Mumbai Court April 2004 Judgments

Dharmendra P. Sanghvi and Swiss Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 12,27,038/- confirmed against M/s. Swiss Apparels together with interest and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on the proprietor of M/s.Swiss Appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-IV. The duty demand has been confirmed on the ground that M/s. Swiss Apparels was manufacturing and clearing readymade garments during the period October, 2001 to October, 2002, under the brand name "WARNING" and "RAPAR", which belonged to M/s. Swiss International, another company owned by Shri Bharat P. Sanghvi, brother of the proprietor of M/s. Swiss Apparels.2. The applicants' contention that the above mentioned two brand names were assigned to him on 7th August 2001 under brand name assignment deed, has not been disputed but what has been used against the applicants is that the brand name did not stand registered in the name of M/s. Swiss Apparels so as to hold that Swiss Apparels was not the owner of the bran...

Dr. B.V. Prasad Reddy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(1)SLJ61CAT

1. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not promoting the applicant to the post of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, the applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 190 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The applicant has sought the following reliefs : (a) This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for the records of the case from the respondents and after examining the same quash and set aside the impugned order dated 20.10.2003. (b) This Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to hold and declare that any grading in the confidential reports of the applicant where steep downfall is seen and/or which is below the benchmark should be ignored. (c) This Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the respondents to conduct a review DPC and promote the applicant to the post of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax from the date of promotion of his immediate junior with all consequential benefits. (e) Any other and further order as this Hon'ble Tribu...

Span Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]136STC196(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. In these three references relating to financial years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86, the Maharashtra Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, has referred common questions of law for the decision of this Court under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ('the BST Act', for short).2. Since the issues raised in all these references are common, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.3. The common questions of law referred by the Tribunal under Section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act in all these references are as follows :Sales Tax Reference Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of 19991. Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the sales of 'pathological diagnostics reagents' are covered by the residuary entry 102 of Part II of Schedule C to the Act and not covered by purview of entry 24 of Part I of Schedule 'C' ?2. That whether the Tribunal is justified in discarding all the evidence placed on record by the applicant ?4. It was the contention of...

Ashok S/O Balaji Ratan Vs. Nagpur Improvement Trust

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR861; 2004(3)MhLj659

ORDERA.H. Joshi, J.1. This revision application is arising out of judgment and order passed by the 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur, whereby the learned Judge has allowed the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant-present respondent on cost of Rs. 200/-.2. Regularization of unauthorised construction carried on by the present applicant in violation of the sanctioned construction plan is the subject matter of suit decree wherein has led to present revision application. It is seen that the respondent herein had moved by a notice under Section 52 of the N.I.T. Act read with Section 286(2) of City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948. The notice was issued alleging that the construction is in violation of bye-laws framed under Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. The notice issued by the present respondent was called in question in Regular Civil Suit No. 227/90. The suit resulted in a decree where the action of the respondent in declining to refuse t...

Shivanand Madanmohan Mishra and anr. Vs. Universal Ferro and Allied Ch ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)MhLj849

B.R. Gavai, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Shri V.R. Thakur, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and Shri S. D. Thakur, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent No. 2. Heard finally by consent.2. The petitioners, who were the employees of respondent No. 1, Company, have filed the present petition challenging the order passed by the learned Industrial Court Maharashtra (Nagpur Bench) in Complaint (ULP) No. 1024/1999 thereby dismissing the complaint of the petitioners. The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of the present petition are as under.3. That the petitioners/complainants have filed a complaint before the learned Industrial Court, Nagpur praying for declaration that the agreement dated 2-6-1999 entered into between the respondent Nos. 1 and respondent Ho. 2 to be illegal, void ab initio, non est still born and of on consequence and effect and that the resignations of the petitioners and other workers obtained by the respondent N...

New Standard Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashok H. Hire and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004(102)FLR738]; 2004(3)MhLj913

ORDERS.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court dated 19th January 2002 in complaint (ULP) No. 91 of 2001. The complaint was filed under item 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. The brief facts of the case are as under :2. The respondent No. 1 was working with the petitioner in Arc Furnace Division since 1980. On 22nd March 1993, the respondent No. 1 was transferred from Arc Furnace Division to Foundry Section. The said order of transfer was challenged by the respondent No. 1 by filing the complaint under items 3, 9 and 10 on Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. Pending the said proceedings, on 26th April 1993 the respondent No. 1 was suspended since he did not report to the transferred job in accordance with the transfer order. The charges against him were of insubordination and disobedience. Sometime in or about 1996, an enquiry was conducted. It is the admitted position that the enquiry was not concluded either by...

Narayan S/O Kothiramji Bhawane Vs. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006ACJ1982; 2004(3)MhLj1072

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Both the applicants are amongst those who were involved as victims in a motor accident occurred with the territory of Runakata Police Station in Agra District on 4-7-1998. The injured persons were moved to S. N. Hospital, Agra and were later on shifted to Nagpur by Ambulance. They have filed two separate claims for compensation under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Both these claims were rejected at the threshold/returned by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, by identical order in both cases passed on 11th January, 2000.2. The. learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, (M.A.C.T.) found that the claim petitions were not filed in conformity with Rule 254(5) of Maharashtra Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, which requires every applicant to annex to the application the documents namely :--(i) Injury Certificate(ii) True copy of First Information Report or Police Station Diary Entry or Traffic Accident Report duly certified...

Haribhau S/O Sadashiv Watane Vs. Raju S/O Daulatrao Borkar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR879; 2004(6)BomCR852; 2004(4)MhLj350

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Revision petitioner - is the landlord original plaintiff. The defendant was occupying the room used is a Shop admeasuring 10 ft x 8 ft on monthly rent of Rs. 80/- per month. The landlord served on the defendant a notice of ejectment - Exhibit 22 alleging that the tenancy was monthly commencing on the first day according to English Calender and since respondents did not pay the rent and were in arrears of rent and that the tenancy was thereby terminated, the tenant was called upon to restore the land to the land owner the possession of the property. The notice also contained that onwards the date of termination of tenancy the respondents would be liable to pay the compensation every month Rs. 10/- per day. The notice was dated 3rd March, 1992 and the tenants were called upon to deliver the possession by the end of March, 1992 and in any case on 1st April, 1992. The tenants failed to deliver the possession in spite of the service of notice and the landlord thereupon file...

Ayub Khan S/O Gani Khan Pathan and ors. Vs. Mehtabkhan S/O Hayat Khan ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)MhLj924

A.B. Naik, J. 1. Civil Application No. 2433/2004 is filed by the petitioners seeking permission of this Court to sell five acres of land out of Survey No. 120 (Gut No. 144), admeasuring 22A 18G. The application being wholly misconceived cannot be entertained. Hence rejected.2. Civil Application No. 2600/2003 is filed by the respondents in the Writ Petition seeking an injunction against the petitioners from alienating the property in dispute. As I have rejected the application filed by the petitioners seeking permission to sell the property, the interim order granted by this Court on this Civil Application on 4th April, 2002, to continue till the final disposal of the matter by the Tahsildar to whom the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has remanded the matter for disposal, in accordance with law. 3. This Petition can be disposed of finally as rule has been granted by me on 3-2-2003 and all contesting parties are represented by their Advocates. In this Writ Petition, the order passed by the ...

State of Goa and anr. Vs. Radhabai Voikunth Ghode (Since Deceased Thro ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR460

Britto N.A., J.1. The State of Goa and the Assistant Defence Estate Officer, Panaji has filed the present appeal against the judgment/Award of the Reference Court (District Judge, Panaji) dated 27-10-97. 2. Briefly stated, by virtue of the notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 published in the Official Gazette dated 13-12-88 the Government acquired 38325 sq. m. of land in village Ponda, Goa for the purpose of 6 TTR (2 STC) at Kurti, Ponda, Goa (additional area) and in that was included a plot of land admeasuring 2872 sq. m. of Survey No. 65 of Kurti, Ponda belonging to the respondent (since deceased and represented by her heirs) and the L.A.O. by his Award dated 23-11-90 awarded to the respondent compensation at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. m. The respondent having sought reference under section 18 of the said Act, the Reference Court was pleased to enhance the compensation at Rs. 147/- per sq. m. based on a pre-notification sale-deed dated 17-10-88.3...