Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Dr. Haresh D. Ramaiya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ237CAT

1. This is an application made by Dr. H.D. Ramaiya, who had been working as Public Health Dentist with the Administration of Union Territory of Daman & Diu seeking the relief from this Tribunal as follows : "(A) The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to call for the records and proceedings of the present case and after exaining the legality and propriety thereof quash and set aside the orders at Annexure 'A-1 and Annexure 'A-2' and further direct the respondents to pay the applicant the arrears of salary for the period from 1.3.2000 till 14.7.2000 and accordingly also fix the applicant's pensions on the basis of the last drawn salary along with all consequential benefits. (B) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold and declare that the action on the part of the respondents in not disbursing to the applicant the salary benefits for the period from 1.3.2000 till 14.7.2000 is illegal and bad in law and accordingly direct the respondents to pay to the applicant salary for the period from 1....

Bakulesh T. Shah Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)78TTJ(Mum.)358

1. The President, Tribunal, referred the following questions for consideration by the Special Bench : "(a) Whether or not the income of a resident from winning of lottery issued by the State of Sikkim is assessable under the IT Act, 1961? (b) If the answer to question No. 1 is affirmative, whether or not the assessee is entitled to double taxation relief under Section 90/91 of the IT Act in respect of the tax deducted at source by the Directorate of Lotteries, Government of Sikkim under the Sikkim State IT Manual, 1948 ?" 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who is resident of India. During the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration, the assessee won the first prize of Sikkim Lottery amounting to Rs. 18,00,000. This money was remitted to the assessee after deduction of a sum of Rs. 1,79,088 towards income-tax as per Sikkim IT Rules. In the return of income, the assessee offered the sum of Rs. 18 lakhs as his income. However, he claime...

Shirish Finance and Investment (P.) Ltd. Vs. M. Sreenivasulu Reddy

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)BomCR419

Singh, C.J. 1. This batch of appeals has been preferred by the several defendants against the order passed by a learned Judge of this Court exercising original jurisdiction in Notices of Motion No. 3120 of 1997 and 3932 of 1998 in Suit No. 3910 of 1997 M. Sreenivasulu Reddy v. Kishore R. Chhabria [2001] 34 SCL 1. In the suit, the plaintiffs have challenged the substantial acquisitions of shares of defendant No. 12 by some of the defendants on the ground of the acquisitions being in breach of regulations framed by the Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI), which had come into force with effect from 7-11-1994. The learned Judge, by the impugned common order, made the notices of motion absolute in part. It was held that the plaintiffs do have a prima facie right to maintain the suit to seek a declaration that the acquisition of the disputed shares is void being in breach of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers), Regulations, 1994 ('the 1994 Regulations'). It has...

Janakalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. Windmill Hotels Private Limited

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2002]109CompCas311(Bom)

R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioner is a co-operative bank registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It has prayed for an order under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, to wind up the respondent-company alleging failure on the part of the respondent-company to pay the debt of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 36,90,609.30 inclusive of interest on the principal amount of Rs. 21,51,650.2. From the averments in the petition it appears that the petitioner-bank had disbursed to the company, the following credit facilities :(a) Demand loan of Rs. 10 lakhs on June 16, 1997. (b) Temporary overdraft of Rs. 5 lakhs in June, 1997/July, 1997. (c) Cheque purchase facility of Rs. 7 lakhs on June 13, 1997. 3. It is further averred that the aforesaid loan facilities were disbursed to the company for a temporary period and the same were repayable with interest at the rate of 19 per cent. p.a. with quarterly rests, on demand. It is further alleged by the petition...

Anandrao S/O Marutirao Deshmukh and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR326; 2002(2)BomCR655

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioners seek a writ of mandamus against the respondent directing them to place petitioners in the payscale of Rs. 145-250 with effect from 1-4-1966 (the date on which recommendations of Badkas Commission were given effect) to 31-3-1976 and in the payscale of Rs. 335-680 with effect from 1-4-1976 (the date on which recommendations of Bhole Pay Commissioner were given effect), and for payment of consequent arrears. It is also prayed that respondent may be directed to consider petitioners for promotion as Head Masters of Primary Schools.2. The petitioners base their claims on pleadings as under :Both petitioners by now have surpassed the age of superannuation and at the time of filing the petition, they were serving as Assistant Teachers. Both of them have passed higher secondary school certificate examination in or about 1954. Petitioner No. 1 has undergone junior primary teachers training for one year ...

Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Vs. Shahezadbee W/O Sheikh Jam ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR309; [2002(94)FLR479]

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the record.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.3. The petitioner challenges the Award dated 15th of September, 1998 passed by the Labour Court in Reference No. 71/92 on two grounds, namely, that there was unexplained delay of 10 years from the date of termination of services and the same was not at all considered by the Labour Court while deciding the matter and secondly that the Labour Court could not have ordered reinstatement of the respondent No. 1 merely on the ground of completion of 240 days in an year in the absence of service having been rendered by the respondent No. 1 in relation to a permanent post before her termination. Reliance is placed in the decisions of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra v. Dnyaneshwar Rakmaji Aher and another, reported in : (1998)1BOMLR326 , and another of the Apex Court in the matter of The Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. ...

Thambi Nasir and Etc. Etc. Vs. State

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003CriLJ493

P.V. Hardas, J.1. Appellant-Thambi Nasir in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2000 (original accused No. 1), appellant-Mehboob Nadaf in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2000 (original accused No. 3), appellant-Babu Shaikh in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2000 (original accused No. 4), appellant-Rajesh son of Pandurang Chodankar in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2000 (original accused No. 5) and appellant-Pallani son of Kamya Swami in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2000 (original accused No. 2) stand convicted by the Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji, in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1997 by judgment dated 7th January, 2000, for offences punishable under Sections 395 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months respectively. The appellants in these...

Commissioner of Customs, Vs. A. Shankar Rao and ors.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(149)ELT387Tri(Mum.)bai

1. All the above appeals involve common issues arising out of the single order passed by the Commissioner of Customs and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Visakhapatnam Steel Plant (hereinafter referred to as VSP) exported pig iron and non alloy steel products on provisional basis against application for advance licence for import of inputs for use in the manufacture of the export products.On completion of the export obligation, VSP was issued with 10 different advance licences details of which are found herein below: The licence at sr.no. 5 above was a quantity based advance licence while the remaining 9 advance licences were value based advance licences. These 10 licences were sold by VSP to M/s. Rupali Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (herein after called RAPL) vide contract dated 20.11.1993.VSP and RAPL moved certain amendment applications before DGFT so as to enlarge the scope of duty free benefits and the licences were a...

Agarwal Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For the reasons recorded below, we waive the pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 3,51,25,880/- confirmed against the appellants herein and penalty of equal amount imposed upon them and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself since the issue in dispute has been settled by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of J.K. Group of Industries v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla 2. The appellants herein have been denied the benefit of duty free clearance in terms of Notification No. 203/92 on the ground that they have availed input stage credit which is contrary to the condition laid down in Clause (v)(a) of the Notification mentioned above. It is the contention of the appellants that they are not the importers of the goods and, therefore, if there was any non levy or short levy of duty, that levy should be against the importers and not against the appellants herein.3. We find that the Bills of Entry relevant to the present case which are before us show that M/s. Adani Exports (not the appellants...

Surelia Engineering Works, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Duty demand of Rs. 1,33,450/- has been confirmed on plam oil machinery manufactured by the applicants herein and penalty of Rs. 4,000/- has been imposed upon them.2. The duty demand arises as a result of classification of the goods under Chapter 84.79 which covers "machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions not specified or included elsewhere in the Chapter" rejecting the applicants' claim for classification under heading 84.37 which covers "machines for cleaning, sorting or grading seed, grain or dried leguminous vegetables, machinery used in milling industries or for the working of cereals or dried leguminous vegetables other than farm type machinery." It is the contention of the applicants that the goods are covered under heading 84.37 for the reasons that they are used for sorting and grading of plam fruit. Benefit of Notification No. 56/95 was also claimed by the applicants.3. On hearing the ld. counsel and the ld. departmental representative, we find that ...