Mumbai Court June 2001 Judgments

Kishore K. Shahani and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2001Bom351; 2001(4)ALLMR298; 2001(4)BomCR469; (2001)3BOMLR745; 2001(3)MhLj724

ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioners are challenging the legality and validity of the order requiring the petitioners to pay stamp duty at the rate prevailing on 9.9.1992 instead of rate prevailing on 30th May, 1997 on which day the Appropriate Authority had granted No Objection Certificate (N.O.C.) to the petitioners to purchase the suit flat. As far as the relevant facts are concerned, there is no dispute between the parties. On 9.9.1992 the petitioners entered into an agreement for purchase for suit flat for a price of Rs. 1 crore 80 lakhs. The petitioners and the vendors both filed 37(1) Form with the Appropriate Authority. By an order dated 29th November, 1992, the Appropriate Authority rejected the application and passed an order of compulsory purchase of the suit flat. The petitioners had challenged this order by filing a Writ Petition No. 2716 of 1992 in this Court. This Court set aside the impugned order of the Appropriate Authority and N.O.C. was directed to be issued. Purs...

Dadarao S/O Apparao Khatke Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR599; 2001(4)BomCR372; 2002(3)MhLj863

A.P. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.3. These three petitions are disposed of by this common judgment as they involve a common question of law and facts.4. The petitioners are members of respondent No. 4 - Society and the petitioners' names were very much included in the final voters' list. The petitioners, with a view to contest the election to the Managing Committee of the Society, submitted their respective nomination papers to the Returning Officer -respondent No. 3. The nomination form of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2350/1999 is rejected on the ground that though the petitioner is a borrower member of the respondent - Society, his seconder, by name, Bhanudas Govinda Waghmode, is from non-borrower category. The nomination form of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2351/1999 is rejected on the ground that though the petitioner is a non-borrower member of the respondent Society, his proposer and ...

S. Shabari V. Nawalkar Vs. Juhu Vile Parle Gymkhana and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR380; (2003)ILLJ376Bom

ORDERD.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. The First Respondent is a club, inter alia providing sports facilities to its members. The petitioner was engaged in June 1985 by a Contractor with whom the first respondent had an agreement for carrying out the operations in relation to the maintenance of the Swimming Pool. The Petitioner was engaged as a Swimming Pool Attendant. According to the Petitioner, she had made an application for employment on June 7, 1985 since she was informed by the first respondent to apply to the Contractor for being engaged in service. The services of the Petitioner were orally terminated on May 8, 1989. A reference for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was made before the First Labour Court at Mumbai by the appropriate Government. The Labour Court by its Award dated December 9, 1990, dismissed the Reference. The Labour Court held that the Petitioner was not an employee of the First Respondent and is not entitled to any relief against the Fi...

Ramesh S/O Gomaji Latkar Vs. Bishram S/O Devaji Chute

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)BomCR401; 2002BomCR(Cri)225

R.K. Batta, J. 1. In this revision, order dated 16-9-1997, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, is challenged. The complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act had been filed in which process had been issued and the accused/present applicant raised preliminary objections which were disposed of vide order dated 16-9-1997. When the matter was called yesterday, no one appeared for the parties and the matter was kept for today. Today again, no one appeared for the parties. 2. The first preliminary objection which was raised by the present applicant is that the complaint was not maintainable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called as 'the Act') since the same had not been filed within 15 days after the return of cheque on 11-7-1996 and that subsequent presentation and dishonour of the cheque on 10-12-1996 is totally irrelevant for proceedings under section 138 of the Act. This contention was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, ...

Dasu S/O Manikrao Shingate Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR314; 2001(4)BomCR363

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. None present for the petitioner.2. Heard Shri K.S. Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader, for the respondents.3. Perused the records.4. The petitioner challenges the order dated 28-8-2000 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Osmanabad rejecting his application filed under section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.5. An award was passed in relation to the acquisition of the land of the petitioner along with that of others on 12-11-1981. The petitioner accepted the compensation under protest reserving his right to apply for enhancement of compensation; however, did not file any application under section 18 of the said Act. But a reference application, being Land Acquisition Reference No. 63 of 1984, came to be filed by one of the aggrieved parties, namely, Jalinder Satwaji Shinge, against the said award and the same was allowed by the Court by order dated 21-9-1988 and the compensation was enhanced to the tune of Rs. 6000/- per acre. On hav...

United Phosphorous Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs Acc,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is taken up for disposal with consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner finds that the goods imported by the appellant were not entitled to the benefit of the notification 203/92 for the reason that one of the conditions subject to which the exemption is available, that modvat credit should not have been availed of in the manufacture of exported goods, had been contravened.3. On the last occasion the counsel for the appellant produced a copy of the order dated 28.2.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Mumbai, adjudicating upon a notice issued to the appellant before us, proposing denial of benefit of the notification 203/92. In that order, the Commissioner dropped the proceedings after holding that appellant had produced before him evidence of non-availment of modvat credit. The department representative took time verify the contention of the counsel for the appellant that one of the licences, N...

Maharashtra State Electricity Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1.The application is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs imposed on the applicant under Rule 209A.2. The order of the Commissioner adjudicated upon a common notice issued to Elecon Engineering Company Limited and to the applicant. The notice proposed to recover duty from Elecon Engineering Company Ltd., and proposed penalty on it and the appellant. By a letter of intent dated 5.5.1998, Elecon Engineering Company Limited, contracted to supply and erect a coal handling plant in the thermal electricity generating station which the applicant was setting up at Chandrapur.The Chandrapur project was initially funded by the International Fund for Reconstruction and Development (the World Bank). Notification 108/95 exempts goods supplied to such projects. The Commissioner finds that the loan that was initially promised by the World Bank for the project was suspended on 22.10.1996 and the loan itself was closed on 30.6.1998. The goods were supplied by Elecon Engineering to the appl...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Pololefins Industries Limited,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the respondent was entitled to take modvat credit of the duty paid on plastic materials used by it to make bags which it used to pack polytethlene and ethylene vinyl acetate manufactured by it. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), relying upon various decision including that of Madras High Court in Ponds (India) Limited Vs. CCE 1993 (63) ELT 3 and of the Tribunal in Ashwin Vanaspati Industries Vs. CCE 1994 (70) ELT 754 has held that the exclusion contained in clause (b) of the Explanation to Rule 57A would to apply to this material used to make the packing material.2. The appeal challenges this conclusion on the ground that the plastic bags were themselves identifiable products and therefore cold not be considered to be intermediate product. The departmental representative reiterates this contention.3. This contention is entirely unsustainable. The ratio The judgement of the Madras High Court and ...

Fag Precision Bearings Limited, Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the liability to inclusion in the value of the goods manufactured by the appellant of the cost of ballpoint pen and calendars which it supplied to the dealers of its products on receipts of payment for them. The dealers inscribed on these goods their names and the name of the appellant and distributed them as advertising material. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has said that this cost is to form part of the assessable value.3. In its order in appeal E/3807-V/98 filed by the same appellant the Tribunal has, by applying the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Philips (India) Limited Vs. CCE 1998 (74) ECR 722, held that since the cost of the advertising material was recovered from the dealers, it would not be includable in the assessable value. The fact before us are identical. Accordingly, there is no case for inclusion of these amounts in the assessable value.4. In the light of this, we have not consi...

Jam Manufacturing Mills Vs. C.C.Ex, Mumbai I

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The counsel for the applicant says that the clearance from the Committee of Secretaries of the Cabinet Secretariat required for pursuing the appeal, the applicant being a public sector undertaking of the Government of India, is still awaited.2. Under these circumstances we dismiss the appeal for want of such clearance with liberty to the appellant to revive it if and when such clearance is receive....