Mumbai Court February 2005 Judgments

Stanlubes and Specialities Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1.1 The Appellants are job workers, manufacturing grease from the raw materials and packing materials supplied by M/s Tide Water Oil Co.India Ltd. They filed necessary price lists under Rule 173C of CER 1944, duly supported by independent Charted Accountants certificates showing the landed cost of raw materials and packing materials in their factory and the job charges, and paid excise duty on such cost +job charges basis.However, the department, in the proceedings before us seeks to levy excise duty on the selling price of M/s Tide Water Oil Co. India Ltd. ii) that the appellants are related persons of Tide Water within the meaning of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act; iii) that there is any flow back of financial consideration from Tide Water; i) suppression of fact as the appellants have "special relationship" with Tide Water Oil Co., and that they further suppressed the wholesale price at which the said Tide Water Oil Company sold the products. ii) the Appellants have deliberately, w...

Shri Basant Lal Agarwal Vs. Lloyds Finance Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR397; [2005]59SCL169(Bom)

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. This petition for winding up of the company was filed by the original petitioner for recovery of amount of Rs.3,75,00,000/- which was advanced to the respondent company as and by way of fixed deposit for a period of three years. The said deposit was carrying interest at the rate of 18% per annum. By an order dated 21.11.2003 this court directed the company to deposit the amount of Rs.3,75,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% in court failing which the said company petition to be admitted and if deposit is made as directed then the petitioner was directed to file a suit. Admittedly no such deposit was made. Thus the petition stood admitted by the said order. In the present company petition the application was moved being No. 233 of 2004 on behalf of various creditors and small fixed deposit holders inter-alia seeking relief that in place of winding of the company it is in the interest of small fixed deposit holders that a scheme should be framed for retur...

Anil Rangrao Thorat Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006BomCR(Cri)504

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. After hearing Counsel for the parties, as I indicated my mind to allow the application, Mr. Gupte, on instructions, states that the Court may not record elaborate reasons which will eventually prejudice the Respondents at the stage of bail application, if moved by the Respondents. Mr. Gupte on instructions states that the Respondents are inclined to surrender before the appropriate Court, so that their regular bail application can be considered by that Court on its own merits. Ordinarily, in view of the stand taken by the Respondents, I would have disposed of the application without recording any reason, but, for the nature of directions that I propose to issue, I think it necessary to make few broad observations, making it clear that the same shall not affect the merits of the case of the Respondents in the event they move application for bail before the appropriate Court. 2. Indeed, at the first blush, on reading the impugned judgment, it gives an impression tha...

Charan Parashramji Meshram, Joint Director of Animal Husbandry Vs. Sta ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR742

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Petitioner is presently working as Joint Director of animal husbandry, in the Maharashtra Animal Husbandry services under Respondent no. 2, Pune. The petitioner holds qualification of B.Sc. (Agriculture) and was initially appointed as Assistant Fodder Development Officer on 7th April, 1972 in Animal Husbandry Department of Respondent no. 1. Thereafter he was promoted as Fodder Development Officer and subsequently to the post of Deputy Director of Animal Husbandry (Feed and Fodder). It is the case of the petitioner that the posts in which he works have separate seniority lists and provide s for promotion channels upto the post of Deputy Director (Fodder) of Animal Husbandry. In the same cadre there are other employees in the Maharashtra Animal Husbandry Services possessing qualification of B.V.Sc. or equivalent, and their seniority and channels were also separate upto the post of Deputy Director of Animal Husbandry under Maharashtra Animal Husbandry Services Cadre. Th...

Mr. V.S. Jadhav Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR123; 2005(2)MhLj1039

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. In both these Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the action of the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation in permanently withholding the pensionary payments of its two former employees who are the Petitioners before the Court has been called into question. In order to adjudicate upon the submissions which have been urged before the Court, a brief reference to the facts of the two Petitions would be appropriate: 2. In Writ Petition 450 of 2001 the Petitioner joined the service of the Municipal Corporation as an Overseer, a post which was subsequently designated as that of Assistant Engineer, in October 1963. In 1970, the Petitioner was promoted as a Sub-Engineer. In 1981, in pursuance of a selection which was carried out by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC), he was appointed as a Ward Officer. In the year 1992, the Petitioner came to be appointed as Deputy Municipal Commissioner again in pursuance of a selection carried out by the M...

Caribjet Inc. Vs. Air India Limited

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR443; 2005(3)BomCR94; 2005(2)MhLj461

1. This appeal is directed against the order of Khanwilkar, J. dismissing a Chamber Summons for revocation of the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5 crores which has been paid by the plaintiff on demand of the Income Tax Authorities on account of the tax liability of the defendant as also for recovery of Rs. 96,16,74,416/- and Rs. 132,6521,397/-being the balance amount which has been demanded from the plaintiff by the Income Tax Authorities as the plaintiff is required to pay this amount on account of the tax liability of the defendant.2. The plaintiff presented the suit before the authorised officer of this Court on 20th July, 2001 and formal application for leave under Clause 12 was moved which was granted on 8th September, 2001. Thereafter the suit came to be numbered on 13th September, 2001 and plaint was served on the defendant on 1st October, 2001. Upon service, the defend...

Shrikant Janardhan Chaudhari and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ2097

ORDERS.T. Kharche, J.1. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants/original accused Nos. 1 to 4 have challenged the order dated 6-10-2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 79 of 2001, whereby the Revision has been dismissed and the order regarding framing of charge by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 406 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 113 of 2000 has been confirmed.2. The incident occurred on 29-8-2000 at about 3.00 p.m. The complainant Murlidhar, all the accused persons and the people of the village sat in a row for taking meal. At that time accused Shrikant was serving the food. The complainant asked him to serve a particular food item on which the accused Shrikant told him that he was a beggar and how he sat in the row of Patils for taking meal and refused to serve him. The complainant said that he had paid the ...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh Vithoba Patil and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2005)DMC357

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. This is a criminal appeal under Section 378(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr. P.C.') by the State of Maharashtra (for short 'State') against an order of acquittal, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 1999 dated 2nd December, 1994, whereby, the conviction order dated 30th June, 1990, in Sessions Case No. 120 of 1988, against the respondent-accused under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., was set aside.2. Respondent No. 1-accused No. 1 was married in the year 1982 to Shevanta @ Lakshmi, the sister of the complainant (P.W. 1). After three years of the marriage, one son was born. Both husband and wife were living together in their marital house at Nitture, Taluka-Chandgad, District-Kolhapur, along with Rukmini Vithoba Patil-respondent No. 2-accused No. 2, the mother of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is now reported dead. Therefore, the appeal is abated against her. On 2nd Feb...

Keshav Krishna Londhe (Dr.) Vs. Adarsh Gruha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha L ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR669; 2005(5)BomCR404

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. Heard Shri Sirpurkar, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 1.2. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the reversing judgment of Co-operative Appellate Court dated 31-12-1990 in Appeal Nos. 55 of 1990 and 56 of 1990. The said appeals were filed respectively by present respondents Nos. 1 and 2 together and present respondent No. 3 separately challenging the judgment of Co-operative Court dated 25-6-1990 in Dispute No. 44 of 1982 by which the Dispute under Section 91 filed by the present petitioner came to be allowed and cancellation of allotment of Plot No. 59 in his favour was declared to be illegal and quashed. It appears that after the judgment of Co-operative Appellate Court in favour of respondent No. 3, respondent No. 3 has obtained the lease deed of said plot in his favour and he has been permitted to raise construction of residential house upon it o...

Balasaheb S/O Vithalrao Suryawanshi and ors. Vs. the State of Maharash ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR240

M.G. Gaikwad, J.1. The petitioners (land owners) have challenged the acquisition proceedings No. 1994/SSK/1/LNQ/CR/418 dated 12.1.95 whereby the respondents proposed to acquire the petitioners' lands for rehabilitation of flood affected persons and to quash and set aside the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short) issued by respondent.2. The petitioners are owners of agricultural land Gat Nos. 259, 260, 273, 274 and 275 situated at village Nila, Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani. The Government of Maharashtra proposed to acquire these lands for public purpose viz. for rehabilitation of flood affected persons. Notification under Section 4 of the Act. was issued and published in Government Gazette dated 30.9.1993. The petitioners were not served with the notices under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioners have submitted their objections under Section 5-A of the Act (Annexure B). Inspite of objections personal opportunity of hearing was not given to th...