Mumbai Court July 2001 Judgments

Mathbros Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application filed by the assessee also seeks waiver of deposit of penalties imposed on this two directors. On this being pointed out to the counsel for the applicant, he request that it may be confined to the deposit required to be made by the assessee.2. The applicant is engaged in the manufacture of galvanised cable trays used in laying of cables of mild steel. After fabricating the article it sends them to the job worker for galvanising. The rules as they stood at the relevant time require a deposit by the manufacturer of the value of the inputs, before they could be sent out to the job worker. The debit were reversed when the inputs were returned in full within the time specified. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner finds that this condition has been contravened. The applicant did not bring back the goods from the job workers but had them cleared for the job worker's premises. The invoice however did not indicate this to be the case.3. The main contention ...

M/S Jay Bharat Steel Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals have been filed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ahmedabad who dismissed the appeal of the appellants before him as barred by time. it is the contention of the appellants before us that the appeals field by the appellants before the appellate authority were within time and the appellate authority has wrongly passed the impugned order without even giving opportunity.2. To check up the correct state of affairs we called for the files from the Commissioner, Division 11. When we go through the file, in one of the letters it is specifically mentioned that on scrutiny of the records available in that office it wold be ascertained as to when the subject orders were issued and served on the parties concerned. We also saw the receipts in respect of certain orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The receipt does not indicate specifically the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner which has been seen by the Commissioner (Appeals) who passed ...

Bhargav S. Shah, Umesh Kumar K. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(140)ELT173Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These three appeals are against the order of the Collector of Customs, Preventive, Ahmedabad.2. The appellants are absent and unrepresented. We have read the memorandum of appeal and heard the departmental representative.3. the Collector's order was concerned with confiscation of quantities of gold, silver and currency seized from the premises in which Bhupendra S. Shah, Bhargav S. Shah, Shantilal V. Shah, Vasantben S.Shah, Ansuyaben B.Shah and Mina B. Shah jointly reside. In the order the Commissioner has found that the gold currency and silver belonged to Bupendra Shah. We have in our order dealt with appeal filed by Bhupendra Ss. Shah, Vasant S. Shah, Ansuyaben B.Shah, Meenaben B. Shah.The other three appeals were not listed on that date and therefore considered separately.4. The contention before the Collector with regard to the standard gold weighing 30 gms and primary gold weighing 96.1 gms was that they kept these in the house of Bhargava Shah, Bhupenda Shah's brother. Umesh...

Ceat Limited (Electronics Division), Mumbai Vs. Anand Abasaheb Hawalda ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR713; [2001(91)FLR802]; 2002(2)MhLj662

V.K. Barde, J.1. The respondent in Complaint (U.L.P) No. 519 of 1994, which was filed by the original complainants-respondents Nos. 1 to 6 hereinbefore the Industrial Court, Thane, has filed the present writ Petition challenging the order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Thane in the said complaint on October 24, 1996.2. The present respondents Nos. 1 to 6 original complaints Nos. 1 to 6 (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainants') filed a complaint alleging that the present petitioner-original respondent-company (hereinafter referred to as the 'company') committed unfair labour practice under items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. The complainants contended that they and others were the employees of company. The present petitioner-company declared a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the 'VRS') on June 30, 1992. T...

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Pratap Vishnu Dhuri a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)MhLj341

D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. The petitioner before the Court in these proceedings has impugned the correctness of two awards of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal dated 21st November, 1996 and 22nd July 1997 in a Reference to adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act'). By an earlier award, the Part-I Award dated 11th September 1996, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the disciplinary enquiry which had been held by the petitioner in respect of a charge of misconduct against the First and Second Respondents was fair and proper. By the first of the two awards which are sought to be impugned in these proceedings, the Part-II Award, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the findings which were recorded by the Enquiry Officer were perverse. By the second of the said awards, the Part III Award, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the action of the petitioner in terminating the services of the First and Second Respondents was not...

Deepesh Pakhru Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR640; 2001(4)BomCR637; (2001)4BOMLR500; 2001(4)MhLj636

H.L. Gokhale, J. 1. All these petitioners are graduate students, who have applied for the admission to M.B.A./M.M.S. course for which Common Entrance Test was conducted in the month of May, 2001. The interviews for the successful candidates were and are being held in the month of July, 2001. The petitioners were required to fill necessary application forms for these courses and while filling the forms, they were required to state as to whether they were claiming admission in the open category or for a reserved backward class.2. It is the admitted position that none of the petitioners mentioned in their forms that they belonged to any backward class. Since the marks of all the petitioners were quite low, there was no chance of their being considered for the interview in the open category. At this stage, they have tried to contend by filing these petitions that they belong to the backward classes and now they ought to be considered on the basis of this new information which has been supp...

Manipal Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Crc Carrier Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001]107CompCas288(Bom)

R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioners have prayed for an order under Sections 433 and 434 read with Section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, to get wound up the respondent-company alleging failure of the company to pay the debt to the petitioners to the tune of Rs. 1,77,43,273 inclusive of interest as set out in the particulars of claim and further interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 36 per cent. per annum from January 22, 2000, till payment and/or realisation. 2. From the averments in the petition, it appears that the petitioners are a finance company and have entered into a hire-purchase agreement with the respondent-company dated August 21, 1997, whereunder the respondent-company agreed to take on hire the machinery and to pay to the petitioners hire charges in 36 monthly instalments. It is the case of the petitioner-company that the respondent-company had executed a demand promissory note on the same date in favour of the petitioners for a sum of Rs. 2,08,50,000. The respond...

Baban Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)76; II(2002)DMC233

P.V. Hardas, J.1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/original accused in Session Case No. 110 of 1994, challenging his conviction and sentence passed by the Joint District and Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, convicting him for an offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for six months and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, is default to suffer R.I. for six months, respectively.2. A reference to the facts relating to the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offences is necessary. The appellant, who is convicted for having committed murder of his wife Nita, was married to her about 7 or 8 years back. According to the prosecution, after the birth of the eldest son, the appellant who was unemployed, got addicted to liquor and in an inebriated condition, used to assault his wife principally on account o...

J.G. Glass Ltd. Vs. Indian Bank and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR234

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This First Appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 28th February, 1989, passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune, where in by the suit was decreed against the Defendants in the sum of Rs. 10,70,760.25 ps. alongwith interest.2. Briefly, the facts are that M/s. J.G. Moulds Ltd. the Respondent No. 2 herein had applied for cash credit facility, key cash credit term loan and bill discounting facilities for its business and obtained the same from Indian Bank, the original Plaintiff. In that behalf the said Respondent No. 2 had hypothecated various movables in favour of the Plaintiff Bank. Original Defendant No. 2 M/s. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. was the principal company whereas M/s. J.G. Moulds Ltd. was its subsidiary. The said M/s. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. being the original Defendant No. 2 had fully guaranteed repayment of all dues of M/s. J.G. Moulds Ltd. to Indian Bank. It appears that the said M/s. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. had even ackno...

Basavraj @ Bablu Yallappa Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR226

S.S. Parkar, J.1. The appellant convicted under Section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac in default to suffer R.I. for two years has filed this appeal challenging the order of conviction and sentence recorded against him by the Special Court, Pune under the N.D.P.S. Act by the Judgment and Order dated 15.7.1998 in N.D.P.S. Sessions Case No. 10 of 1996.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is as follows:On 27.12.1995 A.P.I. Konde, attached to Vigilance Department at Pune, received information at about 2.15 p.m. that a person by name Basavraj alias Bablu Yellappa Pujari was selling gard powder in Laxminagar, Yeravada. After receiving information he made entry in the information register, scribed it on one paper and placed it before the Superior Officer and obtained permission to conduct raid. Two panchas were called and they were apprised of the information. The Police party, which included A.P.I. Konde (P.W. 3), P.I. Jadhav and pa...