Mumbai Court June 2003 Judgments

Dattatray G. Sankhe Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)139; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)13; 2003(4)MhLj15

P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties in Criminal Application No. 1738 of 2003 and Criminal Application No. 1719 of 2003.2. The learned Counsel appearing for applicant in Criminal Application No. 1719 of 2003 has submitted that the bail granted by the Sessions Court to the respondent No. 2 i.e. applicant in Criminal Application No. 1738 is liable to be cancelled, as firstly it has been obtained by suppressing material facts. He further submitted that the Juvenile Court had released the respondent No. 2 juvenile accused on temporary bail. It is submitted that this fact was not brought to the notice of the sessions court and, therefore, by virtue of suppression of material facts, the sessions court had granted bail to the juvenile accused. He further submitted that the complainant is still in coma and has not yet recovered and that grave and heinous crime has been committed by the Juvenile accused. It is further submitted that the witnesses have stated in their statement...

New Hind Textile Mills Unit of N.T.C. (S.M.) Ltd. Vs. Rashtriya Mill M ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR848; (2004)ILLJ152Bom; 2003(4)MhLj412

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. Perused therecords.The petitioner challenges the Judgment and order dated 19-6-2001 passedby the Industrial Court dismissing Appeal No. 36/97 which was filed by thepetitioner against the Judgment and order dated 5-12-1997 of the Labour Court inApplication No. 83/94. The said application was filed by the respondents under Section 78 read with Section 42(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946(hereinafter called as the said Act) claiming permanency in the employment ofthe petitioner. The said application was allowed by the said order dated 5-12-1997 and the petitioners were directed to make the concerned operativesmentioned in the Annexure-A of the application as the permanent employee andthe appeal filed against the same was dismissed by the impugned order. Hence,the present petition.2. Contending that the six employees who were working in the electricaland mechanical department of the petitioner, had completed c...

Surendra Ramchandra Jichkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR856; 2003(4)MhLj635

D.D. Sinha, J. 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent ofthe parties.2. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the writ petition No. 813/02 which was filed by the respondent No. 4 herein was a Public Interest Litigation propagating the public cause on behalf of Depty Signal Manila Mandal, Nagpur. In the writ petition, the petitioner wanted to canvas that in view of the location of the liquor shop of the appellant, there is a problem created for the residents of that locality and with a view to overcome the problem faced by the residents of the locality, the respondent No. 4 filed a writ petition No. 813/03 in the public interest. The observations in paragraph 14 of the impugned order by the learned Single Judge clearly demonstrate that the writ petition was in public interest and the learned Single Judge has entertained the same as Public Interest Litigation. 3. On the backdrop of these undisputed facts, it is absolutely clear to us that the writ petition No. 813/02 was a...

Mukesh Gupta Vs. Sicom Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom104; 2003(4)ALLMR112; II(2004)BC470; 2004(2)BomCR290; 2004(1)CTLJ311(Bom); 2004(1)MhLj159

A.P. SHAH, J.1. This Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 4-12-2002 passed by Deshmukh, J. in Summons for Judgment No. 466 of 2000 in Summary Suit No. 2805 of 1999.2. The appellant is defendant and respondent is plaintiff-SICOM. respondent had entered into an Agreement dated 10-1-1995 with Lloyd Finance Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the 'company'. Under that contract an amount of Rs. 10 crores was advanced as a loan to the company. It was repayable in two instalments of Rs. 5 crores each commencing at the end of two years from the date of distribution of the said loan. The loan was disbursed on 10-1-1995. Accordingly, the said loan was repayable in two equal instalments of Rs. 5 crores each, on 5-1-1997 and 5-1-1998. The company paid first instalment i.e. Rs. 5 crores on the due date. However, the company committed default in payment of second instalment. One of the terms of the agreement between the respondent and the company was that the appellant gives an irr...

Sanjay D. Gupta Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)91TTJ(Mumbai)796

ORDERSatish Chandra, A.M.:The appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18-11-1997, of the Commissioner (Appeals)-XXXVII, Mumbai, whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed by the assessing officer under section 271(l)(c) of the Act read with Expln. 1 thereunder for the assessment year 1995-96,2. The facts in brief are these : The assessee is an individual whose sources of income are income from house property, business income and income from other sources. For the assessment year 1995-96, the previous year of which ended on 31-3-1994, he filed his return declaring income of Rs. 2,96,640 on 26-10-1995, declaring therein, inter alia, long-term capital loss of Rs. 1,33,583. The assessing officer found that the assessee declared profit of Rs. 15,33,846 on the sale of his land at Panvel. However, this gain on sale of land was not offered for taxation on the ground that it pertains to sale of agricultural land and is therefore, not taxab...

South Asia Tyres Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. South Asia Tyres Limited, Waluj, is engaged in the manufacture of tyres for Ceat. Among the material required for manufacture of tyres is rubberised tyre cord. This is obtained by coating with rubber the bare tyre cord fabrics on which is generally made out of nylon or rayon.2. The assessee purchased the bare tyre cord fabrics from its manufacturer and sent it to the factory of Ceat, Bhandup under Rule 57F(3) for conversion into dip or rubberised tyre cord. After this was done it utilised the dipped tyre cord rubber fabrics which it received in the manufacture of tyres. The notice issued to it noted that while goods manufactured in a factory and captively consumed therein were exempted from payment of excise duty by notification 67/95 that exemption did not extended to the additional duty of excise leviable under the Additional Duty of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. Therefore is proposed to recover such duty from the appellant for the fabrics that it received durin...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Grauer and Weil (India) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT385Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These six appeals are against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay II.2. In that order, the Commissioner, adjudicating on a notice issued to Grauer & Weil (India) Ltd. the assessee, and to Umesh More, Vasant Kulkarni, Suresh Parekh, (its Managing Director, Vice President, and President), Balkrishna Agarwal, proprietor of Hi-Fin Industries (Hi-Fin for short) and Satish Shirodkar, its manager. The notice alleged that Grauer & Weil supplied to Hi-Fin inter alia partially manufactured electroplating chemicals at a much lower value than the actual value; Hi-fin completed the process required to make the electroplating processes and sent them back to Grauer & Weil, after paying duty at the lower value than it ought to have. Grauer & Weil thereafter sold these goods at a much higher price. The notice alleged that Hi-fin was a dummy and attributed the activities that it stated to have carried out to Grauer & Weil. Penalties were therefore proposed for...

Micro Melt Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri P.V. Sheth, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the period involved is 1996-1997 to 31st December, 1998 and January 1999 to March 2000. The duty demand for the first period is Rs. 77,177/- and an equal amount of penalty has been imposed. Further amount of penalty of Rs. 30,000/- has been imposed under Rule 172Q. For the second period the duty demand is Rs. 1,18,611/- and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- has been imposed as penalty under Rule 173Q. He also submitted that Show Cause Notice for the first period was issued on 05/10/1999 which is clearly beyond the permissible period and as such the same is time barred. As regards the second period two show cause notices dtd.14/09/1999 and 10/02/2000 were issued which are well within the time limit. His contention is that for the first time a letter in November 2000 was issued asking for the cost accountant certificate. The said letter was received after the order in original has already been passed and as su...

White Silco Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(156)ELT481Tri(Mum.)bai

1. By orders passed on 20-12-01 on the stay application filed by the applicant, the Tribunal directed a deposit of duty of Rs. 1 lakh out of amount of duty required to be deposited of Rs. 2.35 lakhs, such deposit to be made within a month from the receipt of the order and compliance to be reported on 21-2-2002. On that day, the applicant was absent and unrepresented. The application which had been filed by the applicant, showed that Rs. 50,000/- had been deposited, and requested time for a month till the end of the financial year 2001-02 to deposit the amount."The Appellant assure your Lordships to deposit the said balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- in the first week of April 2002." Although no specific reasons had been given in view of the fact that half of the amount had been deposited and a specific assurance of the applicant, the Tribunal passed orders providing a further time of 10-4-2002 for deposit of the amount. On 16-4-2002 when compliance was to be reported, there was nobody alt...

Balaleshwar Shikshan Mandal and anr. Vs. Jaywant Bhaguji Gadekar and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR108; 2004(1)BomCR421

A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. Pursuant to the notice issued on 22.10.2002 this matter is posted today for final disposal. The Respondents have been duly served. Parties have exchanged their pleadings. Arguments of the Counsel for the parties were advanced for final disposal in consent. In the circumstances, Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. 2. This Writ Petition under Article 227 takes exception to judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal, Pune Region, dated 25.6.2002 in Appeal No. 104 of 1998. 3. Briefly stated, the Respondent No. 1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Petitioner School. Initially, appointment of the Respondent No. 1 was on temporary basis against reserved post. The Tribunal has, however, found that letter Exhibit-19 the Respondent No. 1 was appointed against clear and permanent vacancy on probation. Be that as it may, certain complaints were received against the Respondent No. 1 from the students regarding his misbehaviour. In the wake of these ...