Mumbai Court July 2002 Judgments
Sh. Nishikant Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ258CAT
1. Applicant is challenging the order of the Director of Mines Safety, Dhanbad dated 3rd March, 2000 offering the post of Chowkidar to Respondent No. 5 by ignoring the legitimate claim of the applicant and not regularising him.2. The applicant was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Nagpur for employment as casual labour as Mali. The applicant appeared for the interview and was found suitable and selected vide letter dated 20.11.1987. He was thereafter appointed as casual labour on daily wages at the rate of Rs. 21.90 P. per day as per order dated 29.1.1988.Accordingly, the applicant joined service on 29.1.1988.3. On 21.2.1989, the Respondent No. 2 issued O.M. wherein guidelines were issued for engagement of casual labour and persons on daily wages.This memo indicated the number of casual workers in different zones on different work. A note was given below the O.M. indicating certain posts, that the work of gardner, Western Zone, Nagpur Pump Operator at Parasiai and Safaiwalas at Be...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Mrs. Dilnavaz S. Variava
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: (2003)87ITD113(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XX, Bombay and relates to the assessment year 1992-93.2. The solitary ground raised in this appeal projects the following grievance:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the transaction cannot be considered as an adventure in the nature of trade and hence deleting the addition of Rs. 78,540.3. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us and precedents relied upon. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was credited into the Bank Account of the assessee on 26-8-1991. This was stated to be realised from the sale proceeds of four paintings. The said paintings were disposed of in favour of Shri N.D. Sidhwa as under: 4. It was submitted before the Assessing Officer that the profit on sale of paintings was not exigible to tax under the head "Capital gain" or any other head of income as the paintings were purely...
Tag this Judgment!Kinjal Vasantrai Sangani and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR10; 2003(1)BomCR284
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. All the twenty-four writ petitions involve similar facts and common issues and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking directions to the respondent No. 2 to consider them for admission to the courses in Health Sciences in the reserved categories such as Scheduled Caste, Nomadic Tribe, Other Backward Class, Vimukta Jati etc. and not in the open merit category. Except last five writ petitions bearing lodging Nos. 1634, 1644, 1645, 1646 and 1647 of 2002, in all other petitions, we had issued rule and passed interim orders in terms of prayer Clause (a), thereby directing the respondent No. 2-Director of Medical Education and Research (for short DMER) to consider the petitioners for admission to the courses in Health Sciences in the reserved category, which each of the petitioners has claimed in his/her respective writ petitions, and not in the open merit category. Prayer Clause (a) is identical in al...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanaraj Lakhaji Kamble Vs. Education Officer, Zilla Parishad and ors
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR680; 2002(6)BomCR721
V.M. Kanade, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and is seeking an appropriate writ order and directions, directing the respondents to revise the pay scale of the petitioner in the category of High School Teacher since 1976 as per Schedule 'C', Part II (sic III), Entry No. 10 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. The petitioner is also seeking an appropriate writ, order and direction of quashing letter produced at Annexure No. 8 and the order produced at Annexure No. 9 passed by the Education Officer.2. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher with effect from 16-8-1976 and was given the pay scale of trained High School Teacher from the said date. The services of the petitioner were continued in the same post next year also from 1-8-1977 on the same pay scale as an Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary School.3. The se...
Tag this Judgment!Hitkari Trading Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Cus., Acc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC381Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) who has upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner who has classified "Esband endless conveyor belts type SAO 75" imported by the appellants herein under sub-heading 5911.90 of the Customs Tariff, rejecting the claim of the importers for classification under Customs Tariff Heading 59.10.3. Both the authorities below have found that the goods are endless conveyor belts. However, classification under CTH 59.10 has been ruled out by the authorities below on an application of Note 6(a) to Chapter 59 which excludes "transmission or conveyor belting of textile material, of a thickness of less than 3 mm" from the coverage of Heading 59.10, since the thickness of the imported goods was less than 3 mm. The contention of the importers that Note 6(a) will not be attracted in the case of belts is well founded. Once the provisions of Note 6(a) are not applicable to the goods in question the claim of the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Hardcastle and Waud Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: (2002)LC632Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both appeals involve a common issue namely, classification of a product described by the appellants herein as phenol formaldehyde resins and claiming classification under CET sub-heading 3909.51 but held by the department to be 'Other Phenolic Rosins' falling for classification under CETA sub-heading 3909.59.2. The demand of duty of Rs. 92,042.48 and penalty of Rs. 10,000/~ has been confirmed in the order dated 24-11-1997 of the Assistant Commissioner adjudicating the show cause notice dated 4-5-1990 which has been confirmed by order dated 28-4-1998 of the Commissioner (Appeals) which is the subject matter of the Appeal No. E/2731/1998.The other appeal namely Appeal E/1337/1996 stems from show cause notice dated 4-10-1990 raising a demand of Rs. 28,381.44 adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner by order dated 25-11-1994 wherein, in addition to duty demand, penalty of Rs. 1,000/- has been imposed, resulting in the impugned order dated 15-2-1996 of the Commissioner (Appeals).3. The...
Tag this Judgment!Nilkanth Ramji Akarte Vs. Nagpur Improvement Trust and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR630; 2003(1)BomCR168; 2002(4)MhLj706
V.M. Kanade, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 11-6-1987 passed by the Nagpur Improvement Trust whereby it has cancelled an auction in respect of the Plot No. 54(corner) which was held on 20-4-1987. 2. The Respondent Nagpur Improvement Trust had published an advertisement in Nagpur Times on 12-4-1987 for auction of certain plots in Khasra Nos. 20, 24 and 58 of Mouza Bidpeth on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said advertisement. Accordingly, an auction was held on the said date and before an auction, the terms and conditions of an auction were read over to the bidders and allotment of the land was to be made according to the said terms and conditions. The petitioner participated in the said auction and was the highest bidder in respect of plot No. 54 (corner) in Khasra Nos. 20-24 and 58 of mouza Bidpeth. The said auction was held on 20-4-1987 and the petitioner had given the highest bid for Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Fatoma Barimah Vs. Shri D. Rosario, I.O. Nccp Customs and the Stat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)54
J.G. Chitre, J.1. Ms. Fatoma Barimah, the convict has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 2001. The lady has prayed for suspension of sentence temporarily on the ground that she is suffering from excessive high bleeding. In view of that, a report from Superintendent of Yeravada Jail was called which showed that the said lady was sent for medical treatment in the month of June 2001. Thereafter she was sent for medical treatment recurrently but the report did not show that surgical operation was performed on her for curing her said disease. That necessitated calling an appropriate report from the Superintendent of Sassoon Hospital, Pune. Initially the report was vague and, therefore, for necessary clarifications which Shri Suryavanshi was unable to give, Superintendent of Sasson Hospital, Pune was required to be called for answering the queries of the Court and to give necessary information to the Court for deciding her application for suspension of sentence as she happens to be sentenc...
Tag this Judgment!New Metro Engineering Industries Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR1032; [2003]132STC3(Bom)
V.M. Kanade, J.1. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2565 of 1987 is challenging the validity of Section 15-1A of the Act on various grounds and also challenging the order dated May 13, 1986 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Unit I, Nagpur who had levied an amount of Rs. 5,720 as additional tax under Section 15-1A and also is challenging the orders passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal confirming the earlier order by an order dated September 10, 1987. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1641 of 1988 is also challenging the levy of additional tax under the said provisions of Section 15-1A on the ground that no additional tax could be levied and, therefore, the provisions of Section 15-1A were not attracted in his case.2. Since the question arising in both these petitions is the same, we propose to decide and dispose of these two petitions by common judgment. In fact, the Writ Petition No. 1641 of 1988 was admitted on August 3, 1989. It was directed that it should be heard with the Writ Petit...
Tag this Judgment!Leelabai Shionarayan Paturkar and ors. Vs. Laxmibai Mangoji Sakharkar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR102; 2003(1)BomCR64
S.D. Gundewar, J.1. Heard finally at the stage of admission by the consent of the parties.2. The present civil revision application is directed against the order dated 25-1-2002 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Nagpur, whereby the application for condonation of delay filed by the applicants came to be rejected.3. Non-applicants had filed Civil Suit No. 666/1997 against the applicants for ejectment, possession and recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits. The said suit came to be decreed by the learned Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur on 16-11-2000 and the applicants (original defendants) were directed to deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises to the non-applicants/original plaintiffs. The applicants were also directed to pay Rs. 540/- to the non-applicants together with interest thereon at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of payment. So also an enquiry regarding the mesne profits was directed.4....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »