Mumbai Court April 2004 Judgments

D.C.W. Home Products Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)26; I(2005)BC51

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Advocate for the petitioners and Advocates for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. This Special Leave Application is filed by the complainant against the judgment of acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplande, Mumbai, by judgment dated 19.9.2003. It was case of the complainant that accused issued a cheque for Rs. 50 lacs dated 13.2.1997 for discharging their liability. Accused No. 3 signed the cheque, complainant deposited the cheque in the Bank on 14.2.1997 but it was returned with remarks 'insufficient funds in the account'. Thereafter company gave notice dated 27.2.1997 by hand delivery. The accused did not make the payment inspite of the notice and hence complaint came to be filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. On behalf of complainant only one witness was examined S. Rajgopalan. Defence of the accused was that no notice was served upon them as requir...

Shubh Shanti Services Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Manjula S. Agerwalla

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)4CompLJ433(Bom); [2005]60SCL439(Bom)

A.S. Aguiar, J.1. This appeal arises from the Judgment and Order dated 30-10-1999 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum, Mumbai, in case No. 4/S/1995 acquitting the accused-Respondents of the offence punishable under Section 630 of the Companies Act.2. The said order is impugned inter alia on the grounds that the learned Magistrate has given an erroneous finding that since the property is in custody of Court Receiver, he could not pass the order of restoration of the property to the complainant. It is contended that the Magistrate had erred in holding that since the property is in the custody of the Court Receiver, the rights of the parties which are civil rights will be decided by the competent Civil Court in a suit filed by both the parties. Another ground of challenge is that the Magistrate has wrongly concluded that the complainant has failed to prove that the property in question was wrongly held by the accused despite the Appellants having pr...

Baba Singh Vs. the Chief Minister, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR506; (2004)106BOMLR439

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Both these petitions have been filed as public interest litigation challenging the action of the State authorities in appointing Mr, Johnny Joseph, respondent No. 3 herein, as Municipal Commissioner, Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation. A writ of certiorari is sought calling for the records and proceedings and after examining legality and propriety to quash an order dated 23rd February, 2004 appointing respondent No. 3 as the Municipal Commissioner. A prayer is made to issue a writ of mandamus restraining respondent No. 3 from discharging duties and responsibilities as Municipal Commissioner. A writ of quo warranto is also prayed for quashing appointment of respondent No. 3 as he could not have been appointed as Municipal Commissioner as neither he is holding office of Chief Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary nor having requisite experience necessary for the said post.2. The petitioner of PIL No. 49 of 2004 was born and brought up in Mumbai. He had been a Corpora...

Hyderabad (Sind) National Collegiate Board and anr. Vs. NavIn Kumar Ti ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)106BOMLR489

ORDERS.U. Kamdar, J.1. Both these writ petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the College Tribunal dated 11th July, 2002. The first petition is filed being Writ Petition No. 2798 of 2002 by the Management challenging the said order and the second petition being Writ Petition No. 3017 of 2002 has been filed by the employee also challenging the various findings given by the Tribunal in the impugned Judgment. For the sake of brevity in the present petition, the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2798 of 2002 which is the college is hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-college and Shri Navin Kumar Tiwari the respondent No. 1 who was the Peon in the said college has been referred to as the respondent-employee in the present judgment. Some of the material facts are briefly enumerated as under :2. Sometime in or about June, 1993 the respondent-employee was appointed as a Peon in one of the college run by the petitioner being K. C. College, Sometime in or about 1995 or thereaft...

Shantabai Krishna Zamre and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006ACJ2167; 2004(4)ALLMR777

S.T. Kharche, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order and award dated 17.8.1990 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 40/TA-II/ RCT/NGP/90 whereby the claim seeking compensation filed by the appellants, legal representatives of the deceased Krishna Zamre, was dismissed.2. Brief facts are required to be stated as under:Deceased Krishna was appointed as a khalasi by railway department in the year 1984 and he was working in such capacity at Pulgaon whereas he was residing at Wardha. He used to attend to his duty by travelling in the railway train. On 5.9.1986 he was travelling in Bhusaval-Nagpur 385 Dn. passenger train and this train met with an accident and was hit by derailed wagons of a goods train at Pulgaon station itself. Krishna died in the said accident. The claimant No. 1 Shantabai is widow, No. 2 Kavita and No. 4 Sangeetha are daughters and No. 3 Vinod and No. 5 Pramod are sons of deceased. They had filed application before the Railway Claims Tribunal un...

Narayan Kothiramji Bawane Vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2005)ACC42; 2005(1)ALLMR59

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Both the applicants are amongst those who were invited as victims in a motor accident occurred within 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 r/w 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 Vehicles 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 by the ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Johnson and Johnson Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both the sides, I find that the issue involved in the matter is whether "Catch Covers" for Physician Samples are eligible modvatable inputs or not. Originally a show cause notice was issued to the respondent in July 2000 proposing to deny the credit on the said catch covers on the ground that the same is not admissible inasmuch as the catch covers cannot be considered as packing material under Rule 57B.2. Shri Rohan Shah, Ld. Advocate for the respondents informs that prior to the present show cause notice, proceeding were initiated against them by way of issuance of earlier show cause notice the order Passed by the Deputy Commissioner holding in their favour that catch covers is a packing material for the physician's samples and dropping the proceeding.3. The said order of the original adjudicating authority was not challenged by the Revenue. As such it became an accepted position that such catch covers were eligible modvatable inputs. However, in the present proceedi...

Western Metal Caps Ltd. (Known as Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT451Tri(Mum.)bai

1. All the three appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is identical. The appellant M/s Western Metal Caps. Ltd. is engaged in the manufacturing of alloy steel castings and stainless steel castings falling under Chapter heading 7325 & 7325.30 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. As a result of audit objection, notices were issued against the appellants alleging that the processing loss of 27.68%, 23.06% and 22.25% shown in their balance sheet for the years 95-96, 96-97 and 97-98 were much on the higher side and as such it was alleged that the appellant had removed steel casting in the guise of processing loss without discharging Central Excise duties. On the identical ground Show Cause Notices in the 2nd appeal were raised.2. Shri. K.A. Sindhi, Ld. Consultant and Shri. Hitesh Shah, ld. JDR appeared for the Revenue. The appellant's main contention is that the processing loss mentioned by them in their balance sheet is correct inasmuch as such processin...

Century Cargo Forwarders Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)2STR223

1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of penalty, I take up the appeal itself, with the consent of both sides.2. The appellants are aggrieved with the imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 1,56,459/- in terms of provision of Sections 76 and 77 of Finance Act, 1994 on account of delay in payment of Service Tax and delay in filing of Service Tax returns for a period of over two years. The appellants have contended before the authorities below that the Service Tax could not be deposited on account of ill health of the managing partner and the appellant has not received charges from the clients in time. However, the above two grounds have not been accepted by the authorities who upheld the imposition of penalty upon the appellant. Shri. P.R.S. Pai, C.A. appearing for the appellants submits that since they ultimately deposited the tax with due interest and as such, penalty should not be imposed upon under Sections 76 and 77. The representative submits that th...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Arcoy Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT507Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing Shri Arun Chopra, Ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order has held that the refund claim of Rs. 1,09,026/- should be given to the respondent by way of cash, if the Asst. Commissioner is satisfied that the respondent are not in a position to utilise the credit in RG 23 Pt.II. While ordering so he has taken into consideration the Tribunal's decision in the case of C.C.E. v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. reported in 2002 (139) E.L.T. 125 (Tri.-Kolkata).2. The said amount was originally paid by the respondents by debiting RG 23 Pt. II. However, when the dispute was finally settled, they claimed the refund in PLA inasmuch as by that time they had moved out of the Modvat credit scheme and were availing the benefit of small scale exemption notification. Commissioner (Appeals) observed that if it is so the refund should be given to the respondents in cash.3. I find no infirmity in the above view of the Commissioner (Appeal...