Mumbai Court July 2004 Judgments

Shrigopal Premprakash Mandhaniya and anr. Vs. Nagpur University and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR723; 2005(2)BomCR357; (2005)107BOMLR671; 2004(4)MhLj608

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Haq learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Shri Sonare, AGP for respondent No. 3.2. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.3. Shri Haq, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners have passed M.B.B.S, and have done one year's rotating internship. The petitioners being eligible for registration for the Post Graduate Medical Courses, had appeared for the Post Graduate Medical Common Entrance Test -- 2000 (PGMCET-2000) which was held on 24-12-2000. The counselling for the selection of the candidates in pursuance of the above mentioned PGMCET-2000 started from 7-8-2001. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that petitioner No. 1 was selected for M.D. (Anaesthesia) and he was given registration in the Government Medical College, Nagpur. Petitioner No. 2 was selected for M.S. (Surgery) and he was given registration in Indira Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur...

Govind Laxman Jadhav Vs. Namdeo Balu Jadhav

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR895; 2005(1)BomCR278; 2005(1)MhLj8

Abhay S. Oka, J.1. On 11th April, 1988 this Court admitted this Second Appeal by observing that ground (b) in the Memorandum of Appeal raises a substantial question of law. By order dated 8th June, 2004 passed in exercise of power under the proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, this Court framed one more substantial question of law. After framing the said substantial question of law, opportunity was given to the respondent to argue on the said substantial question of law. For that purpose, on 8th June, 2004, the hearing was adjourned and sufficient time was granted. This Second Appeal was argued extensively on 30th June, 2004 and was kept today for further hearing and judgment.2. The ground (b) in the Memorandum of Appeal reads thus :(b) Whether the First Appellate Court has misread and misconstrued the pleadings and has erroneously allowed the appeal?The additional substantial question of law framed by me is as under :'Whether the Appeal prefe...

Santa Rita Gomes S/O Luis Gomes Vs. State

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR717

N.A. Britto, J.1. The petitioner herein was an accused in Criminal Case No. 197/S/99/F, who has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 279, 304-A and 427 of the I.P.C., by judgment and order dated 25.2.2002 and 6.3.2002, respectively by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Margao and whose conviction and sentence has been upheld by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Margao vide his judgment and order dated 16.1.2004.2. The case of the prosecution against the accused was that on 15.4.1999 at about 8.45 hours, the accused drove a mini-bus bearing registration No. GA-02-T-4224 near about Chowgule College, Gogol, Margao in a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner while coming from Courtroom towards Margao and lost control over the same, as a result of which, the bus went off the road, on the wrong side and dashed against Sayyed Ahmed and Smt. Conceicao Fernandes, while they were waiting at the bus stop and who suffered Injuries, consequent to which they died on 15.4.199...

Edelstahi Agencies (P) Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)IILLJ108Bom

D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent waives service. By consent, taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The Petitioner is an indenting agent and was incorporated on November 16, 1994. As an indenting agent the Petitioner is required to liaise with customers in India and place orders on their behalf with its principals. On September 4, 1995, the Petitioner addressed a letter to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, applying for coverage of its establishment under Section 1(4) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 on a voluntary basis 'with effect from December 1, 1995 the last date of the month in which the notification is published in the Gazette of India.' The Petitioner undertook as an employer to pay its share of the Provident Fund contribution at the rate of 10% as provided under Section 6 of the Act read with paragraph 29 of the scheme framed thereunder. The Petitioner stated th...

Hindustan Lever Mazdoor Sabha and anr. Vs. Hindustan Lever Limited and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR93; (2005)IILLJ637Bom; 2005(2)MhLj575

Mhatre Nishita, J.1. Both these writ petitions challenge the Award dated 7th September, 2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai in' Reference (IT) No. 39 of 1997. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1924 of 2003 and the respondent in Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 28048 of 2003 will be called 'the Union' and the respondent in Writ Petition No. 1924 of 2003 and the petitioner in Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 28048 of 2003 will be called 'the Company'.2. The Union claims to represent the employees who are known as field force employees working with the Company. The dispute in the present writ petitions relates to these employees. Correspondence was exchanged in 1957 between the Union and the company with regard to the status of the field force employees, the locus of the union to represent them etc. This correspondence exchanged between the parties constituted an agreement according to the Union which was binding on both parties. Since 1957, the employees repre...

Mytri Enterprises, Sushil Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC335

1. These appeals arose out of a common order of the Commissioner of Customs Mumbai. The importers are aggrieved by the order inasmuch as the Commissioner confiscated the goods (car speakers) under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, rejected the declared value and imposed penalties on the partners of the importing firm under Section 114 A.2.The revenue is aggrieved that the Commissioner has merely imposed penalties on the partners without imposing a suitable penalty on the importing firm.3. Both the importers' appeals and the Revenue's are taken up for disposal.4. M/s. Mytri Enterprises is a partnership firm. It has two partners S/Shri Sushil Kumar Agarwal and Jayant Bachata. The firm imported car speakers ( declared them as load speakers) of three models, declared on uniform price of US $ 9 per pair totally valued at US $ 14,391 CIF and filed a bill of entry for their clearance. They were assessed to duty enhancing the value from US $ 9 to US $ 11.60 per pair in respect of one model,...

Adani Exports Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT169Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above miscellaneous application seeking modification of the stay order No. S/562/WZB/2004/C-I pronounced on 12.3.2004 came up for consideration on 2.6.2004. The Bench in the above cited order directed the applicants to deposit Rs. 6,50,000/- towards duty demanded within eight weeks and report compliance on 31.5.2004.2. The issue pertained to anti-dumping duty leviable on normal butanol imported and cleared by the applicant. The department collected provisional anti-dumping duty prescribed under notification 6/2000 dated 27.1.2000 on the said goods when the goods were ex-bonded by the applicant. It so transpired that the designated authority by notification 109/2000-Cus. determined final anti-dumping duty leviable on the said goods with retrospective effect under the powers vested with it under Section 9A(3) of the Customs Tariff Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order confirmed the differential duty between what was collected in accordance with rate prescribed und...

Commissioner of Central Vs. Moulds and Dies Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue is in appeal and against dropping the proceedings initiated by Show Cause notice dated 20.9.93 for the period March 98 to Nov 91 & dated 28.5.92 for the period 1.12.91 to 14.1.92 which were issued, demanding duty under the provision of Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944 consequent to an inquiry conducted by the officers who were acting pursuant to an intelligence. M/s. Moulds & Dies Pvt. Ltd., situated at Sunderbaug Estate, LBS Marg, Kurle, Bombay-70, engaged in the activities of gear teeth cutting on machined blanks, machining, drilling, shaping, milling, surface grinding etc. resulting in the manufacture of gears, pinions, shafts, bushing etc. in semi-finished condition. The assessee treated the said activity as not amounting to manufacture. The assessee was manufacturing the above said products out of own raw material, i.e., M.S. Forging as well as doing job work on the materials i.e. machined blanks supplied by others. They did not ho...

Carrara Marble and Granite Inds. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT482Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants imported consignments of marble slabs valued at Rs. 17,72,656.52 and filed in all nine bills of entry for clearance under notification 203/92, dated 19-5-1992 against an advance licence No.317619, dated 19-10-1993. The importer declared the goods to be "rough random slabs of marbles". Under the advance licence produced by the appellants, they are allowed to import "relevant raw marble slabs". A panel of Assistant Commissioners was drawn for examining the imported marble slabs covered by the nine bills of entry and the examination report reads thus "Checked the description, verified, not raw/rough, verified, not polished sand not cut to regular size and shape, checked size and quantity." In the light of this examination report, the Commissioner held that the advance licence tendered for clearance of the goods did not cover the goods. According to him, what was covered by the licence was raw/rough marble and what was imported was semifinished marble, He therefore confi...

ismail Mohd. and Sons and A.R.M. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on CHA firm and Rs. 5,64,294/- on its partner arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs. Briefly stated, it is the case of the Department that both the applicants are liable to penalty as they did not act only as a Clearing House Agent, but facilitated import of cordless telephones, toys and other goods ,as they had a very close relationship with the supplier of the goods at Dubai and the goods have been found to be misdeclared with respect to description and value.2. We have heard both sides. The plea of the applicants is that the entire case is made out on the basis of the uncorroborated statements of a co-noticee, namely, Shri Shailesh Vagadia - who has stated that after arrival of the goods in India from Tabrez Electronics of Dubai all financial deals were carried out by the partner of the CHA; he would only get the toys and other items were for the CHA firm and the CHA firm themselves used to sell ...