Mumbai Court February 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rajaram Rama Hargule Vs. P.W. Bhuyar, Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR352; [2003(96)FLR115]
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner-workman challenging the Award of the Labour Court dated 19-3-1994 which rejects the reference for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages.2. The petitioner was employed as a Weaver from 14-11-1981 with respondent No. 2. It was the case of the petitioner that his services were terminated on 11-8-1984 without a notice, charge-sheet or enquiry. Therefore, he approached the Government Labour Officer for redressal of his grievance. Thereafter, the dispute was taken up in conciliation which resulted in failure. A reference was made for adjudication before the Labour Court. Evidence was led before the Labour Court. The petitioner examined himself wherein he stated that on 11-8-1984, he had been refused work by respondent No. 2 and no notice, compensation or charge-sheet was issued to him. In the cross-examination of the workman, it was established that respondent No. 2 had closed down its concern on accou...
Romit Resins Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)(142)ELT655Tri(Mum.)bai
1. On hearing both sides, the appeal was admitted and was taken up for final disposal.2. The appellants are job workers who do not discharge the burden of duty on the final products. They, however, took credit of duty paid on the inputs used in the job work. They debited duty of Rs. 18,235/- on 28-12-98. At a later date i.e. on 23-6-99, they filed a claim for refund. The Dy. Commissioner citing Board's order held that the refund was not admissible. Against this order, the appellants filed an appeal.In their memorandum to the Commissioner (Appeals), they raised a number of legal issues. The Commissioner, however, did not go into any of the aspects but dismissed their appeal holding that the appellants had paid the amount and that the later grievance was not permissible. Hence the appeal.3. Since the refund claim was filed within time, the question of grievance or protest by the assessee, does not enter into deliberation.What was required of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was to deal wi...
Bhor Steel Grip Tapes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune-ii
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)(143)ELT372Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants manufacture insulation tapes which were packed in PVC cups. The cups were purchased from the market. The packing of the tapes was done by job worker situated outside the factory of the appellants.For sending the tapes to the job worker, the assessee had resorted to the provisions of Rule 57F(3) (as it then was). In the proforma, they had mentioned only the tapes as material going to the job worker and had not mentioned the packing material as required under Rule 57F(3).In the separate communication dated 12-9-94 also it was mentioned that the tapes were cleared on payment of duty for packing without mentioning that packing materials viz. cups were also being sent.2. Show cause notice dated 10-5-96 sought to recover Modvat credit taken on the packing material on the ground that these were cleared as such without payment of duty. Before the Asstt. Commissioner, the plea made was that these goods were sent for packing and that the cost of packing was included for assess...
O.K. Cargo Craft Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)(141)ELT751Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In this batch of cases arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai the grievance of the applicants is that the order has been passed against them without granting an opportunity of hearing.2. On the earlier date when the stay applications were listed we had directed the learned DR to call for the case records which are produced before us today. For reasons recorded below we waive the pre-deposit of penalties imposed upon all the four applicants and proceed to take up the appeals themselves and we see substance in the plea of the applicants that the impugned order is an ex-parte one.3. M/s. Arbee Star Maritime Agencies Pvt. Ltd. are agents of the liner.Shri Bipin Vazirani is the Director thereof. M/s. Bahr Behrend Agencies Ltd., are the agencies of the liner in England, while M/s. O.K. Cargo Craft Pvt. Ltd., is the Custom House agent. The allegation of the department is that second-hand machinery had been imported under the cover of fabricated docu...
Bombay Dying and Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)(82)ECC120
1. The facts involved in this appeal peculiar and need to be stated fully.2. M/s. Bombay Dying & Mfg. Co. Ltd. had 2 units, one situated at Mumbai and the other at Jamnagar. These 2 units were separately registered as excise licences. The Bombay unit has purchased from M/s.J.C.T. Fibres Ltd., polyster staple fibre vide 3 Gate passes. These goods were purchased from August to September 1992. At the time of their receipt, the goods were not inputs in terms of Rule 57A. At a later date, i.e. on 1.3.94 these goods became eligible inputs.3. On 7.4.94, Gate Pass Nos. 593 and 774 evidencing receipt of these goods were endorsed by the Bombay unit to Jamnager unit. These goods under these gate passes were received by Jamnagar unit in the first week of April 1994. This unit had filed a declaration as required under Rule 57G of the Rules earlier i.e. on 16.3.94. The credit of duty paid by these two endorsed gate passes was taken by Jamnager unit in their modvat account on 9.4.94.4. In the sa...
Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Phoenix Mills Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: (2002)83ITD65(Mum.)
1. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A)-I, Mumbai dt.27th Nov., 1992, and raised the following ground; "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 31,45,526 being unclaimed outstanding balances in respect of previous years written back by the assessee in the P&L a/c without appreciating the fact that the amount written back is clearly income of the assessee." 2. In accordance with the order passed under Section 143(3) dt. 19th March, 1990, the AO has observed that the assessee has written back an amount of Rs. 31,45,526 on account of un-claimed outstanding balance pertaining to previous year. The assessee has not included in its income the said sum being unclaimed balance written-back. The assessee has claimed that the written back was a unilateral act on the part of the assessee and therefore did not amount to the income. However, rejecting the contention of the assessee the AO has treated the said sum as i...
Cerena Dsouza Vs. State of Maharashtra,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)639; (2002)2BOMLR375; 2002CriLJ4196
1. When this Revision came for hearing,preliminary objection was taken by Mr. Agarwal forRespondent No.3 that even though the High Court andSessions Court has concurrent jurisdiction toentertain Revisions, in view of the Judgment of thisCourt in two cases, namely, Judgment of JusticePatil reported in : 1998(5)BomCR546 PadmanabhKeshav Kamat vs . R. Kantak & ors. and anotherjudgment of Justice Lodha Tejrams/o Mahadeorao Gaikwad vs. Smt. Sunanda TejramGaikwad and others, this court should not entertainthis Revision unless exceptional circumstances orexceptional case is made out.2. As against this it was contended by Mr.Ponda that when concurrent jurisdiction is conferredupon the High Court and the Sessions Court it wasfor the litigant to make choice of the Forum andthere could not be any legal bar upon a person if hemoves the High Court directly without going to theSessions Court. He contended that if Revisionbefore the Sessions Court is dismissed then theparty cannot come to the High Cou...
Soloman Jacob Vs. Resident Deputy Collector and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR657; 2003(1)MhLj270
R.S. Mohite, J. 1. This Writ Petition impugns a judgment and order passed by the Additional Collector, Amravati on 22-3-1993 in Revenue Appeal No. 18/71(2)792-93 of Amravati, by which judgment and order the Additional Collector has granted permission to the respondent No. 2 landlord to give a quit notice under Clauses 13(3)(i)(ii) and (vi) of Rent Control Order, 1949. 2. The brief facts of the case from which the present petition arises are as follows:-- a) On 4-2-1987, the respondent No. 2--landlord filed an application for grant of permission to issue quit notice to the petitioner-tenant under Clauses 13(3)(i)(ii)(vi) of Rent Control Order, 1949. The substance of contentions in the application was that the respondent No. 2 was the owner of Block No. 5/1 in the Lokmanya Sahakari Gruhanirman Sanstha, Samadhan Nagar, Amravati. That the petitioner was his tenant, who had agreed to pay Rs. 500/- per month by way of rent. The petitioner had not paid rent since September 1986 and thus he wa...
Kamal Sahdev Karna Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR541
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has impugned the order of his dismissal dated 22nd April, 1988 and the report of enquiry and also order dated 14th October, 1988, passed in the appeal by the Appellate Authority of respondent No. 1. The petitioner has also prayed for direction to the respondents to reinstate him with full back wages and all remunerations. Respondent No. 1 is Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (for short 'the corporation'). The petitioner alleged to have committed serious misconduct by violating Clauses A(1), A(22), A(31) read with the conduct Rule 4(a) and (c) of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1976 (for short 'the Conduct Rules').2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows : The petitioner entered the corporation as a clerk in Administration Department in 1982. In 1984, he was promoted as Material Officer (Refining Division). On 21st November, 1986, one Mr. V...
Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)BomCR350; [2003(96)FLR108]
Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This petition challenges the order of the Industrial Court in Revision which confirms the order of the Labour Court under which the first respondent was reinstated in service on completion of 240 days.2. The petitioners employ workers on a seasonal basis during the year. In August 1988, the petitioners employed some seasonal employees including the first respondent herein. Letter of appointment indicates that the appointment was for a temporary period and for the season 1988-1989 which was to last for about four to five months. The services of the first respondent were terminated after the season was over on 15th December, 1988 with effect from 31st December, 1988. Aggrieved by this order, the first respondent filed a complaint before the Labour Court at Sangli under Items 1 and 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Labour Court held that the first respondent was entitled to reinstat...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »