Mumbai Court December 2005 Judgments

Automobile Corporation of Goa Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The brief facts of the case as stated by the appellants are as follows: Automobile Corporation of Goa Limited., (hereinafter referred as to the appellants) have two manufacturing units situated in Goa. In one unit the appellants is engaged in the manufacture of parts and accessories of motor vehicles and the same is referred to as Sheet Metal Division (for short SMD). SMD is also engaged in the activity of cutting, punching, bending, forming etc. of sheet metal supplied to it. In the other unit, the appellants are inter alia engaged in the activity of building Bodies on the chassis supplied by others. This unit is called Bus Body Division (for short BBD). Both the aforesaid units namely SMD and BBD are separately registered under Central Excise Act. The appellants from BBD send sheet metal and other material to SMD for the purpose of carrying out certain processes like cutting, punching, bending, forming etc. on the sheet metal. In SMD the appellants undertake the...

Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (i)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC412

1. The applicants are a company incorporated in Korea, engaged as a contractor by ONGC for carrying out certain operations on turnkey basis at ONGC installation at Bombay High Offshore. The other applicant is an officer of the Korean company. Pursuant to the contract, they imported various items required for carrying on surveys, testing, commissioning and other operations connected with the performance of the contract entered into to execute Mumbai High South Process Platform Project and Mumbai Uran Trunk Pipeline Project. They appointed M/s. J.M. Baxi & Co as the Custom House Agent to attend to the work of clearance of vessels, tugs, barges, dredgers and other goods which were imported and were required for execution of the work entered into.2. The issue in these appeals concerned is the vessels so brought into India for execution of the contract and thereafter their eventual export out of India after execution of the contract. The Customs House agent so appointed filed IGMs for ...

Anil Somdatta Nagpal and Lalit Somdatta Nagpal Vs. the State of Mahara ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ1307

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This is an application for bail on the ground that the mandate of law pertaining to filing of charge sheet being not adhered to, the applicants be released.2. The facts necessary to consider the applicability of the relevant statutory provisions are these. In pursuance to the raid on the factory premises of one Deepak Mundada, original accused No. 3, wherein two iron tanks of 12,000 and 6,000 litres capacities, a motor tanker containing Benzin, Greenish lubricating in 200 litres barrel, 45 kilos of white powder in 5 gunny bags and a motor tanker containing Mineral Turpentine Oil (MTO) were found and were seized under panchanama. On the basis of a statement of Ranjit Pandurang Desai a case was registered as C.R. No. 39/2004 with Karveer Police Station, Kolhapur, against eleven accused persons named in the F.I.R. for offences under sections 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and under section 3 of Petroleum Storage and Distribution Act, 2000.3. The applic...

Ultramarine and Pigments Ltd. Vs. O.P. Srivastava, Commissioner of Inc ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR528; (2006)205CTR(Bom)34; [2006]286ITR86(Bom)

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Mr. Mehta for the petitioner. Mr. Kotangale appears for the respondent.2. This Petition has been admitted way back in the year 1992 and has been pending for final determination. The Petition seeks to challenge the order dated 30th January 1992 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner.3. The facts leading to this revision and the said order dated 30th January 1992 are as follows:-For Assessment Year 1982-83, the petitioner filed return of income on 31.7.1982 declaring income of Rs. 56,53,380/-. The assessment order was passed on 31.1.1985 determining the income at Rs. 71,91,717/- by making various disallowances. As per the assessment order, the assessing officer granted the petitioner refund of Rs. 10,25,207/- inclusive of interest. It may be noted that Section 214 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 came to be amended on 1st April 1985 whereby interest payable by the Government...

Ashok Soma Misal Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through P.S.O.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ1528

V.M. Kanade, J.1. The appellant is challenging the Judgment and order passed by the 5th Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 476/2000. The said Judgment and Order dated 30th July, 2001. The Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life.2. Prosecution case in brief is that the accused initially used to reside in Village Alamwadi, Taluka Mohod, District Solapur. His Brother Sudhakar who was staying at Lonawala called him in search of work. Accordingly, he alongwith his wife Mangal and two sons and a daughter went to Lonawala and started residing there. On 15th July, 2000 at about 16.45 hours when the wife of the appellant Mangal and the children were at home, the accused came drunk, quarrelled with his wife, caused injury by a blade on her face and stomach and after his wife fell down, he hit her with a stone. As a result o...

Pradeep L. Pathak Vs. Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Hospital and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR432; 2006(2)BomCR58; 2006(1)MhLj725

1. The petitioner was an employee of Mahatma Gandhi Memorial hospital, first respondent herein. First respondent is a hospital set up under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1947. The second respondent is the body corporate constituted under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Corporation Act, 1947 which according to the petitioner forms part of a Government body. The third respondent is the State of Maharashtra.2. The petitioner is a graduate from Bombay University. According to him since there was a vacancy for the post of Junior Personnel Officer, he applied for the same and was called for interview on 11th December 1991. He was interviewed and declared successful. In the appointment order dated 14/23-12-1991 issued by the Superintendent of first respondent-hospital it was stated that the petitioner's appointment as Junior Personnel Officer was purely on temporary basis with effect from 6th January 1992 in leave vacancy of one Mr. Divekar, Junior Personnel Officer. 3. I...

Ramchandra Keshavrao Deo Vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR61; 2006(2)MhLj862

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner an ex-employee in the employment of respondents No. 2 and 3 has challenged the Government Resolution dated 9-9-1988 along with the orders dated 5-10-1991, 10-14992 of his employer management and 24-2-1994 of School Tribunal. By the Government Resolution mentioned above, the management of Private Schools have been empowered to order compulsory retirement of their employees in accordance with the procedure prescribed thereunder. On 5-10-1991, in exercise of that power, respondents No. 2 and 3 ordered compulsory retirement of present petitioner with effect from 10-1-1992. By order dated 10-1-1992, the petitioner has been relieved accordingly. The petitioner challenged said order in an appeal under Section 9 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, (hereinafter referred to as the Act or MEPS Act), before respondent No. 1 -School Tribunal...

Michael Herisuasai Joseph Since Dead, Through His Lrs. Areen Wd/O Mich ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR639; 2006(6)BomCR444; 2006(3)MhLj161

R.C. Chavan, J.1. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit as well as appeal challenging the said dismissal, the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 131 of 1987 before the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, has preferred this appeal. The appeal is now being prosecuted by the legal representatives of the deceased-plaintiff, who died during the pendency of this appeal.2. The plaintiff claimed to have purchased the suit house for a sum of Rs. 6,000/- from one John Michael Carvelho under a registered sale-deed dated 28th January, 1964. The plaintiffs brothers Anthony and Chouri were also occupying the suit house with their families when the house was purchased. Anthony died in 1981 and Chouri died on 8th November, 1986. Even after their deaths, their families continued to occupy the portions of the house. The defendants are heirs of deceased Anthony. Since the plaintiffs family had expanded, the plaintiff found the accommodation with him insufficient and hence he r...

Surayya Afzal Khan Vs. Raza Shah Fakir Takiya and Masjid Trust and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR424; 2006(4)MhLj544

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. All these first appeals are filed by the respective appellants/original defendant No. 6, whereby challenge has been made to the judgment and decree dated 12th March, 1993 passed by the Additional District Judge, Pune in Civil Suit No. 6 of 1987, Civil Suit No. 10 of 1987, Civil Suit No. 19 of 1987, Civil Suit No. 4 of 1987 and Civil Suit No. 23 of 1987 respectively whereby, the suits filed by respondent No. 1 Trust, along with other Trustees, have been decreed in respect of the suit premises described in the respective plaint. It has been further declared that defendant/appellant has no right, title and interest in the suit premises to retain the possession of the suit premises. The appellant/defendant No. 6 has been directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises described in the plaint within three months, failing which it has been further directed that Trust to recover the possession through court. The order of mesne profits as contempl...

Mooljee Lukhmidas Vs. S.M. Kapadia

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR52; 2006(6)BomCR443

Bhosale D.B., J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent.2. By this petition, the petitioner has impugned the judgment and order dated 20.12.1997 rendered in Interim Application No. 5631 of 1997 in RAE & R. Suit No. 3521 of 1984, by which the Interim Application filed by the respondent-defendant under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to amend the written statement as per the Schedule was allowed.3. The impugned order was challenged solely on the ground that the defendant by way of an amendment has not only changed completely the case made in the written statement but has withdrawn the admission made therein. My attention was drawn to paragraph 1 of the Plaint wherein the petitioner-plaintiff has categorically stated that the respondent-defendant is a monthly tenant of the plaintiff in respect of 'residential premises' being Room No. 30 on the 2nd floor of the building. In reply to the first paragraph of the plain...