 4/S/ 2000 and 5/S/2000; both under Section 500/504 of the I.P.C., were pending. In the said cases, M. S. Menon, Advocate, made the following statements :In Criminal Case No. 4/S/2000 :-'I say that the Presiding Officer intentionally chose to overlook the above evidence as I have filed a complaint against him before SID & CMM and which is pending enquiry. I say that the pr...

Pragati Metal Works Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR555; (2001)3BOMLR228; [2001(89)FLR981]; 2001(4)MhLj646

ORDERR.J. Kochar, J. 1. The petitioner Company is aggrieved by the order dated 18th May, 1994 passed by the respondent. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, under Section 7(A) of the Employee's Provident Fund Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby it was held that the provisions of the Act were applicable to the present establishment of the petitioner which was rightly covered by the department as a continued business of the erstwhile establishment. It was also held that the petitioners were not entitled to infancy protection in terms of Section 16(1)(b) of the Act.2. After passing the said order, the learned Commissioner posted the matter for assessment of dues. According to the Respondent, the petitioners were in continuous business which was carried on by its predecessor (the erstwhile establishment) and having completed the requisite number of employees i.e. 19 in number, the provisions of the Act were attracted by the petitioner's establishment. It was the case of...

Bharatiya Arogya Nidhi Vs. Bombay Labour Union and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR118; (2001)3BOMLR809; (2001)IILLJ292Bom; 2001(4)MhLj64

ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. Ailing patients cannot be left ailing and unattended. Hospital beds are not the lifeless rattling machines in a factory which can be deserted by the striking workmen. To strike work in a hospital is to strike at the patients to deepen their unhealed wounds. This would apply to all - doctors, nurses or ward boys. Following this philosophy the Legislature did a wise thing to exclude 'hospitals' from the net of 'industry' and to take them out of the clutches of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. What was legislatively conceived was however administratively aborted. The 1982 amendment has not been yet brought in force even after 18 long years. The new century has dawned but the Executive is still groping in dark in search of courage to enforce the legislative mandate.2. It is clear from the Union's letter dated 29.12.1986 that the strike was not for any economic demands. Needless to mention that the Petitioners have severely suffered as a hospital at the hands of the...

Sarva Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Crompton Greaves Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR380; (2002)ILLJ190Bom

R. J. Kochar, J. 1. In its efforts to get butter for the bread of the 120 female workers, the Petitioner Union appears to have caused to disappear the whole loaf of the bread itself. These female workers certainly belonged to a class of haves-not poverty struck families, unfortunate and some of them even destitute women of the society. All of them were earning their livelihood under the economic shelter set up and provided by the social organisation viz. Shradhanand Mahila Ashram established by the dedicated social missionaries wholly devoted to the cause of social protection of those women who lose the family protection for one or the other reason and to enable them to become economically and thereby socially self reliant and independent.2. On a gross guess work in the air the Petitioner Union filed a complaint of unfair labour practice before the Labour Court under Item I Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the Respondent No...

Pragati Metal Works Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR295; (2001)IILLJ55Bom

R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner company is aggrieved by the order dated May 18, 1994 passed by the respondent, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby it was held that the provisions of the Act were applicable to the present establishment of the petitioner which was rightly covered by the department as a continued business of the erstwhile establishment. It was also held that the petitioners were not entitled to infancy protection in terms of Section 16(1)(b) of the Act.2. After passing the said order, the learned Commissioner posted the matter for assessment of dues. According to the respondent, the petitioners were in continuous business which was carried on by its predecessor (the erstwhile establishment) and having completed the requisite number of employees i.e. 19 in number, the provisions of the Act were attracted by the petitioner's establishmen...

Western India Spinning and Manufacturing Mills Vs. T.N. Mantri, Member ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR362; [2001(89)FLR626]; (2001)ILLJ1491Bom

ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The Maharashtra State Textile Corporation Limited, a State owned Corporation, has been making efforts to improve the economic viability of its Textile Unit at Mumbai, which was nationalised and entrusted to the said State Corporation to run it better than the erstwhile owners of the said Mills viz. Western India Spinning and Manufacturing Mills.2. It appears that the efforts of the Corporation have not met with expected success in recovering the Unit from its chronic sickness. In the revival efforts on the part of the State Corporation there are number of hurdles to be crossed requiring masterly skill in field of business and management acumen. Very often the bureaucratic character of the functioning of such Corporation makes it impossible to achieve its business aim. In the present case I may mention that the Respondent No. 3 a representative and approved Union for the Textile Industry in the local area of Greater Mumbai, under the provisions of the BIR Act 1946...

Subhash Amrutrao Dhone Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR785

1. Heard both sides.2. The petitioner was working as a Senior Officer incharge of Pakni Depot of SPCL, Solapur. A Transport Contractor made a complaint on 30th May, 2000 that the petitioner was demanding illegal gratification of Rs. 15,000/-. A trap was arranged by CBI Anti-Corruption on 31-5-2000 and he was trapped red handed while accepting part payment of Rs. 5,000/-. The petitioner came to be suspended on 1st June, 2000. A criminal case is filed against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and departmental proceedings are also initiated against him by issuing a charge-sheet dated 10th July, 2000.3. The petitioner is now praying that the said departmental enquiry be stayed. The grounds on which the said prayer made are first that the charge-sheet in the departmental enquiry is of grave and serious nature and complicated questions of law and facts are involved therein. Second that the departmental enquiry and the criminal case are based on identical and similar...

Prakash Tarachand Sakhre Vs. Ashok Pundloikrao Wajge and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001CriLJ3024

ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The applicant has approached this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the order dated 24-7-1997 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Criminal Revision No. 56 of 1995 as also for quashing order dated 23-6-1995 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Achalpur in Misc. Criminal Applications Nos. 121 of 1995 and 130 of 1995. By order dated 23-6-1995 the application filed by the applicant for handing over the vehicle to him on supratnama was rejected, but the application filed by respondent No. 1 for the same purpose was allowed. The trial Court, therefore, ordered that the vehicle in question be delivered to the respondent No. 1 on execution of bond of Rs. 2 lacs with a direction to produce the truck in the Court as and when required. This order was challenged by the applicant in revision before the Sessions Court in which respondent No. 2 raised objection that revision was not maintainable which objection was upheld by the...

Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. M/S. Asian Tubes Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

This appeal from the Revenue was argued by Smt. Arya. Respondents were absent and not represented.2. The assessee took credit on certain inputs on 02/09/1993 but filed a declaration under Rule 57H only on 20/09/1993. In this circumstances the credit was denied and penalty was imposed by the Assistant Collector. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision following the ratio of the judgement in Medopharma Laboratories 1995 (8) RLT 1005 and EMC Steelal Ltd. 1993 (44) ECR 215. In the appeal from the Revenue reliance is placed on Supreme Court judgement reported in 1991 (55) ELT 454 where the Supreme Court had said that where the procedural lapses were likely to result in fraud or collusion they should not be condoned. No contest is made of the cited judgements.3. I have seen the citations. I find the facts before the Medopharma Laboratories and EMC Steelal Ltd were identical. The ratio of both the judgements squarely applies. In a latter judgement (1996 (87) ELT 726) also a similar...