Mumbai Court April 2004 Judgments

Shridhar Mayaji Parab Vs. Hindustan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR388; 2004(3)MhLj1084

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This petition challenges the order of the Labour Court passed under Sections 78 and 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. The Labour Court had granted reinstatement with 50% backwages w.e.f. 26-8-1985 along with continuity of service.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working in the respondent Mill as a Roll Folder from 1976. On 18-1-1982, a general strike was resorted to by some of the Mill workers. According to the petitioner, he could not report for duty because of the tense atmosphere prevailing at the Mill gates, He was beaten up by the striking workers and despite his efforts, he was not able to report for work. The petitioner has also stated that despite all these difficulties, he reported for duty on and off during the period 1982-1985. However, he was not allowed to resume duty. On 25-8-1985, when the petitioner reported at the mill gates for duty he was informed that his services had been terminated much earlier. Immediately thereafter, ...

Simco Industries Ltd., Naval Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides & considered the applications for waiver of predeposit of duty & penalties. It is found- a) Duty demand have been determined against the assessee for having shown certain discount as having been passed on the invoices issued &-submitted to the Central Excise officers. While another set of invoices were prepared & utilised for commercial purposes which did not show the said discount. The evidence of discounts being effected at this prima-facie stage shows of section 35F does not exist. An element of mens rea to evade duty by suppression & use of duplicate records exist. The reliance of the Ld. Advocate on the case law will be considered at the final hearing. Prime facie no cause for effecting full or partial waiver of the (duty of Rs. 8.13 lakhs demanded made out. b) The plea of a sick company, suffering loss of Rs. 25.18 crores as per Balance Sheet confirms the view that the waiver of deposit of duty amounts is not called for. It is required und...

Stonemann Marble Inds. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri V.M. Doiphode, ld. Advocate appeared for the appellant. Shri K.K. Srivastava, ld. JDR appeared for the revenue.2. The Commissioner in the impugned order held that rough marble blocks weighing 1244.84 MTS imported by the appellants vide Bill of Entry No.7770121 dated 6/10/1999 are liable to confiscation under Section 111 (d) and 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the goods were not available for confiscation having been provisionally released against ITC Bond, PD Bond and Test Bond, imposed redemption fine of Rs. 1.6 Crores under Section 125 of the said Act and imposed a penalty of Rs. 42 Lakhs on the appellants. The ld. Commissioner further ordered the recovery by enforcement of ITC and Pd Bonds and enforcement of the bank guarantee.3. The appellants had declared 1121.280 M.T. net weights in the Bill of Entry and the goods were imported from Iran. The goods were examined on 1st check basis and weight ascertained was 1244.84 M.T. i.e. 123.36 M.T. more than the declared wei...

Om Prakash Mehra and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal arose out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who in the impugned order confirmed the order of the lower authority rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 1,21,562/- filed before him by the appellant.2. The refund claim arose under the following circumstances. The appellant is a manufacturer of goods falling under chapter heading 54 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. In particular, the appellant manufactures polyester texrurised, twisted and polyester dyed yarn. In 1994-95 budget, polyester texturised yarn was brought under excise control and became dutiable while subsequent process like twisting, dying and canning were exempt from duty. The appellant pleads that on 1.3.1994 they were advised to enter the entire stock of yam lying with them in RG1 even though about 35560.230 kgs. of yarn belonged to the category of twisting, dying and canning yarn on which no duty was payable. They cleared the said quantity of 35560.230 kgs. on payment of duty subsequently as if it is t...

Nrb Bearings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The stay application was taken up for disposal. It is noticed that the applicant has already deposited the entire amount confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in pursuance of the stay order passed by him.Nothing needs to be deposited. The stay application is therefore infructuous.2. The appellant pleaded for disposal of the appeal itself as the issue involved is within a very narrow compass. With the consent of both the parties, the appeal is taken up for disposal.3. Briefly the facts are that the appellant is a manufacturer of ball/roller bearings. They are availing of modvat credit both on capital goods as well as inputs. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that modvat credit of Rs. 1,18,131/- is not admissible but reduced the penalty to Rs. 30,000/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) denied the credit of this amount on the grounds enumerated in the impugned order. I have perused the reasons given by the Commissioner. For instance, he has confirmed the denial of cre...

Jayhind Vithoba Mahadik Vs. the General Manager, Maharashtra Scooters ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR92; [2004(102)FLR993]; 2004(3)MhLj733

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This Petition is directed against the order dated 28th June 1996 passed by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur in Revision Application (ULP) Nos. 334 and 335 of 1995 which in revision has set aside the order dated 12th June 1995 of the Labour Court, Satara passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 123 of 1991 filed by the Petitioner. The Labour Court had allowed the Complaint partly by directing the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner with continuity of service and 50% back wages.2. The facts giving rise to the present Petition are as follows :The Petitioner joined the service with the Respondent as an Assistant Security Officer after retiring prematurely from the Indian Air Force. He was later promoted on 15th May 1989 as Security Officer. The Petitioner was terminated from service with effect from 6th October 1991 without any charge-sheet being issued to him and without an enquiry being held. Aggrieved by this action of the Respondent, the Petitioner filed Complaint under the ...

Phonographic Performance Ltd. Vs. Music Broadcast (P) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR196; 2004(29)PTC282(Bom)

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. All these appeals challenge the same judgment of the Copyright Board at Hydrabad dated 19th November, 2002. These appeals have been filed under Sub-section (7) of Section 72 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The order dated 19-11-2002 has been passed by the Copyright Board under Section 31 of the Act. It appears that the Government of India, in the year 1999, invited tenders for the purpose of granting licence for providing private FM broadcasting services in 40 cities. The complainants before the Copyright Board have been granted licence by the Government for establishing FM broadcasting services in various cities. It appears that these organisations which were granted licences for establishing FM Broadcasting Services approached M/s.Phonographic Performance Ltd. (Hereinafter referred to PPL for the sake of brevity), which holds copyright in sound recording for grant of licence. But the terms or rate demanded by PPL were not accepta...

Smt. Vimla Devi G. Maheshwari and anr. Vs. D.D. Mohindra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR317; 2004(5)BomCR263; (2004)190CTR(Bom)306; [2004]268ITR102(Bom); 2004(4)MhLj58

R.M. Lodha J.1. In respect of the immovable property being Flat No. 16, 4th Floor, 'D' Road, Churchgate, Bombay, owned by respondent No. 3, Shri Nandlal G. Kejriwal, the petitioners entered into an agreement on July 29, 1987, with the owner for purchase of 160 shares bearing Distinctive Nos. 12506 to 12665 under Share Certificate No. 114 of Shree Hanuman Co-operative Housing Society Limited together with loan stock and the rights of use and occupancy for a consideration of Rs. 35,00,000.2. Form No. 37-I was filed with the Department on July 31, 1987. The appropriate authority on September 23, 1987, passed an order under Section 269UD of the Income-tax Act for pre-emptive purchase of the said property at an amount equal to the amount of apparent consideration, i.e., Rs. 35,00,000, The petitioners being intending purchasers by means of this writ petition filed on October 6, 1987, seek to challenge the said order of pre-emptive purchase passed on September 23, 1987, by the appropriate aut...

Yusuf Suleman and Brother Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom310; 2004(3)MhLj1000

A.S. Aguiar, J.1. This appeal is from the order dated 4th June, 2002, passed by the Learned Special Judge under the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MPID Act'), in Misc. Application No. 347 of 2003, rejecting the appellant's application, for removing the seal and lock on the premises, bearing Gala No. 7-B, situate on the ground floor of the building known as Shalrah House, Maulana Azad Road, Petwala Compound, Mumbai 400008, and claiming arrears of rent for the period from June 2000 till vacant possession of the said premises is handed over to the appellants.2. It is the case of the appellants that they are the landlords of the premises bearing Gala No. 7-B, situate on the ground floor of the building known as Shariah House, Maulana Azad Road, Petwala Compound, Mumbai 400008 and that these premises were let out to the company Shariah Islamic Financial & Investment Company (India) Ltd., as a tenant,...

Chandu S/O Jagannath Ambekar and anr. Vs. Digambar S/O Kisanrao Kulkar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)MhLj69

1. The Applicants had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 82 of 1984 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Vaijapur for declaration of title and injunction. The said suit came to be dismissed in default on 6th November, 1993 and, therefore, an application for restoration came to be filed belatedly on 6th June, 1994 along with an application for condonation of delay which came to be listed as M.A.R.J.I. No. 12 of 1994. This application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application came to be rejected by the Court below on 21st September, 1995 and the same order has been challenged in this revision which was admitted on 8th January, 1997 and stay to the proceedings continued all along.2. On 25th June, 2003 the learned Single Judge of this Court recorded his disagreement with the view earlier taken by another Single Bench in the case of Chandrakant v. M.K. Associates 2003 (1) M.L.J. 1011 and, therefore, took a view that a revision application against reject...