Mumbai Court July 2003 Judgments

Ravi Shekhar Bhardwaj and ors. Vs. Director General of Police, State o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2004)ACC320; 2003(4)ALLMR57; 2003(6)BomCR493; 2004(2)MhLj213

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Public Interest Litigation No. 87 of 2001 was filed in this Court on August 29, 2001 by eight petitioners. A prayer in the said petition is to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the State of Maharashtra and its Officers to implement and enforce Section 128 and 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Petitioner No. 1, as stated in the petition, is a law student. He was studying in the First Year of Master Degree in Labour Law and Labour Welfare Course at Symbiosis Law College, Pune when he approached this court. Petitioner No. 2 is Honorary Director of an institution which organised health awareness programme and engaged in imparting medico-legal education. Petitioner Nos. 3 to 8 are students of the College studying in Five Years' Degree Course.3. The cause of filing the Public Interest Litigation Petition, according to the petitioners, was an incident which they witnessed on 15th August, 2001. The...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sesa Goa Ltd.,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Bom)120; [2004]266ITR126(Bom)

F.I. Rebello, J.1. All these appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the same question of law arises in them, except for the amounts. The question of law as formulated by the Department reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled fpr deduction on investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, in respect of machinery used in mining activity, ignoring the fact that the assessee is engaged in extraction and processing of iron ore, not amounting to manufacture or production of any article or thing?'2. It is not necessary to refer to all the previous orders, except that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in appeal filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax against M/s. D. B. Bandodkar and Brothers on the issue of investment allowance had relied on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Gogte Minerals (No. 2) : [1997]22...

Wipro Limited and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]135STC503(Bom)

B.H. Marlapalle J.1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the circular dated February 1, 2000 issued by the respondent No. 2 purportedly clarifying the import of earlier circulars dated February 13, 1978, June 21, 1978, December 1, 1979, January 9, 1985 and January 14, 1988.2. The petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of consumer products like vanaspati and toilet soaps, etc., in its factories at Amalner in Jalgaon district in Maharashtra State and Tumkur in Karnataka State. It has been registered under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short, 'the State Act') as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Central Act'). The said products manufactured in the State of Maharashtra are sold not only in the State of Maharashtra but in other States as well and the raw materials required are also procured from Maharashtra as well as other States.3. ...

Cce Vs. Lloyds Metals and Engg. Ltd. and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(111)LC748Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeals arising out of separate orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) involve a common issue and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. In all these cases orders were passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur extending the benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57A/capital goods credit under Rule 57Q on different items. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur reviewed such orders in terms of Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in order to satisfy himself as to the legality, propriety and correctness of the said order and found that the order in adjudication is not legal proper and correct; and therefore directed the Assistant Commissioner to file an application in proper form with the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bhopal in terms of Sub-section (4) of the Section 35E of the Act. Appeals were preferred before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bhopal who held that the appeals filed by the dep...

B.G.H. Exim Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT598Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After granting early hearing of the stay applications and appeals we find that it is possible to dispose of the appeals at this stage itself. After hearing for some time the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty, we proceed to hear the appeals with the consent of both sides after waiving pre-deposit of penalties.2. The facts of the case are that M/s. B.G.H. Exim Ltd. filed two bills of entry for warehousing of imported goods viz. High Speed Diesel Oil.The item was declared as bonded cargo for the purpose of supply to foreign going vessels as bunkers. The importer was granted warehousing licence under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 vide letter dated 24-9-2002 to store HSD in the private bonded warehouse at Kandla. On the basis of intelligence and on examination of the documents submitted along with the bills of entry, it was seen that the importer had not produced any valid import licence for HSD and had also not submitted any documents showing export/supply orders ...

Santosh Overseas and Suresh Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 83,78,833.53 together with interest and penalty of Rs. 80 lakhs, confirmed against M/s. Santosh Overseas and imposed upon its proprietor and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed on Shri Suresh Adukia arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai.2. the duty demand has been confirmed on the ground that M/s. Santosh Overseas, who imported polyester yarn and 100% disperse dyes under advance licences without payment of duty, violated the conditions of Notification 204/92-Cus dated 19/05/1992 by disposal of the imported material in the open market instead fo utilising it in the manufacture and export of final products.3. None appears for Santosh Overseas in spite of notice. Shri Suresh Adukia is present in person. We heard the learned DR and perused the records.4. We find that this is a case where prima facie there is no fulfilment of export obligation by M/s. Santosh Overseas. The applicants have stated that the...

Schenectady Beck India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)92TTJ(Mum.)872

1. These two appeals are directed against the orders of the CIT, City-IV, Mumbai, under Section 263 of the IT Act and the main common ground raised reads as under: "The learned CIT made a grievous error by assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 not vested in her by law. In any event, the learned CIT exceeded the jurisdiction available under Section 263 and, therefore, the order is ab initio void and bad in law." 2. The AO completed the assessments under Section 143(3) for both the years under appeal. Interest paid to land developers at Pune, amounting to Rs. 96,57,346 for the asst. yr. 1995-96 and Rs. 39,42,230 for the asst. yr. 1996-97 was allowed by the AO, at the time of assessment as the revenue expenditure. The CIT was of the opinion that interest was paid for non-payment of instalments as per agreement made on 12th May, 1992, with the land developer, Mr. Pramod Navalkar for construction of office premises, admeasuring about 27,000 sq. ft., and development of land surroundi...

Schenectady Beck India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)272ITR103(Mum.)

1. These two appeals are directed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax, City-IV, Mumbai, under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the main common ground raised reads as under :- "The learned Commissioner of Income-tax made a grievous error by assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 not vested in her by law. In any event, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax exceeded the jurisdiction available under section 263 and, therefore, the order is ab initio void and bad in law." 2. The Assessing Officer completed the assessments under section 143(3) for both the years under appeal. Interest paid to land developers at Pune, amounting to Rs. 96,57,346 for the assessment year 1995-96 and Rs. 39,42,230 for the assessment year 1996-97 was allowed by the Assessing Officer, at the time of assessment as the revenue expenditure. The Commissioner of Income-tax was of the opinion that interest was paid for non-payment of instalments as per agreement made on May 12,1992, w...

Akbar S/O Nazir Ahmed, Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)MhLj365

D.B. Bhosale, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2nd November, 1988 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 15 of 1981 by which the appellants-accused (for short 'appellants' or 'accused') have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'I.P.C.') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- each. Accused Nos. 1, 4 and 5 are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-. This was on the allegations that appellant Nos. 1 to 5 alongwith some unknown persons being members of the unlawful assembly have committed murder of one Salauddin on 18th July, 1978 at 3.40 p.m.2. The prosecution case, as unfolded from the evidence of ...

Mrs. Geeta Kisan Gore Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Soci ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR548; 2004(1)BomCR753; 2003(4)MhLj287

C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. The petitioner by this petition challenges the order, dated April 10, 2003 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Mumbai in Interim Notice No. 214 of 2003 in Election Petition No. 24 of 2003. In the operative part of the order, the Additional Judge of Small Causes Court observed as under:-'Int. Notice No. 214 of 2003 in Election Petition No. 24 of 2002 is hereby made absolute in respect of prayer Clause (b) of paragraph 9 of the notice and it is hereby declared that the petitioner Mrs. Shahinara Salin Baig is hereby declared as an elected from Municipal Corporation Ward No. 108 of Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai.Int. Notice No. 237 of 2003 in Election Petition No. 24 of 2002 is hereby discharged.Int. Notice No. 215 of 2003 in Election Petition No. 55 of 2002 is hereby discharged.'2. Certain facts are not in dispute. Petitioner herein was declared as elected Councillor from Ward No. 108 of Brihan mumbai Municipal Corporation, a constituency r...