Mumbai Court March 2005 Judgments

Mahindra and Mahindra Workers Union Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)IIILLJ283Bom

1. Heard Mr. Vaidya in support of this petition. Ms. Gayatri Singh appears for Respondent No. 3.2. Respondent No. 3 has raised a grievance with respect to the functioning of the Petitioner-Union. He claims to be a member of the Union. A dispute arising out of his complaint was pending before the Deputy Registrar of the Trade Union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The officer gave an opportunity to the Petitioner-Union and as per the noting of November 29, 2004, the Union did not file any reply either in writing or orally. Ultimately, therefore, on December 3, 2004, he has issued a certificate under Section 28(1)(A) of the Trade Unions Act referring the dispute to the adjudication of the Industrial Court.3. It is this order which is under challenge in the present petition. Mr. Vaidya appearing for the Petitioner state/ that on an earlier date the Petitioner-Union had sought time to give further particulars. It was further submitted that the necessary papers and instructions should be s...

Ncl Inds. Ltd. and Cc. Vs. Cc. and Ncl Inds. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(189)ELT193Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The issue involved is "addition in the assessable value on account of payment of design, engineering, consultancy etc.and technical know-how fees." The matter has come to me as a 3rd Member. The Member (J) in his Order dated 28/8/2000 has held that the above charges are to be included in the assessable value. Whereas the Member (T) in differing order has recorded that these charges are not includible in the assessable value.2. The ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee-appellant referred to the 2 agreements dated 8/3/1999 and 21/2/1988. The agreement dated 8/3/1999 relates to collaboration whereas the agreement dated 21/2/1988 relates to technical know-how, engineering services, training and start-up. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the collaboration agreement between the appellant and the supplier is for provision of technical know-how, supply critical equipment, engineering services, training, start-up assistance, production and development assi...

Domodar Jaganath Malpani Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue relates to classification of tobacco bye products namely Mishri and Masheri. The ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant at the outset submitted that he is not contesting the classification of Mishri. Therefore, the issue of classification is confined only to Masheri. The ld. Counsel submitted that the process of manufacture of Masheri is given at page 2 of the Order-in-Original. The same is reproduced as under:- 1) Mishri - The mishri is small tobacco particles generated during the process of conversion of raw tobacco into the flakes. The tobacco particles ranging between 20/25 Mesh size to 60/70 Mesh size are called as mishri. This is packed into retail packs and is generally used by consumer for applying on teeth as it is or after roasting/grinding at his place. 2) Mesheri - The mishri obtained as above is further processed by roasting and grinding and is packed into retail packets. This is also used for applying on teeth. This product also can not be used for chewing ...

Shree Prakash Textiles (Guj.) Vs. Ccex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. These are the cross appeals. The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming duty of Rs. 4,22,243/- and an equal amount of penalty. And whereas the Revenue has filed the appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) modifying the order of the Addl. Commissioner.For the sake of reference, the order of the Commissioner (appeals) which is common in both the appeals is reproduced as under:- The subject appeals have been filed by the following appellants against a common Order-In-Original No. 145/Addl.Commr/2000, dated 15.11.2000, passed by Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Ahmedabad-I.02 M/s Prakash Textiles 124/Ahd-1/2001 (Guj) Ltd.02 Shri Chandubhai 125/Ahd-1/2001 Maganbhai Patel 2. I have gone through the facts of the case, submissions of appellants as contained in Appeal Petition and those advanced at the time of personal hearing on 10.12.2001 and 25.2.2002. 3. As the demand, which has been confirmed as ...

Smt. Varsha G. Salunke L/H of Late Vs. the Dy. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)281ITR55(Mum.)

1. There being a difference of opinion between the Members constituting the Division Bench, the Hon'ble President has referred, under Section 255(4) of the IT. Act, 1961, the following point of difference to me as a Third Member to resolve the controversy: 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,96,460.92 ps., made by the Assessing Officer in respect of 3 TDS certificates pertaining to the period 1/4/1996 to 31/3/1997 issued to the assessee by RCF? 2. The facts in brief are the assessee, an individual, was carrying on the business of providing security and housekeeping services to different clientele. The assessment year involved is 1997-98. There is no dispute that the assessee was following mercantile system of accounting for reporting the income for the purpose of assessment.3. During the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer found that the business receipts, as per the TDS certificates submitt...

Smt. Pramila Lalbhai Dabhoya and anr. Vs. Dr. Harish Lalbhai Dabhoya

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR288

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard advocate Mr. Nesari for the appellants and advocate Mr. Murthy for the respondent. Appellants are the original defendants and, Respondent is the original plaintiff. I will refer to the parties as the plaintiff and defendants. The case of the plaintiff is as under2. Plaintiff is the son of defendant No. 1 Pramila and brother of Defendant No. 2 - Shekhar. Defendant No. 1 Pramila was the employee of Bombay Municipal Corporation; she was allotted a plot No. 45 in a plot of owners co-operative society formed by municipal employees. She constructed a bungalow consisting of ground floor on the said plot. According to the plaintiff till 1982 he was employed as resident doctor in Wadia Hospital, Bombay. He gave up his employment in 1982 and started residing in the suit premises i.e. in his mother's bungalow. He got married thereafter and he started his hospital at Borivli. This is the background for the further case of the plaintiff.3. Some time in 1985 it was mutuall...

Noorjahan Wd/O. Altaf Ahemd, Vs. Sadrunisa Wd/O. Haji Fatehulla Khan ( ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR640; 2005(3)MhLj10

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. This is an Appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the Appellant's suit with costs. 2. One Haji Fatehulla Hajee Talib Khan (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) expired intestate at Fatehpur on 16.12.1976. His first wife Gafronissa expired on 6.3.1984. Defendant No. 1 is his second wife. Original Plaintiff No. 1 was the daughter of Gafronissa and the deceased. Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of original Plaintiff No. 1. The remaining defendants are the heirs of the brothers viz. Abdul Jabbar Haji Talib, Rehmatulla Khan Haji Talib and the sister, Smt. Nasibanbibi of the deceased. Nasiban Bibi pre-deceased the deceased.Respondent No. 1A was impleaded as Defendant No. 1A pursuant to a Chamber Summons being Chamber Summons No. 133 of 1994 filed by Defendant No. 1. The Chamber Summons was dismissed by the learned single Judge. The Appellate Court however directed the Plaintiffs to implead her as a party Defendant keeping the question as to...

Welcomgroup Searock Vs. Searock Hotel Employees' Union and Anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR74; 2006(2)BomCR899; [2005(106)FLR692]; (2005)IIILLJ483Bom; 2005(3)MhLj191

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The present Petition is directed against an award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 15th February, 2002 on a reference to adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Petitioner conducts and manages the Searock Hotel at Bandra, Mumbai. On 5th March, 1991, 12 workmen who were engaged as liftmen for the purposes of the hotel were retrenched after due compliance with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The union representing the workmen sought a reference to adjudication which was made by the appropriate government. The contention of the union in the statement of claim was to the effect that the management had made a false plea that the company had installed automatic lifts and that consequently, the services of the workmen concerned who were operating the lifts were not necessary. In the statement of claim it was also alleged that there was a breach of the provisions inter alia of Sections 25-G, H and N of ...

Yadu Sambhaji More Vs. Shivaji Dayanu Patil and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2005)ACC324; 2005ACJ1282; 2005(4)BomCR698

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Hegde for the appellant-original claimant in this appeal arising out of the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Satara and also Mr. Barve for respondents, i.e., owner and insurance company.2. The accident that occurred in this case was very peculiar. A petrol tanker No. MXL 7461 was proceeding from Pune to Bangalore by National Highway No. 4. The said tanker dashed against the rear portion of another truck which was coming from opposite direction. The petrol tanker turned turtle. Petrol started leaking from the tanker. Many villagers assembled to collect the petrol and suddenly explosion took place or the petrol caught fire as a result of which 46 persons died. All of them filed separate claim petitions and the present appellant was one of the petitioners before the M.A.C.T., Satara. His claim petition came to be dismissed and hence he has filed this appeal.3. The claim was mainly against the insurance company and the owner of the petrol tank...

The Corlim Education Society Vs. Nicolou M. Dias and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom290

A.P. Lavande, J.1. By consent and at the request of the parties; the appeal is taken up for final hearing, although the matter is not on board.2. Heard Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Fernandes, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Joshi learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondent No.2. The appellant was defendant No.1 in special civil Suit No. 137/1991/A, filed by respondent No. 1 herein, in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, at Panaji. In the said suit, the Government of Goa was, defendant No.2. During the pendency of the suit, Government of Goa by Notification dated 16-3-2004 which was published in the Official Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 16-3-2004 amended the Goa Civil Courts Act by Amendment Act, 2004 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Amendment Act'). Section 26A, as amended, reads as under :'26A, Transfer of pending suits arid bar on jurisdiction,- All suits received or 'registered Under Section 26 and pending before any Court of a Senior Ci...