Mumbai Court September 2004 Judgments

Dangi Financial and Management Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. M/s. Dangi financial & Management Ltd., Mumbai are holders of Registration Certificate. They were required to file quarterly returns in Form ST-3 in terms of Section 70(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the quarter ending September 96 and December 96 with in 15 days of the end of preceding quarter. The same was not furnished in time. Therefore, show cause notices under Section 70(2) were issued asking them as to why penalty should not be imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.3. The Assistant Commissioner Service Tax of Central Excise, Mumbai after due enquiry found that ST-3 returns of the quarter ending September % and December 96 which were due to be filed on 15/10/96 and 15/1/97 respectively were filed 6n 27/11/96 & 17/1/97, after delay of 43 days and 26 days respectively. He has not accepted the explanation given by the appellant. In this case, since the concerned signatory was on leave and gone abroad, as such the delay occurred. Secondly, Ld.Asst. commission...

Cybertech Software and Services Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)2STR219

1. Heard both sides. It is seen that the stay has been sought against the Order dated 7-5-2004 passed by the Commissioner remanding the matter to the Asst. Commissioner to quantify the service tax and take necessary action to recover the same by the process of law.2. The Id. JDR submitted that the amount is not quantified. Stay petition is not maintainable.3. After hearing both sides, we find that since the amount is yet to be quantified, there is no case for stay.4. We, therefore, dismiss the stay petition filed by the appellant as being pre-mature....

Sudha Suhas Nandanvankar Vs. Suhas Ramrao Nandanvankar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom62; 2004(4)ALLMR839; 2005(1)BomCR591; 2004(4)MhLj1052

S.B. Mhase, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed in Misc. Application No. 60 of 2000 on 5-8-2000 by the Family Court, Bandra in an application preferred underSections 27 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, inter alia, making prayer that the stridhan of the applicant be returned and also permanent alimony be granted. The said application was partly allowed by the Family Court. However, in respect of part rejection of the application, this appeal has been preferred.2. The applicant was married with the opponent on 21-5-1995 according to Hindu Laws. The said marriage has been annulled by a-decree of nullity dated 16-3-1996 on a ground that the applicant-wife was suffering from epilepsy at the time of marriage. Even though the said decree was ex-parte, the said decree was not challenged by the applicant-wife. However, after passing of the said decree, the notice was issued by the applicant for return of the articles which were presented to her at the time of mar...

Chanappa Advyappa Ambi Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ89

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. A son killed his own father. Therefore, he was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. The appellant-accused has appealed against the said order of conviction.2. The Additional Sessions Judge, Gadhinglaj held that the appellant had committed murder of his father Advyappa (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') on 26th May, 1999, at about 6.00 a.m. in front of their house at Ambi Vasahat at village Hitni, Taluka Gadhinglaj, and therefore, charged him under Section 302 of IPC and, after due trial, imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.3. The prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. No defence witness is examined. There are three eye-witnesses to the unfortunate incident in question. They are, PW-2, Sonabai Virupaksh Ambi, PW-5, Ujwala Subhash Kunte and PW-10 Virupaks...

Dwarkadas Tulsidas Dhokari Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR637; [2005(104)FLR1072]; 2005(1)MhLj663

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By this petition the petitioner is seeking payment of salary for the period 1st September, 1990 to 4th August, 1991 and also for proper computation of pension and post retirement benefits wherein the period between 1st September, 1990 to 4th August, 1991 should be treated as continuous service.2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher with respondent No. 5 - Lilavati Lalji Dayalji High School from 1966 till September, 1987. It appears that in September, 1987 when the petitioner was rendered surplus in the said Lilavati Lalji Dayalji High School, the petitioner was directed to be absorbed in Babu Pannalal Jain High School (B. P. Jain High School) at Pydhonie, Mumbai by the Education Inspector as per Rule 26 of The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. The relevant portion of the said M.E.P.S. Rules reads as under ;-'26. 'Retrenchment on account of abolition of posts. - (1) A permanent employee may be retrenched...

The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. Vs ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR378; 2005(2)MhLj588

V.C. Daga, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.4.2004 passed below Ex.5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 170 of 2004 by the Civil Judge, SD, Thane, restraining the defendant from opening tender in respect of plot No. 71, Sector- 19, Navi Mumbai.Recap of dispute:2. A brief recap of dispute giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant-City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. ('CIDCO' for short) had invited tenders for allotment of plot No. 95, Sector 19, Airoli, Navi Mumbai sometime in the month of September 2002.3. The appellant-CIDCO had received only one tender from respondent No. 1. It did not accept that tender as there were no other competitors. Accordingly, decision taken by the appellant-CIDCO came to be communicated to respondent No. 1 sometime in the month of October 2002.4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decisions of the appellant-CIDCO, respondent No. 1 filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 87 of 2003 in the Court of Civil Judge, JD...

O.J. Coelho Vs. Fgp Limited and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR64; 2005(1)BomCR604; [2005(105)FLR891]; (2005)IILLJ210Bom; 2005(1)MhLj1069

Mohite R.S., J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as a complainant) who was the employee, against the respondents of whom respondent No. 1 was his erstwhile employer. The appeal impugns an order passed by a Single Judge of this Court on 21-4-1998, summarily dismissing Writ Petition No. 5800 of 1997 at the stage of admission and by which order the learned Single Judge has held that the Industrial Court, Thane has rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant.2. The brief facts of the case as can be gathered from the record are as follows:(a) That by an appointment order dated 15-2-1971 the complainant was appointed by respondent No. 1- company as an 'Accounts Assistant'. The appointment order provided that his services could be terminated by either side by giving 1 month's notice in writing.(b) By a letter issued by respondent No. 1 company dated 20-6-1984 the complainant was informed that he was promoted to 'O' grade w.e.f. 14-1984 and that ...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. ParvIn Mohammed Gaus and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005ACJ1956; [2005(104)FLR915]

D.G. Karnik, J.1. This appeal filed by the insurance company is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.7.1993, passed by the learned 2nd Labour Court and Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, directing the respondent No. 8, the owner of the vehicle, and the appellant insurance company to pay the compensation of Rs. 81,540 with interest and penalty of Rs. 40,770.2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are stated below:The respondent No. 8 is the owner of motor vehicle, a truck bearing registration No. MHQ-6297 (for short 'the truck') which was insured with the appellant insurance company. One Shaikh Mohammad Gaus Raffuddin (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), was an employee of the respondent No. 8 and at the relevant time was driving the truck. The respondent Nos. 1 to 7 are the heirs of the deceased. On 11.7.1991, the deceased was driving the truck from Bombay to Nasik, when it met with an accident in which the deceased died on the spot. Responde...

Deputy Director Vs. Anoop Kumar Wadhere and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(117)LC136(Bombay); 2004(178)ELT156(Bom)

ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This petition essentially seeks to set aside the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated May 21, 2004 releasing the respondents on bail on certain conditions. The grievance made before this Court on behalf of the petitioner in substance is that there was no just reason for releasing the respondents on bail, especially in the light of the stand taken on behalf of the petitioner in the remand application which was also considered by the concerned Magistrate while entertaining the bail application filed by the respondents. In the remand application, it was asserted on behalf of the applicants that it is evident that the respondents during the investigation before arrest have given wrong information and misleading clues to the concerned investigating officer and further investigation was necessary in view of the complexity of the case. It is submitted that in spite of such stand taken, the Magistra...

Aquaguard Plastics and Polymers Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(117)LC182Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Drip Irrigation Equipment, Sprinklar Irrigation Equipment and parts thereof falling under Chapter 84 of CETA 1985. They filed letter dated 2.12.1998 in which they submitted revised classification list in accordance with order of the Commissioner, Vadodara in which it was held that one of the parts of the above system, namely laterals manufactured and cleared by the appellants was not dutiable. Accordingly, the duty paid under protest on laterals was refundable (it is clarified that no refund was ever granted). Since the apellants were required to reverse the credit on the inputs, they were also required to reverse the credit under Rule 57H. Accordingly, they paid differential duty of Rs. 90,155/- on their own adjusting refundable amount and the amount of credit to be reversed. Show cause notice proposing denial of credit of Rs. 27,45,345/- and also proposing imposition of penalty was issued; the notic...