Mumbai Court February 2003 Judgments

Gujarat Cancer and Research Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 1.45 crores approximately and penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. The duty has been demanded, and penalty imposed, on the finding of the Commissioner that the applicant, a hospital, did not comply with the condition relating to the treatment of the specified minimum number of outpatients and in-patients.2. Counsel for the applicant says that although there has been a shortfall in the treatment of outdoor patients to the extent of 2% or so in some of the years, this has been more than made up in the remaining years. He says that the condition relating to the treatment of inpatients has also been complied with in substance. He further contends that the hospital is a charitable trust, and the predominant part of its income is by way of grants from the Government of Gujarat.Four officials of the Government of Gujarat and two officials of the Government of India are members of its governing body. A request has been made to the Government of G...

Power Build Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant imported a consignment of 40 load cells, seeking clearance at Air Cargo Complex in Mumbai. The advance licence that covered the import of these goods, as well as other documents, had been registered by it in the Bombay Custom House. In accordance with the normal procedure, therefore, the Custom House issued to the Air Cargo Complex a release advice referred to as TRA indicating the balance in the licence available after taking into account the debit already made to it against the import made. The release advice was expressed in terms of rupees, and took into account the exchange rate that prevailed on the date of its issue of US$ 1 = 35.40. As a result, the department concluded that the goods were not entirely covered by the licence, there being a shortfall to the extent of Rs. 4,460/-. The goods of this value were therefore levied to duty, denying the benefit of the exemption contained in notification 128/94. The importer cleared these goods after payment of duty, an...

Smt. Laxmi JaIn Vs. the Dy. C.i.T., Special Range 11

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)89ITD470(Mum.)

1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) XXII, Bombay and pertains to the A.Y. 1991-92. Cost of acquisition of property which was sold by the assessee in the years under consideration is the subject matter of dispute before us.2. The facts revolve in a narrow compass. M/s. Indian Roadways Corporation, a partnership firm consisted of 13 partners of which, assessee was one of the partners. The firm carried on business as transporters and courier agents for more than two decades. There were disputes between various partners of the firm, divided into two groups, and the matter was referred to a mutually agreed arbitrator. Two group of the partners have agreed to resolve the differences amicably and accordingly, the arbitrators pronounced an award on 15^th October 1985, as a result of which, Jain group of partners (assessee is one amongst them) agreed to retire from the firm M/s. Indian Roadways Corporation w.e.f. the close of the business on 14.8.84, in...

Kumar Agencies (India) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)87ITD69(Mum.)

1. These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for asst. yrs. 1980-81 and 1982-83. As common facts and issues are involved in these two appeals the same were argued together by the learned authorised representative of the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative. We are deciding these two appeals together for convenience.2. Facts of the case leading to these two appeals, briefly, are that originally the assessment orders were completed for these two assessment years in which the assessee's explanations in respect of fresh loans were accepted. A search under Section 132 of the Act took place on 27th April, 1983. During the course of this search and thereafter, the Department carried out certain investigations. During the course of enquiry thus made, the following four cash creditors denied having made loans to the assessee which as per the assessee's books of account were as follows : 3. By application dt. 29th June, 198...

Maval Taluka General Kamgar Sanghtna Through the Secretary, Shri Premj ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR434; 2003(5)BomCR214

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Rule. Mr. Palkhiwala, learned Advocate, appears and waives service ofnotice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Mr. V.P. Sawant, learnedadvocate, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondentNo. 4. In the facts and circumstances, the matter is taken up for final hearing.2. This petition is filed by the petitioners as pro bono publico for anappropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside Resolution No. 6dated December 10, 2001, passed by Kirkee Cantonment Board, revoking anorder of suspension and reinstating respondent No. 4 in service.3. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 is a registered union ofMaval Taluka General Kamgar Sanghtna. It is asserted that one of the objects ofpetitioner No. 1 is to ensure that dishonest employees are not given any benefit.Petitioner No. 2 is resident of Kirkee. Respondent No. 3 is an employee ofrespondent No. 1-Board. He is Health Superintendent/Garden Superintenden...

Shahid Mohd. Yusuf Shaikh Vs. Shri M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1296

1. By this petition, the Petitioner ischallenging the order of detention passed by theCommissioner of Police, Mumbai dated 22nd April, 2002under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention ofDangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers. DrugOffenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinaftermentioned as M.P.D.A. Act) with a view to prevent thePetitioner detenu from acting in any manner prejudicialto the maintenance of the public order. On the verysame day, i.e. 22nd April, 2002 the Commissioner ofPolice being the Detaining Authority had also furnishedin pursuance of Section 8 of the aforesaid M.P.D.A.Act, the grounds of detention to the detenu. Whiledoing so, the identity and the particulars of certainwitnesses were not disclosed in public interest and theDetaining Authority had claimed the privilege withregard the same. 2. A perusal of the grounds of detentionindicate that as far as the Petitioner is concerned,three criminal cases have been registered against thePetitioner. In the...

Santosh A. Chavan, Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Directorate of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR431; 2003(3)BomCR10

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, Mr. P.M. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, appears and waives service of rule on behalf of Respondent No. 1. Mr. R.G. Ketkar appears and waives service of rule on behalf of Respondent No. 2.2. In these proceedings, the Petitioners are students of the Solapur College of Pharmacy, Solapur, which is affiliated to the Shivaji University. The Petitioners appeared for the First, Second and Third year examinations, as the case may be, of the Pharmacy Course in April 2002. The results were declared on 2nd July, 2002. The Petitioners are declared to have failed in respective examinations for which they appeared.3. The Petitioners contend that the percentage of successful students in the Pharmacy and Engineering examinations of Shivaji University was comparatively less in relation to earlier years and accordingly, a circular was issued by the University on 2nd September, 2002. A perusal of the circular on which the Petitioners rely would show that ex facie, the ci...

R.V. Dnyansagar Vs. Maharashtra Industrial and Technical Consultancy O ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR192; 2003(4)BomCR118; [2005]123CompCas520(Bom); (2003)IIILLJ348Bom; 2003(2)MhLj547; [2003]46SCL153(Bom)

R.M. Lodha, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for direction to respondent to pay him amount of arrears of salary from june 1993 until September 1993, the gratuity, provident fund, etc. with interest at the rate of 21% per annum from 1.10.1993 till actual payment of the entire amounts due and further direction to respondents to pay the petitioner's amount of Rs. 14,000/- towards encashment of earned leave for 46 days with interest at the rate of 21% p.a from 1.10.1993 till actual payment of the same and also direction to respondents to settle the account of the petitioner in respect of other allowances such as leave travel allowance, travelling allowance, maintenance of the office cum residence, medical reimbursement.2. The respondent is Maharashtra Industrial and Technical Consultancy Organisation Limited. Unless the respondent falls within the meaning of the State or Agency/instrumentality of the State within the mean...

Shri Shamrao Tukaram Naik Vs. Devchand College by Its Principal M.J. K ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR483; 2003(5)BomCR220; 2003(2)MhLj649

R.M. Lodha, J.1. The petitioner admittedly hails from Mattiwade in Hukkeri taluka, Belgaon district in Karnataka State. He has been appointed as lecturer in Devchand College, Arjunnagar, taluka Kagal, District Kolhapur in the year 1978 against the post reserved for N.T. candidate after he completed his post graduation. It is petitioner's case that he was confirmed in the said post in Junior College by order dated 15.10.1984. The petitioner's appointment and confirmation in Junior College is said to have been approved by the Deputy Director of Education. Thereafter in the year 1992, the petitioner was appointed in the senior wing of the first respondent college. That post was too reserved for N.T. candidate. In the appointment order dated 14.07.1992 whereby the petitioner was appointed in the senior wing of first respondent college, an endorsement was made that his appointment was on temporary basis and approval was granted only for the academic year 1992-93. It was also clarified that ...

Manohar Pandhari Deulkar Vs. Commissioner, Nagpur Division and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(6)BomCR462; 2003(2)MhLj209

V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is from an order dated 7th January 2003 passed by the respondent No. 1, the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur in Case No. 50/2002 holding that the petitioner has incurred disqualification under Section 16(1)(h) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short). The Statutory Provisions : 2. The relevant statutory provisions are as under :-- Section 16(1)(h) of the Act reads as Act '16. (1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a Councillor - (h) if he holds any office of profit under a Panchayat or Zilla Parishad orunder or in the gift of the Government.' Whereas; Section 40 of the Act is as under : '40. (1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 62, if anyCouncillor during the term of his office (a) becomes disqualified under Sub-section (1)...