Mumbai Court November 2005 Judgments

Shriram Mahadeorao Tandale Vs. Saraswati Mata Vidya Prasarak and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR93; 2006(2)MhLj131

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This is writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India and challenge in it is to the order of termination dated 30-4-1993 issued by respondent No. 1 management and the judgment of respondent No. 4 School Tribunal dated 24-1-1994 dismissing the appeal of present petitioner against said termination order. Respondent No. 2 is the School run by respondent No. 1 in which petitioner No. 1 was working while respondent No. 3 is the Education Officer (secondary) responsible for grant of approval and release of salary functioning on behalf of State Government.2. The services of petitioner have been terminated by Impugned Order dated 30-4-1993 on the ground that he has produced false certificate of his belonging to Nomadic Tribe by name 'Tirmal' to secure appointment as per advertisement dated 15-10-1989. The defence of petitioner is that his caste certificate is not sent for verification by competent caste verification committee and further no departmental inqu...

Vinayak Krishnaji Joshi Dead by Lrs. Nalini Wd/O Vinayak Joshi and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR863; 2006(2)MhLj68

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The petitioners who are legal heirs of deceased employee of respondent No. 1 and 2 who had in this writ petition challenged the order/judgment dated 21-9-1993 passed by School Tribunal whereby School Tribunal allowed appeal of present respondent No. 3 and held that promotion of deceased employee by order dated the 23-11-1991 to the post of Headmaster at Akola school was illegal and in turn directed respondents 1 and 2 to promote respondent No. 3 as Headmaster in place of said employee. This Court granted interim order on 14-1-1994 and that order continues to operate even today. During pendency of petition original petitioner/employee expired and his legal heirs have been brought on record. The respondent No. 1 and 2 run another school at Murtijapur and post of Headmaster therein became vacant in 1994. Against that post, another employee by name Shri Mural has been promoted as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 found him senior most from backward/reserved category. Shri Mu...

Mani Seervai Vs. Tulsibai Hiranand Achhipalia and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR104; 2006(2)MhLj61

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner. None present for the respondents, though served.2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 28th February, 1986 passed in R.A.E. Suit No. 1058/3267 of 1985 in relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the RAE Suit.3. The facts, as revealed from the records, disclose that a suit came to be filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for declaration, possession and compensation against the petitioner and other respondents. The suit was contested by the petitioner on various grounds inter alia contending the absence of jurisdiction to the Court of Small Causes on the ground that the dispute between a person claiming to be a joint tenant and a trespasser cannot be entertained and tried as the suit arising under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter called as 'the Bombay Rent Act', and therefore, the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and tr...

Mushtaq Abdul Majeed Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ628; [2006(2)JCR48(NULL)]

V.M. Kanade, J.1. Appellant is the original accused. By this appeal the appellant/accused challenges the judgment and order passed by the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 766 of 1997. By the said judgment and order dated 22nd September 1998 the Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for life and further imposed a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, the accused was to further undergo R.I. for three months. The appellant/accused was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 394 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years on both the counts and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo sentence of one month.2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appellant has preferred this appeal. The brief facts, which are relevant for the purpose of ...

Bhandara District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Maharash ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR609; 2006(3)BomCR899; 2006(2)MhLj452

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenge is to the order dated 4-8-2005 issued by respondent No. 3 -Collector cancelling the meeting scheduled on 5-8-2005 in which petitioner was to elect its representative on respondent No. 2 Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd. Respondent No. 1 herein is the State of Maharashtra through Collector, Mumbai. Considering the nature of controversy, Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties.2. It is not in dispute that petitioner is a lead District Central Co-operative Bank. It is a Specified Co-operative Society is contemplated by Section 73G of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as Cooperative Act). Earlier it was operating in entire Bhandara district which then comprised of area now distributed between revenue district of Bhandara and Gondia. On 24-4-1999, State Government issued notification bifurcating the e...

Shakuntala Jethalal Shah and anr. Vs. Rajasthan Commercial and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR54; 2006(6)BomCR459

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Since common questions of law and facts arise in both these petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Heard Shri Badkar, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 651 of 1993 and for the respondent in the Writ Petition No. 2723 of 1992. Perused the records.3. The Writ Petition No. 651 of 1993 arises from the order dated 8th September, 1992 passed in the Int. Notice No. 4656 of 1989 in R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 1370/4319 of 1986. By the impugned order, the petitioner's notice was made partly absolute allowing the respondent No. 1 to deposit Rs. 47.450/- towards arrears of rent upto the end of September, 1992 and further permitting to continue to deposit monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 650/- per month from 15th November, 1992 onwards, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for direction to the respondent to deposit monthly rent of Rs. 851/- but permitting the petitioner to re-agitate the...

Electropneumatics and Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The prayer in the application is for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 19,55,664/- and identical amount of personal penalty. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Pneumatic Cylinders and Pneumatic Valves. They are procuring rubber seals from other manufacturers and using the same in the manufacture of cylinders and valves. There is no dispute that the value of such seal is being included in the value of their final products.2. However, such seals are also being cleared by the appellants, on demand by their customers, as replacement request. The duty confirmed is in respect of such replacement parts on the ground that clearance by the appellants would amount to manufacture, thus requiring payment of duty. However, we do not find any justification in the above stand of the revenue. The seals were cleared by the manufacturer on payment of duty. Subsequent resale of the same as spare parts would amount to trading activity and cannot, by any s...

Hari Krishna Steel Corporation Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC50

1. This is a case, in which, the appellants had reversed the cenvat credit on 19th January, 2002 and the show cause notice was issued on 3rd June, 2002. The learned Advocate brings to my notice in the case of Emmellen Biotech v. CCE Mumbai-VII, which reads as follows: The credit wrongly taken was repaid within eight months before the issue of notice. Even if the appellant has not done so, debiting the wrong credit on its own, and only paid it after notice was issued and adjudicated, but if so within three months of determination of duty, it is still not required to pay the interest. The payment of interest in the present case therefore does not arise.2. The learned Advocate informs that the case is identical, hence the impugned order has to be set aside with regard to interest demanded thereunder.3. The learned Joint CDR reiterates the ratio adopted in the order-in-appeal. The order-in-appeal reads as follows: As regards the recovery of interest under Section 11AB, appellant has conte...

M.J. Doshi Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that there is a delay of 1 month and 20 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The reasons for delay are that there were heavy rains and floods in the month of July and August in Mumbai. Besides, he also submits that the letter dated 17.03.2005 could not reach the adjudicating Commissioner in time as the same was received by him on 20.05.2005 and by that time the impugned order has already been passed on 8.4.2005 which was issued by the office of the Commissioner on 29.04.2005 and received by the appellants on 5.5.2005. The appeal should have been filed by 06.08.2005, hence the delay. He refers to the letter dated 17.3.2005 relaxing the policy with regard to waiver of the condition of Homologation for import of BMW 7351 RHD car imported by the appellant.He submits that if the certificate had been taken into consideration by the Commissioner, then the impugned order would not have been passed.3. After hearing both sides and perusal ...

Raymond Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT276Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants, M/s. Raymonds Ltd., are manufacturers of woolen fabrics which they exported as well as sold in the local market. They were availing CENVAT Credit under Rules, 2001/2002. The appellants filed an application before the lower authorities claiming refund of Rs. 6,92,766/-being the Additional Excise duty (T&TA) paid on inputs used in the manufacture of final product which were cleared under bond.The lower authorities vide Order-in-Original dated 18.2.2003 rejected their claim on the following grounds: i) The Additional Excise duty (T&TA) paid on the inputs are not specified duty, ii) With regard to refund claim filed by them a portion of which was considered barred by time specified under Section 11AB of the Act.Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original they filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected their appeal finding no reason to interfere with the Order of the lower authorities. Aggrieved by the said order the appellants filed the present appea...