Mumbai Court December 2002 Judgments
Voltas Employees Union Vs. Voltas Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)BomCR533; [2002(93)FLR731]; (2003)IILLJ31Bom
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. These Writ Petitions impugn the Award dated March 2, 2002 of the Industrial Tribunal made in a reference under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for permission to close down two units of Voltas Ltd. - the Petitioner Company in Writ Petition No. 2041 of 2002. The Petitioner Company in Writ Petition No. 2041 of 2002 has challenged the Award in so far as it refuses permission to close down their Research and Development Unit at Thane (hereinafter referred to as 'R&D;'). In Writ Petition No. 1957 of 2002, the Petitioner Union, namely, Voltas Employees Union, has challenged the Award of the Industrial Tribunal granting permission to close down the Cooling Appliances Business Division (hereinafter referred to as 'CABD') of Respondent No. 1 Company at Thane. Since these are Cross-Writ Petitions, it would be easier to refer to the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1957 of 2002 and Respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 2041 of 2002 as the 'Union' and the Petit...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmikant Tukaram Chaudhari and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(4)MhLj150
A.B. Naik, J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent of Advocates for the parties. Rule taken up for final hearing forthwith.2. This group of writ petitions arises out of a common order passed by the Collector, Jalgaon, on 3-12-2002.3. For disposal of these petitions, it is not necessary for me to refer to all the facts in detail, however, relevant facts to understand controversy in these petitions are as follows. The parties will be referred to as per their status in the Disqualification petition Nos. 1146, 1147 and 1148 of 2001.4. The petitioners and respondent Nos. 3 to 17 were elected as councillors of Municipal Council, Jalgaon. After the said elections, Municipal Council is constituted and from the facts, it appears that some of the members have parted from 'Group'/'Aghadi' which was formed at the time of general election. It is also not disputed that the provisions of Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1966 and the Maharashtra Legal Authority Members Disqualifications...
Tag this Judgment!Simplex Concretes Piles (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(157)ELT394(Bom)
ORDERH.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Mr. Kanade, learned Counsel, in support of this petition and Mr. Godhamgoankar, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The facts in this petition are almost similar to Writ Petition No. 324/1990 : 2003ECR143(Bombay) which we have decided today. The petitioner herein is a Civil Construction Company and it was entrusted with the works contract of setting up a factory shed for M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd., at Waluj, District Aurangabad. The petitioner was issued with a show cause notice on 20th January, 1989, alleging that with effect from 1st March, 1986, excise duty was payable and that they had manufactured excisable goods and the tax was not paid. The notice called upon the 1st petitioner to pay the requisite excise duty to the tune of Rs. 32,84,126.59 Paise and the penalty leviable for violation of the relevant statutory provisions. The 1st petitioner filed reply and submitted that what was carried on the site was only assembling of ...
Tag this Judgment!Special Land Acquisition Officer (2) Vs. Aventis Pharma Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)BomCR802
J.A. Patil, J.1. L.A.R. No. 18/78 is a reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act); while L.A.R. No. 30/82 is under sections 18 and 30 of the Act. The contesting claimants in both the references being common, they are being disposed of by this common order so far as the question of apportionment of compensation amount is concerned. L.A.R. 30/82, in so far as it relates to section 18 of the Act will be decided separately after the claimants adduce their evidence on the issue of enhancement of compensation.2. In L.A.R. 18/78, the following lands were acquired for public purpose viz. construction of Goregaon Mulund link road. The lands are situated at Village Nahur, Taluka Kurla at Bombay Suburban District.Sr. No. Hissa No. A.G.As. Area in Sq. mtrs.88 Part 3-20-0 14,17577 Part 1-07-0 4,76374 Part 0-24-8 2,487---------- ----------5-11-8 21,425 --------- ----------These lands alongwith other lands were notified for acquisition under section 126(2) & (4)...
Tag this Judgment!Shashikant S/O Suklal Baviskar Vs. the State of Maharashatra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: (2004)106BOMLR68
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The petitioner, who is an ordinary resident of Asiad Society in Tilaknagar area of Nasik city, contested the last election held for the Municipal Corporation, Nasik from Ward No, 24 and against a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe on the basis of a Caste Certificate dated 16.2.1982 issued by the Executive Magistrate, Jalgaon. He was declared elected in the said election and the said election was not challenged by filing an election petition. However, one Shri Nitin Arjun Pawar, who was one of the defeated candidates, submitted a written complaint to the Commissioner. Municipal Corporation, Nasik and on the basis of the said complaint, petitioner's tribe claim came to be referred for verification by the respondent No. 2 Committee, which is also located at Nasik. The said Committee, by its decision dated 30.9.2002, recorded a finding that the petitioner does not belong to 'Mahadev Koli' - Scheduled Tribe and as such his claim to that effect was invalidated. In additi...
Tag this Judgment!Minesh Shah Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT1139Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 7.5 lakhs each, imposed on the above applicants, we find that it possible to hear and decide the appeal themselves and hence after waiving the pre-deposit, we proceed to dispose of the appeals themselves with the consent of both sides.2. By the impugned order, duty demand has been confirmed against M/s.National Impex Corporation on the ground that they did not fulfil the export obligation in terms of the advance licence under which they imported the goods. As far as the present appellants are concerned, it is the case of the department that Shri Minesh Shah has sold the goods on highseas sales contract and endorsed the Bill of Lading in the name of M/s. National Impex Corporation and, therefore, he knowingly helped M/s. National Impex Corporation. As far as the other applicant is concerned, the case of the department is that he actively helped M/s.National Impex Corporation to sell...
Tag this Judgment!Hipac Auto Cylinders (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT859Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants received unmachined castings and after finishing machining etc., cleared them as automotive parts. They had filed a declaration in terms of Rule 57G declaring both inputs and finished products as under sub-heading 8409.00. Show cause notice dated 20-10-1995 was issued seeking recovery of Rs. 39,322/- as credit wrongly taken during June, 1995 on such inputs on the ground that where both input and final goods were described in the same manner and fall under the same tariff subheading no new product emerged and therefore there was no ground for claim of Modvat. Curiously in the same show cause notice the inputs were described as goods falling under sub-heading 7325.10 also. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. Before him the claim was made that part of the goods were rejected final products earlier cleared by them. Three more show cause notices were issued bringing the total duty sought to be-recovered to Rs. 1,27,29...
Tag this Judgment!Parenteral Drugs (i) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)(152)ELT93Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These two appeals have common facts and involve the same issue.These are therefore decided by this common order.2. Notification No. 171/90 dated 16-5-1990 provided concessional rate of duty on polyethylene when imported for manufacturing of aseptic packaging material for packaging of pharmaceuticals with the aid of Aseptic Form Fill Seal Machine/Machines. M/s. Parenteral Drugs (I) Limited were claiming benefit of this notification for imports of polypropylene and polypropylene granules. The benefit was subject to the following conditions, namely : "(a) the said imported goods shall be used for the purpose specified above; (c) the said packaging materials manufactured out of said imported goods conforms to the specifications laid down in Indian Standard 7803 (Part II) 1975; and (d) he shall pay, on demand, in the event of his failure to comply with the requirement specified in clause (a), (b) or (c) above, an amount equal to the difference between the duty leviable on such quantity ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Chaturvedi Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Nirmala Jaywant Patil and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)24; 2003BomCR(Cri)317; 2003CriLJ3824; 2003(1)MhLj981
D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard advocate for the petitioner, respondent No. 1 in person and the learned Additional P.P. for the State.2. Petitioner who is an accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has filed this petition for recalling the process issued by the Magistrate. The petitioner has approached the Magistrate for the said purpose, his prayer was rejected. He then moved the Sessions Court in Revision where also he failed and hence, this petition.3. Following submissions were made by the counsel for the petitioner: Firstly, according to her the main accused in case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') in the present case would be a Company, namely, Flex Industries Ltd. but since no notice was given to the Company as required by Section 138 of the said Act, no demand was made from the Company. The complaint is liable to be dismissed as in the absence of demand and notice and joinder of the Company, the accu...
Tag this Judgment!Super and Stainless Hi-alloys Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Bom236; 2003(2)ALLMR580; II(2003)BC228; 2003(3)BomCR62; 2003(1)MhLj1001
V.G. Palshikar, J. 1. By these petitions the petitioners have challenged the action of M.S.E.B. the respondent in denying the electricity supply connection to the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5196 of 2001 and put petitioner No. 1 in W.P. No. 295 of 2001 for purchasing sick/closed industrial unit in auction from the Maharashtra State Financial Corporation under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act. Since the reliefs claimed are identical, both these petitions from the Appellate Side and the Original Side are taken up together for hearing and adjudication.2. By these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the circular issued by the Respondent No. 1 on 19-12-1998 by which it was provided that the earlier instructions issued on 18th June 1993 by circular No. 518 was withdrawn. According to the petitioners the circular cannot affect the rights of the auction purchasers who purchase sick/closed industrial units under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act in a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »