Mumbai Court July 2003 Judgments

Shri V.D. Bhobe, Deputy Director of Accounts and anr. Vs. State of Goa ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR385

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Both these petitions are being disposed of by a common order as the facts are similar as also the questions of law which will have to be decided.2. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 322 of 1998 as now amended are the Deputy Director of Accounts and Assistant Accounts Officer, working in the office of respondent No. 3. In the petition filed, the reliefs are for a writ of certiorari or appropriate writ, or order, or direction to quash order dated 27th October, 1997, which directed that pay scales shall be fixed without reference to the revised scales after 1st January, 1986, thereby fixing their pay scales taking into account the revision of pay scales by order dated 18th June, 1990. Prayer Clause (b) is a consequential relief by way of writ of mandamus to fix revised pay scales of Assistant Accounts Officers and Accounts Officers/Deputy Director of Accounts in the Government administration taking into account the revision of pay scales by an order dated 18th June, ...

Murarka Cables and Conductors Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT906Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Arguing on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 10,91,294/- and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs the applicants submit that the demand is prima facie not sustain-able as it has been confirmed as a result of denial of the benefit of Notification No. 77/80 for non-fulfilment of export obligation, as the imported goods were stolen in a theft which took place in the factory in April, 1994 and which was intimated to the authorities concerned, and therefore could not be used in the manufacture of final products to be exported. Their further contention is that the demand is barred by limitation as the show cause notice has been issued beyond a period of six months from the date of detection of the shortage due to theft. Lastly it is their contention that the show cause notice is without jurisdiction as the Notification in question requires the satisfaction of the Commissioner for proper accountal of the goods while in the present case the show cause notice was issued by the Depu...

Jal Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. appeal taken up for disposal after waiving deposit with consent of both sides.2. In the order impugned in the appeal, the Commissioner has denied the benefit of the exemption contained in notification 203/92 of the good imported by the appellant on his view that one of the condition subject to which the exemption contained in the notification was available that modvat credit should not be taken of in the duty paid on the imputs on the manufacture of the exported goods. He noted that the importer had not replied to the notice issued to it before the Commissioner.3. Counsel for the appellant cites that it is entitled to avail of the amnesty scheme announced by the government of India to such importer as contained in Board circular No. 285/1/97 CE dated 10.1.1997. He states that going through the difficulty the appellant was undergoing in adjudicating proceedings he was unable to make this claim before the Commissioner and produce documents in support of the claim. He undertakes to do...

Mukul Engineering Works and Niyar Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT699Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application of Mukul Engineering Co. is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 2,29,0859.- and equal penalty. Application by Niyar Ahmed Siddiqui, earlier a partner of the assessee and subsequently proprietor is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs.2. The assessee fabricates tanks for carrying such liquids as polypropylene, liquified petroleum gas etc. on specific order of customers and mounts such tanks on the trailer that the customer provides which are thereafter attached to the prime movers and used to transport such liquids. The assessee had claimed the benefit of the exemption contained in 209 of the table to notification 4/97 and corresponding exemption in the subsequent orders. The relevant part of the entry provides exemption to vehicle of heading 87.16 manufactured by a person other than manufacturer of chassis. The explanation to the notification explains that the value of the vehicle shall be the value of "chassis used as such." The assessee paid duty only...

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramnath Namdeo Gadhe and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)127

Palshikar, J. 1. This appeal is directed against order of acquittal dated 9.10.1987 passed in Sessions Case No. 51 of 1987 by the learned Sessions Judge, Nashik. He acquitted all the accused of the offences with which they were charged.2. With the assistance of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused we have scrutinized record and reappreciated the evidence. The prosecution story as disclosed on reappreciation of evidence is that P.W. 13-G.S. Rajole lodged FIR about the incident dated 24.12.1986 at 8.30 p.m. complaining that on 24.12.1986 at about 8.30 in Shindwad village around the house of the complainant in Gut No. 206 of that village there was quarrel between the accused and the complainant party in which the accused forcibly entered the house of the complainant and best him and thereafter they pulled him out of the house and beat him on the ota of the house. Thereafter he was pulled in the filed of harbara and again beaten. As a res...

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Prakashchand Bansilal Kankaria,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)MhLj806

1. This appeal is filed by the State against the Judgment and Order dated 29th April 1987 delivered by the Special Judge, Solapur in Criminal Case No. 1 of 1987 acquitting the respondents-accused of the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. The prosecution case briefly narrated is as under:The Octroi Superintendent PW 1 Sukhadeo Chavan was on patrolling duty on 11/6/1986. At about 11.30 p.m. he saw one jeep entering into two with speed. Suspecting that the goods might have been taken away in the said jeep without payment of octroi duty, the said jeep was chased. The jeep bearing No.MXS 9182 was found standing at Kore Ves Chowk in front of one oil shop. Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2, the driver, were in the jeep. In the jeep 46 tins of palm oil were found. On inquiry the accused said that octroi duty was not paid. PW 1, therefore, seized the jeep along with the tins of palm oil in the presence of panchas. Accused No. 1 applied for return of the goods and offered...

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Narayan Pote and Chabubai Nar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)MhLj121

D.B. Bhosale, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.6.1987 rendered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 67 of 1987 by which the respondents-accused have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498A read with Section 34 and 498-A, 109 or 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'). The respondents-accused (for short, 'accused') alleged to have committed the murder of Shaila Pote, wife of accused No. 1, in the intervening night of 29.10.1986 and 30.10.1986 in their house by pouring kerosene and setting her ablaze by lighting a matchstick. The deceased Shaila was also subjected to cruelty by the accused persons.2. During the pendency of this Appeal, accused No. 2, mother of accused No. 1, has died and in view thereof the appeal stands abated as against her. We, therefore, proceed to hear the instant Appeal against accused No. 1 only.3. The prosecution case, as unfolded from the evidence of the witnesses, ...

Sau. Pushpadevi W/O Giridharilal Agrawal and Vs. the State of Maharash ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR493

A.P. Deshpande, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. Heard Shri S.U. Nemade, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Sonare, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.2. As a common question of fact and law is involved in all the three petitions, the said petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. It is also to be noticed that all the three petitions arise out of the same notification, acquiring the lands of the petitioners. The petitioners were owners in possession of agricultural land situated in village Ghol in Amravati district. Their lands came to be acquired for 'Yenas Percolation Tank' by the State Government. Consequent upon acquisition, proceedings for passing of the award were taken up under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and ultimately, an award came to be passed under Section 11 by the 2nd respondent - Land Acquisition Officer. The award was passed on 18-10-1999, whereas in the case of Gangaram, the ...

Shree Maheshwar Hydel Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Chitroopa Palit and a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom143; 2004(2)BomCR137

S. Radhakrishnan J.1. By this appeal, the appellant Company is challenging an order dated 29th March, 2003 whereby the learned Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court has dismissed the Notice of Motion and has declined to grant any interim relief in favour of the Appellant-Company. It may be noted here that in this matter, the ad-interim relief in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and (b) of the Notice of Motion No. 4541 of 2001 was granted by the Bombay City Civil Court in favour of the Appellants on 23rd October, 2001. The said prayer Clauses (a) and (b) of the Notice of Motion No. 4541 of 2001 read as under :--(a) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit defendants and the other activists of the Narmada Bachao Andolan be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from making any statements, declarations, utterances, writings and publications in the media regarding the Maheshwar Project which are defamatory of the plaintiff.(b) That pending the hearing and fina...

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Vs. General Secretary BEST Workers' ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR657; 2004(1)BomCR744

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 16-8-2000, passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in Appeal (IC) No. 169 of 1994 whereby the Industrial Court has set aside the quantum of punishment and has directed reinstatement of the respondent No. 2 in the services of the petitioner, however, directing the payment of wages from the date of his joining pursuant to the order of the Industrial Court. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the said order passed by the Industrial Court and consequent to failure on the part of the petitioner to secure stay of the said order, the respondent No. 2 has already been reinstated in the services and he continues to be in service of the petitioner.3. Few facts relevant for the decision are that the respondent No. 2 herein was charge-sheeted under the Standing Order Nos. 20(i) and 20(r) in relation to an incident which had occurred on 27-8-1990 in a...