Mumbai Court March 2005 Judgments

Francis Xavier Joseph John Chawl Vs. Magna Graphics (i) Pvt. Ltd.,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR88

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The petitioner was employed under the respondent no.1 company and he was awarded punishment of dismissal by an order dated 24.8.1995 on the ground of habitual absenteeism. This order was challenged in Complaint (ULP) No. 317 of 1995 filed under Section 28 read with Items 1(b), 1(d), 1(e) and 1(g) of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 ('the Act' for short). The Labour Court dismissed the complaint vide its judgment and order dated 17.4.1996 and the same was challenged in revision application (ULP) No. 63 of 1996 which came to be dismissed by the learned President, Industrial Court of Maharashtra on 2.9.1996.2. The charge-sheet dated 6.3.1995 had charged him of remaining absent for a period of 32 days during the months of May, July, August, November and December, 1994. The employee submitted his reply to the said charge-sheet on 16.3.1995 and denied that he was the case of habitual absenteeism. He also contested the claim of days of absence and defended that...

Lakhmichand Ramchand Asrani Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumba ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR79; 2005(3)MhLj169

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. One Ramchand Daulatram Asrani, who was the father of the Petitioner, was during his life time seized and possessed of Plot No. 41, admeasuring 569.40 sq. mtRs. The plot was affected by a reservation for a garden under Town Planning Scheme V, Santacruz, Mumbai. The land owner expired on 9th June, 1983 leaving behind him his last will and testament dated 24th March, 1976 under which the Petitioner was appointed as sole executor. Probate is stated to have been granted to the Petitioner by this Court on 21st November, 1992 in the exercise of the testamentary and intestate jurisdiction. On 30th August, 1973, a town planning scheme, TPS V (First Variation) for Santacruz was drawn up and published. Final Plot 41 was a part of the Town planning scheme. An arbitrator was appointed under Section 72 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The Arbitrator made his award on 30th August, 1973 and granted compensation in the amount of Rs. 68,328/-for Final Plot ...

Bohra Pratisthan and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR586; 2005(102)ECC211; 2005(185)ELT225(Bom); 2005(3)MhLj657

Daga V.C., J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the rival parties. Perused petition and counter-affidavit.THE FACTS :2. This petition is directed against the action of the respondent No. 2 ordering cancellation of the detention certificate pursuant to the endorsement on the bill of entry on March, 5, 1994.3. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the public notice dated July 29, 1985; detention certificate was issued in favour of the petitioners by the custom authorities for the period August 30, 1993 to February 18, 1994. It is also not in dispute that upon presentation of the said detention certificate, the respondent No. 4 Bombay Port Trust (B.P.T.) did accept 20% of the amount of their charges and granted remission for the balance 80%.4. The Bombay Port Trust, respondent No. 4 subsequent to the grant of above remission appears to have realised that the detention certificate required signature of the Deputy Collector of Customs and not of the Assistant Collector of Customs. In this vie...

Hindi Vidya Bhavan Society and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR676

Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. The first petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. In 1963, the First Petitioner set up Hindi Vidya Bhavan which at all material times has been and continues to be an unaided private school. The school comprises of three sections - the pre-primary, primary and secondary sections. The dispute in the present case pertains to fees that have been proposed by the school for its primary section. The primary section is recognized by the Municipal Corporation under the Grant in Aid Code for approved private primary schools in Greater Mumbai.2. The Municipal Corporation exercises control over private primary schools under the provisions of the Grant in Aid Code. The Code has been framed under the provisions of Section 62-C(3) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The Code provides for recognition of primary schools. Rule 5 prescribes the conditions for ...

Valentine Ship Services and anr. Vs. Mr. Reiner Luz De Souza and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR797

A.P. Lavande, J.1. Heard Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Kantak, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 though served, has chosen not to put in appearance.2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith.3. By this petition, the petitioners take exception to order dated 9th August, 2004, passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco da Gama, in Special Civil Suit No. 25/03/A, permitting the petitioners to file written statement upon deposit of the amount of Rs. 8,55,068.50 p. by them.4. Respondent No. 1 filed the abovementioned suit against the petitioners and respondent No. 2 for recovery of the amount of Rs. 8,55,068.50 p.. The petitioners did not file written statement within a period of 90 days from the date of service of summons upon them. Thereafter on 23rd January, 2004, the petitioners filed an application under Order IX, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code, after a delay of about two months and seven days. The application was supported by affidavits an...

Marathwada Cancer Hospital Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. In this case of a denial of benefit of notification No. 64/88 to the imports made and cleared in 1993 of certain medical instruments used for treatment of cancer in Human beings.2. The appellants herein had set up a hospital and obtained the necessary certification from DGHS and imported equipments for ailing the benefit of notification. They have claimed that during the period 1993-94 till this notification No. 64/88 was rescinded they have complied with the conditions of free treatment to patients below certain income levels as provided for by the notification. The department however, contends that it is not so denies the benefit of notification granted & demands of duty confirmed. Hence the present appeal.3. The matter was remitted earlier to the Commissioner for Denova adjudication. The Commissioner however, do not await the findings of the fact of eligibility of the treatment condition of poor and needy, which were under the circumstance and rejected by t...

A.R. Shah and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT204Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing Shri. K.I. Vyas for M/s. Gandhi Fibres and sole proprietor Shri. A.A. Gandhi, the Importer, Shri. A.R. Shah in person and Ld. SDR and finding that the importers have paid an amount of Rs. 2.97 Lakhs and redemption fine and the present appeals pertains to penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act and after waiver of pre-deposit required these appeals are being disposed off. Inspite of the notice, no one appeared for M/s. Lakhani Filament Pvt Ltd. & Shri. J.V. Lakhani. There is no request for adjournment. Their case is also being disposed off.2. M/s. Gandhi Fibres are a 100% EOU. They imported a consignment of yarn cleared duty free through customs and diverted the same to M/s.Lakhani Filament P. Ltd. with the assistance of Shri. A.R. Shah. Thus non-duty paid goods were clandestinely removed and not used in the process for which duty was not recovered for these goods. The liability to confiscate and duty is therefore upheld and has not been contested even...

Shree Transport and Jaykishan Vs. Ccex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. These are the appeals against imposition of fine and penalty. In the appeal No. 588/03 a fine of Rs. 80,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- has been imposed and whereas in the appeal No. 587/03 a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed. The reasons for imposition of the fine and penalty are given in Paras 5.1 and 5.2 of the order-in-original which are reproduced as under: - "5.1 In light of the facts and circumstances, as enumerated above, I find that, the seized goods covered under various LRs issued by the transporter are covered by documents which are found either of different description as shown under accompanied documents or prepared in the name of fake consignors. Noticee No. 1 & No. 2 acquired possession and attempted to transport the excisable goods, under seizure, for which they has reason to believe that the said goods covered with documents which were either of different description as shown under accompanied documents or prepared in the name of fake consignors and ...

Harman Finochem Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (i)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides in this matter and considering the facts, we find that this matter can be decided at this stage. Therefore, after waiver of pre-deposit and grant of condonation of delay the following order has been passed.2. The proceeding were launched against the importers which culminated in the present order impugned before us. From the records it is apparent that the notice sent to the appellant herein, who is a regular importer in the Customs house were received back by the Postal Authorities with the remarks "Not found". No efforts appear to have been made to serve the same at the known other address. The Commissioner therefore, concluded that such the importer were not found at the known address and proceeded to decide the matter ex-parte after displaying the Show Cause Notice on the notice board. There is a material to show that the impugned order was also dispatched by the Customs department on 16.10.2000 however, there is no material produce to show that this or...

Polymermann (Asia) P. Ltd. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2006]133CompCas894(Bom); [2008]81SCL46(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. The present petition seeks to challenge the action of respondent No.4 in seeking to take coercive steps to recover the duty of Rs. 8,02,815/-along with interest thereon in the sum of RS. 4,63,847/-.2. The petitioners herein are also claiming directions against respondent Nos. 3 and restraining them from taking any coercive action against the assets and properties of the petitioner-Company pursuant to the notices issued from time to time; without obtaining prior consent from the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies ( Special Provisions) Act, 1985.Factual Matrix:3. The factual matrix reveals that the petitioners are an industrial Unit having its factory and registered office at MIDC ,Ambad, Nasik. The petitioner-Company is engaged in the business of manufacture of polymer chemicals, mainly polyol and polyurethane systems; designs office-warred and other allied products. The operations of the compan...