Mumbai Court April 2004 Judgments

Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai Vs. Ramkrishna Shivaram Gadeka ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)BomCR653; 2004(4)MhLj438

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. Both these writ petitions challenge the common awards passed in Part I and II by the Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CGIT') dated 2-11-1999 and 30-3-2002.2. The present two writ petitions are arising from the said awards passed by the Presiding Officer of the CGIT. For the sake of brevity, the petitioner i.e. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai in Writ Petition No. 671 of 2002 and Respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 102 of 2004 is hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner Management and Ramkrishna Shivaram Gadekar, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 102 of 2004 and Respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 671 of 2002 is hereinafter referred to as the respondent-employee.3. The factual matrix of the present case briefly enumerated is as under :--The respondent-employee was appointed as a driver by the petitioner-management on 1-1-1983. It is the case of the petitioner-management that on 8-7-1987 the r...

Mukand Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen Represented by Sarva Shramik Sangh and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004(102)FLR201]; (2004)IIILLJ598Bom

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. Rule in both petitions. Rule made returnable forthwith in both petitions by consent. Respondent No. 2 in both petitions deleted, being a formal party.2. Both these writ petitions challenge the interim order of the Industrial Tribunal passed in a Reference before it for adjudication of the dispute as to whether the workmen concerned are entitled to the benefits of permanency as claimed by them through their union. (For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2525 of 2004 will be referred to as 'the employer' and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3102 of 2004 will be referred to as 'the Union').3. The employer claims that after coming to the conclusion that there is no relationship of master and servant between it and the workmen represented by the Union, the Tribunal could not have granted the relief of status quo being maintained qua the workmen. According to the employer, since the relationship had not been established, the employer could no...

SumikIn Bussan International Vs. Manharlal T. Mody and

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)BomCR860; 2004(4)MhLj919

ORDERAnoop V. Mohta, J.1. The applicants, in this Chamber Summons, being third persons to the Judgment and Decree dated, 31st May, 2002, prayed that the warrant of attachment, dated 12th January, 2004, issued in respect of the flat bearing No. 20, admeasuring 3300 sq.ft., on 20th floor of Silver Arch, 66, Napean Sea Road, Mumbai, together with two car parking spaces bearing Nos. 12 and 85, on PI and P2 levels,1 in Malbar Co-operative Housing Society, Ltd., (for short Society) and the shares pertaining to the said flat described in Schedule 'A', be vacated and/or set aside. 2. The present execution Application No. 13/2004, is at the instance of original plaintiffs, Sumikin Bussan International (Hong Kong), whereby the immovable property, owned by Manharlal Trikamdas Modi, defendant No. 2, (Judgment Debtor) has been attached, by order dated 12th January, 2004. The plaintiffs, (Judgment Creditors) have initiated execution proceeding under Order 21, Rule 54 of Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.)...

L. and T. Finance Limited Vs. T. Jagadishwara Rao and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)BomCR858; (2004)106BOMLR483

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard Ms. Shakuntala Joshi for the plaintiffs.2. This chamber summons has been taken out by the plaintiffs against the defendants. The basic prayer which Is insisted during this hearing is based on Order 21, Rule 41(3) of the Civil Procedure Code.The earlier orders which were passed in this chamber summons are relevant for the relief as prayed. By order dated 3rd June, 2003, the Chamber Judge has passed the following order :After hearing the learned Counsel for the applicant/claimant and on going through the affidavit, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to grant prayer (d) at this stage. The defendants are, accordingly, directed to file an affidavit stating the particulars of his properties as provided under Order 21, Rule 41 of the C.P.C. within three weeks from today.3. By order dated 15th July, 2003, it was specifically observed, that the defendant was unable to take effective steps inspite of the order of this Court dated 3rd July, 2003. Therefore, show cau...

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Abdul Karim Abdul Rahim and Co.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2005)ACC656; 2006ACJ2762; 2004(4)ALLMR57

S.T. Kharche, J.1. The Union of India through General Manager, Central Railway has filed this appeal, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26.4.1991 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 1127/TA-I/RCT/NGP of 1990 whereby the claim of the respondent-plaintiff was partly allowed awarding the damages in the sum of Rs. 13,179 and the appellants-defendants were directed to pay the same with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till realisation.2. Brief facts are required to be stated as under:Plaintiff claimed damages on account of delay in delivery of clusters plantains of four consignments on the contentions that four separate consignments were got booked on 13.2.1979, 6.3.1979, 8.3.1979 and 5.11.1979 at Bhusaval for sending it to Howrah. The goods in the consignments were loaded at Bhusaval and same were actually delivered at Howrah on 20.2.1979, 15.3.1979, 15.3.1979 and 12.11.1979 res-pectively. It is contended that the clus...

Multiflex Lami Prints Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue involved in these two appeals is the question of excisability of slitting of jumbo rolls of flexible laminated films brought on payment of duty from Mahad factory to the appellants' premises at Silvasa. The lower authorities have confirmed duty demands after coming to a finding that it was the slitting of the jumbo rolls which resulted in the product for which the customers had placed the orders.2. After hearing both sides for some time, it transpires that the appeals themselves could be decided at this stage of hearing the pre deposit application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Therefore, with the consent of both sides, and after waiver of pre deposit requirement, the appeals themselves are taken up for final disposal.3. After perusal of the impugned order, it is found that the plea of the appellants on the question of the eligibility of Modvat credit of Rs. 1.94 crores as per the Chartered Accountant's certificate, new produced, has been rejected on th...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. R.A. Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC643

1. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein tiled various Bills of Entries for clearance of the goods described as synthetic rags. The B/E filed by M/s. R.A. Spinning Mills were assessed under the second check appraisement basis considering the description of the goods as synthetic rags. During the examination of the cargo in the Docks it was revealed that 70% of the goods were used trousers cut in two pieces. In this case the entire consignment was found to be two pieces of which 65% were new trousers and 35% were used trousers. In another case of M/s. Krishna Export Corporation, it was found during the examination that out of 60 bales, 30 bales were one piece garments and 30 bales were two piece trousers (synthetic). In the 30 bales in which one piece trousers were found it was reported that 60% of the trousers are brand new and unused and the balance 10% of the trousers were found old and used. In the balance 30 bales it was found that 60% of the goods were found...

Trimurthi Diagnostic P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide Order No. C-II/2916/WZB/03 dated 17.11.2003 the appellant was directed to make a pre-deposit of 2,84,256/- by 30^th November 2003.subsequently, when the matter came up for ascertaining compliance it was found that the appellants has filed miscellaneous application for modification of the said order. The miscellaneous application was considered and vide order dated 11.2.2004, the same was rejected.However, the period was extended by 11^th November 2004.2. When the matter came up for ascertaining compliance to the above order, the learned advocate for the appellants submits that both the orders were passed expartee in as much as the appellants did not receive the notice of hearing. He submits that after receipt of first order, they had filed a miscellaneous application for restoration of the stay application which was dismissed in their absence. In view of the foregoing fact, he prays that the matter be recalled and heard afresh.3. Countering the arguments Shri R.K. Chandan, lea...

Multi Flex Lami Print Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These five stay applications, are disposed of by this common order, since the issue involved is the same, after hearing both sides.2. The issue involved is valuation of jumbo rolls cleared from the factory of the manufacturer at Mahad to Silvasa, where they are further slitted and after slitting made into pouches and these pouches are thereafter cleared from Silvasa. The dispute of valuation is on the eligibility of certain deductions claimed by the appellants.3. The learned advocate for the appellants strongly pleaded on the facts of sales of such jumbo rolls being effected at the factory in which in Mahad for substantial quantities. Therefore, the valuation of the said jumbo rolls cleared to Silvasa should be arrived at on the basis of such sale price found to be extended at the factory.4. Mr. M.K. Gupta, the Jt C.D.R. pleading for the Revenue draws our attention to the fact that this plea was never an issue, as t was an admitted fact that the goods in question, which were remove...

Advanced Graphic Systems Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Airport

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing for simetime, and after waiver of pre deposit, with the consent of both sides, we take up the appeal itself for disposal.2. The period of demand in this case from July 2000 to September 2000 by a Show Cause Notice issued on 30.7.2002 for the goods "B.T.Tintmaster Dispensers" used for dispensing colour by pumping and classification under Heading 841300 claimed by the appellants and approved by the Custom House, after examination of the catalogues and the products under import, has been set aside by the impugned order, by bringing the classification under Heading 84.79 in consequential liabilities on the appellants. The learned Advocate for the appellants has drawn our attention to the fact that at Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Nhava Sheva and Sahar Airport, Mumbai the subject goods have been classified under Heading 8413.00 and those classifications have been upheld by Revenue inasmuch as they have not been challenged and he relies upon the Supreme Court decision in the...