Mumbai Court October 2003 Judgments

Bhalchandra Bhagwan Kalwade Vs. Education Officer, Z.P. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR231; 2004(5)BomCR429; 2003(4)MhLj1002

B.B. Vagyani, J. (A.S. Bagga, J.)1. Heard.2. Shri Bhalchandra Bhagwan Kalwade, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3158 of 1991 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Kanya Vidya Mandir High School, Ahmednagar conducted by Nav Vidya Prasarak Mandal. The petitioner was promoted as a Supervisor in June 1979 and his promotion was approved by the Education Officer on 16th October, 1980. By resolution of the Management dated 15-3-1991, the petitioner was further promoted as an Assistant Head Master w.e.f. 30-4-1991 and the petitioner resumed the charge of the said post w.e.f. 1st May, 1991. The proposal for approval to the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Head Master was sent to the Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune who by letter dated 3rd September 1991, rejected the approval. The approval was rejected on the ground that Kanya Vidya Mandir High School was a girls' high school and that being so, only a lady teacher should be appointed as an Assistant Head Mistress. T...

Shubhakaran Muralidharji Dhanuka Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR899; 2004(2)BomCR571; 2004(1)MhLj14

B.B.Vagyani, J. 1. Heard.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, taken up for final hearing forthwith.3. The petitioner started legal practice as an Advocate in the year 1968. The petitioner came to be appointed as a Notary under the Notaries Act, 1952 by the respondent No. 1 for Aurangabad district on 31-8-1988. The petitioner has been practising as a Notary since then and has got his certificate renewed from time to time. His last renewal was on 31-8-1997. Until 1999, there was no provision for removal of name for want of renewal.4. The Notaries Act was amended on 17-12-1999 and the period of validity of certificate is extended to five years from three years. According to the petitioner, the amendment is retrospective in application.5. On 31-8-2000, the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondents and asked to inform him whether the certificate granted to him stands renewed for five years as per the amended provision or he has to apply afresh together with t...

Sandvik Asia Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)BomCR287; [2004]121CompCas58(Bom); [2004]50SCL413(Bom)

S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. By this Petition, the Petitioner M/s. Sandvik Asia Limited is seeking sanction and confirmation by this Court with regard to the Special Resolution passed by the Petitioner Company's shareholders at its Extra-Ordinary General Meeting held on 13th June, 2003 for reduction of its share capital.2. It appears that the aforesaid M/s. Sandvik Asia Limited had proposed the resolution for reduction of paid-up equity share capital to the effect that the share capital be reduced by paying off/returning to the holders of equity shares other than the promoters (viz. Sandvik AB & Sandvik Finance BV), at the rate of Rs. 850/- per share, i.e. Rs. 100 by way of face value plus Rs. 750 by way of premium, per share, thereby extinguishing all such shares. It appears that the said Sandvik AB and Sandvik finance BV, held 95.54% of equity share capital in the said Company. In pursuance of the aforesaid proposal, the resolution was passed by the Company at its Extra Ordinary General M...

Sanjay Kisan Kadse Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)MhLj789

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Shri Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sonare, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.2. Shri Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner is undergoing sentence of life imprisonment in the Central Prison, Amravati. The petitioner applied for furlough leave to the competent Authority and same is rejected vide order dated 5-7-2003 on the basis of adverse Police report. It is contended that adverse Police report is simply based on the statements of the persons, who were examined by the prosecution as prosecution witnesses in the criminal trial of the petitioner. It is further contended that this cannot be a ground for rejecting the furlough leave application and the order of rejection of furlough leave application passed by the competent Authority is not sustainable in law as the contingencies, which are required to be considered while deciding the furlo...

Dy. Cit Vs. Neelkanth Builders (P) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)87TTJ(Mumbai)287

ORDERA.D. Jain, J.M.Common issue of deletion of addition attributable to on-money component received on sale of flat is involved in these six appeals filed by the department for assessment years 1989-90 to 1994-95. As such, they are being disposed of by this single common order.2. The learned authorised representative for the assessee has addressed arguments based on the assessment year 1994-95. Accordingly, we shall take this year as the focal year for the purposes of this order.3. The assessee- company carries on the business of construction of residential flats at Surat. There was a search and seizure operation at the residential premises of one of the directors of the assessee- company, namely, Shri Shailendra Kumar Agarwal at Surat, on 31-2-1994 (sic). During the course of search and seizure proceedings, a small paper (hereinafter referred to as the 'Chit') containing the details of sales of flats in Sarita Building, was seized as per Sr. No. 23, p. 25 of the seized material. The ...

Windals Auto Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(165)ELT465Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for stay and waiver of pre-deposit of duty demanded and penalty imposed arose out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who, while upholding the order of the Deputy Commissioner insofar as the duty demanded is concerned, has reduced the penalty to Rs.5,000/-. The applicants' plea is that they have a strong prima facie case in their favour and therefore the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) should be stayed and deposit of duty and penalty waived.2. The facts are that the applicants are manufacturers of motor vehicle parts falling under sub-heading 8708.00. They manufacture assembly fifth wheel coupling and assembly link rod. They receive coupling plates from M/s. Telco Ltd. free of cost as input. They include the value of the coupling plates in the value of their final products which consist of the coupling plates in question. In their declaration dated 26.9.2000, the cost declared of the coupling plates received from M/s.Telco Ltd. free of cost as input, is r...

Prakash Cotton Mills Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC466

1. The dispute in the present appeal revolves around the claim for refund filed by the appellants, which stands rejected by the authorities below on the ground of time-bar.1.1. As per facts on record, the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of various excisable goods during the period from 1.4.92 to 12.5.94. The appellants paid duty on the yarn used in the manufacture of fabrics which are exported. It is an admitted position that during the relevant period, the appellants, though had applied for 10056 E.O.U. approval, were not having the said status, which was granted to them only on 13.5.94. With the grant of 100% E.O.U., the appellants became entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 123/81 dated 2.6.81. However, during the period in question, they were clearing the goods on payment of duty pending approval of their unit as 100% E.O.U. The appellants claimed the refund of duty paid during the period from 1.1.92 to 12.5.94 under their Refund Application dated 3-8.9...

Savita Organic Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(111)LC919Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing the SDR and considering the written submission it is found: a) There is force in the grounds taken by appellants that the lower authorities have failed to understand the meaning of the term 'packing materials' for denying them the modvat credit on "L-Ring HDPE Barrels" and "HDPE Barrels closed mouth" as input received by them, on which credit was availed on the grounds that no declaration was filed for the above said item. b) When end use of the said inputs and duty paying nature is not questioned, then declaration as filed for "L-Ring HDPE Barrels'" and "HDPE Barrels Closed Mouth" would cover the words "Empty Plastic Containers" and "Narrow mouth caping containers", as found declared on invoices received. The views of the lower authority to the contrary cannot be upheld....

Prakash Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The dispute in the present appeal revolves around the claim for refund filed by the appellants, which stands rejected by the authorities below on the ground of time-bar.1.1. As per facts on record, the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of various excisable goods during the period from 1.4.92 to 12.5.94. The appellants paid duty on the yarn used in the manufacture of fabrics which are exported. It is an admitted position that during the relevant period, the appellants, though had applied for 100% E.O.U.approval, were not having the said status, which was granted to them only on 13.5.94. With the grant of 100% E.O.U., the appellants became entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification o. 123/81 dated 2.6.81. However, during the period in question, they were clearing the goods on payment of duty pending approval of their unit as 100% E.O.U.The appellants claimed the refund of duty paid during the period from 1.4.92 to 12.5.94 under their Refund Application dated 3.8.94. T...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT286Tri(Mum.)bai

2. Adjudicating on a notice issued to the respondent, the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the claim made by it for rebate of excise duty on tractors that it exported on two grounds. These were that there was a discrepancy between the description of the exported goods in the AR 4 application as "Mahindra tractor" and in the shipping bill and in the bill of lading as "farm tractor Mahindra," and that the duplicate copy of the AR 4 form was not delivered to the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities in a sealed envelope. The as-sessee appealed this dismissal and the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the description of the tractors is same and on his view that the Custom House itself would probably not able to sent such sealed envelop. He allowed the claim for rebate. Hence this appeal.3. The appeal addresses one of the two issues for which rebate was denied, the absence of the sealed envelope containing duplicate copy of AR 4 form contending that this requirement cannot be dispensed ...