Mumbai Court April 2004 Judgments

Rohan Nandakumar Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR35; 2004(5)BomCR71; 2004(3)MhLj795

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside a Resolution of the Government of Maharashtra, dated 7th May, 1999, to the extent that it deprives children belonging to Backward Class of concessions and benefits to which they are entitled.2. The petitioner is a minor. He has filed this petition through his mother Mrs. Padmini Nair (Nashikkar), residing at Nasik. The case of the petitioner is that his mother's maiden name was Ms. Mandakini Wamanrao Bodke @ Nashikkar. She belongs to Vanjari Caste which is classified as Nomadic Tribe. Petitioner's father, Nandakumar Bhaskaran, hails from the State of Kerala. His community does not recognize any caste. He, therefore, has no caste. It is the case of the petitioner that he was born and brought up among the family members and relatives of his mother, all of whom belong to Hindu-Vanjari community. The petitioner does not know Keralite customs and traditions o...

Santosh Raghunath Ghavre Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR328; [2004(102)FLR823]; 2004(3)MhLj944

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. In the above petition, the petitioner is seeking a relief that the petitioner should be promoted to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the respondent Corporation.2. The brief facts are that the petitioner's father Raghunath S. Ghavre was working with the respondent Corporation and it appears that he had retired on 1-12-1993. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner had applied to the respondent Corporation for being employed as a temporary Labourer. Ultimately, the respondent Corporation had issued a letter on 24-2-1995, informing him that he has been selected for the post of Labourer and he is having the seniority number three in the list, and by the said letter the respondent Corporation directed him to remain present in the Corporation for recruitment on 1-3-1995. In pursuance of the aforesaid letter, petitioner was duly selected as a Labourer and was recruited on 1-3-1995.3. Simultaneously, while working as a Labourer with the respondent Corporation, th...

In Re: Ultratech Cemco Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)3CompLJ110(Bom); [2004]54SCL256(Bom)

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Petitioner-company viz., Ultra Tech Chemical Company Limited (for short 'petitioner-company', 'resulting company' or 'CemCo') has invoked the provisions of Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act to obtain sanction to their Scheme of Arrangement between Larsen and Toubro Limited (for short 'L&T;' or 'de-merged company') and their respective shareholders and creditors and Grasim Industries Limited (for short 'Grasim') as a shareholder of Land and Larsen and Toubro Employees Foundation (for short 'Trust'). It may be noted that the petitioner-company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the de-merged company (L&T;).2. CemCo, in the present Petition, provided details of its capital structure and also provided capital structure of the de-merged company, based on the last audited Balance Sheet of the company as on 31st March, 2003.3. After considering the proposal from the concerning companies and after due deliberation from all aspects, a draft Scheme of Arrangement and a d...

Sattar Abdul Memon Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004CriLJ2820; 2004(4)MhLj81

R.S. Mohite, J.1. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks to quash and set aside an order of detention dated 23-10-2003 issued Under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.2. The impugned order of detention was issued by the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security), Home Department of Government of Maharashtra and Detaining Authority on 23-10-2003. The Grounds of Detention which are also dated 23-10-2003 were also served upon the petitioner.3. In our view, since the petition is likely to succeed on ground No. 6(C), which pertains to non-supply of the translation of certain Marathi documents which were referred to and relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention, it may not be necessary to refer the grounds of detention.4. Ground 6(C) taken by the petitioner was in the following terms.'The Petitioner says and submits that he is a Muslim by religion and his mother tongue is Hindi. The detenu has st...

Joao Salvador Jesus and Anr. Vs. Fatima Electra Jasmina D'Silva

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR243; II(2005)BC310; 2005(1)BomCR488

Britto N.A., J.1. The appeal is filed against the judgment/decree dated 12-3-1998 of the learned IInd Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margai. The appellants herein were the defendants in S.C, S. No. 21/96. The plaintiff in S.C.S. No. 21/96 is the purchaser and the defendants are the sellers of the southern portion of the property known as 'Nelitoleaxeta' admeasuring 2315 sq. m. which was sold to the said defendants by deed dated 16-4-1991 and which deed was preceded by private agreement executed six to seven months before and was followed by deed of rectification dated 24-9-93.2. The case of the plaintiff was that in the said property sold by the defendants there was a house occupied by Martha and Elvira Furtado who had put some illegal structure in the property and as a result of which the plaintiff had filed a suit against them bearing S.C.S. No. 215/91/B and in the said suit the said Martha and Elvira had filed a written statement on 23-6-93 and had produced a document (Exh...

Behram Dubash Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Mumbai)1086

ORDERDr. O.K. Narayanan, A.M.:There are two appeals. The common assessment year is 1991-92. ITA No. 2744/Bom/1994 is filed by the assessee and ITA No. 3391/Bom/1994 is filed by the revenue.2. These cross-appeals are filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-VII at Mumbai, dated 18-3-1994 and arise out of the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. The assessee is a company, earning income from different sources. The different sources of income included speculation profit on purchase and sale of shares, hiring charges of trucks and trailors, trading of stationery, dividend income, export of rice bran extraction, etc.4. The assessee-company filed its return declaring the total income of Rs. 11,72,440. In its computation of income, the assessee has claimed deduction under section 80HHC. The deduction claimed by the assessee was Rs. 24,69,589. The assessee has worked out quantum of deduction under section 80HHC on the proportionate basis of its ...

P.K. Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT640Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The dispute in the present appeal is as to whether the imported consignment effected by the appellants consisted brass remelted, as declared by them or the same was brass dross requiring a licence for importation. The authorities below have held that the goods in question was brass dross requiring an import licence and have confiscated the goods on the said ground with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1.50 Lakhs in addition personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed.2. Shri Vipin Jain, learned C.A. appearing for the appellants submits that the goods were declared as "brass remelted" classifiable under Custom Tariff Heading 7404.00. The goods on test showed the same to be alloy of copper and zinc (brass), their oxides and siliceous matter with copper content of 57.56% and it was opined that the goods were brass ash-dross. On further enquiry, Deputy Chief Chemist states that the sample was not containing any water soluble chemi...

Rajesh Casting Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC284

1. Vide the impugned order. Commissioner of Central Excise has demanded duty of Rs. 10,46,503.17 against M/s. Rajesh Casting Pvt. Ltd on the finding of clandestine manufacture and removal of their final products.In addition, personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh has also been imposed under Rule 173-Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Further the Commissioner has arrived at a finding that a part of the said clandestine removal of ingots was received by second appellant M/s. Dodani Steel Ind., who have utilized the same for manufacture of their final product i.e. CTD Bars and have removed the same clandestinely during the period 1.3.90 to 29.9.90. Accordingly, duty of Rs. 74,399.85 has been confirmed against the said appellant along with imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/-.2. Shri Hardik Modh, Ld. Advocate appearing for the first appellant M/s. Rajesh Casting Pvt. Ltd. submits that the matter was taken up by them before the designated authority in terms of provisions of KVSS and as suc...

Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. Harman Sales Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT154Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Being aggrieved with the order Passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. As per facts on record the respondents imported Buttress Heel Nails and Screws classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 73.17. The Custom Authorities took a view that the said goods are consumer goods and required import licence.Accordingly proceedings were initiated against the appellants which culminated into order Passed by Joint Commissioner of Customs, vide which it was held that inasmuch as the respondents was not haying import licence to import the goods in question, the same are liable to confiscation. Accordingly, the original adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of the goods with an option to appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 70,0004/-. In addition personal penalty of Rs. 12,000/- was also imposed. On appeal against the said order, the appellant contended before Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods in question are not consumer...

S.C. Enviro Agro India P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide their impugned orders authorities below have confirmed an amount of Rs. 43,20,000/- against the appellants in respect of the clearances made by them from their factory to depot during the period 23.4.2001 to 3.5.2001. In addition personal penalty of 15 Lakhs has also been imposed.2. We have heard Shri V.S. Nankani, learned advocate and Shri Sanjay Singhal, learned D.R.3. As per the fact on record the appellants transferred their goods manufactured in their Thane factory to their parwanoo depot at the assessable value of Rs. 4,000 per Kg.. During the period in question 18,000 kg. of the product was cleared to the depot situated in Himachal Pradesh. From the depot 1st transaction was made on 8.5.2001 at the transaction value of Rs. 5,500 per Kilo. Subsequently, the appellants sold the goods in question from the depot at different values which were in any case higher than Rs. 4,000/- kg. On which the duty was paid by the appellants at the time of clearances from their factory. Th...