Mumbai Court April 2005 Judgments

Shriniwas Krishna Suvarna Vs. Executive Engineer, Transit Camp Divisio ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR321; 2006(2)BomCR392

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. By consent, heard forthwith.2. The Petitioner has a stall on land belonging to MHADA which is identified as CTS No. 258(p). It is his case that prior to 1.1.1995 he was carrying on business in the said stall and considering various notifications issued by the State of Maharashtra, the land on which the stall or structure stands is deemed to have been declared slum area. The stall, it is contended is protected pursuant to the policies framed and declared by the State of Maharashtra, giving protection to the structures in existence prior to 1.1.1995. The further case is that the land belonging to MHADA vests and or is under the management and control of Slum Rehabilitation Authority as constituted under the provisions of the Maharashtra Slum Areas 'Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971' (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'Act'). Reference is then made to notification dated 16.5.1996 by which protection is given to residential structures which exi...

Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi Vs. Ram Niranjan Kedia Tours and Travels Pvt. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2007)BC316

V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1.2. Petitioner is challenging the order of issuance of process passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Dadar, Mumbai in a complaint filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner resigned from the company on 25.10.1996. His resignation was accepted on 12.5.1997 and an intimation was given to the Registrar of Companies and an entry in Form 32 was made on 31.8.2000. The cheque in question was issued by the company on 6.12.2002 and, subsequently, after dishonour of the cheque, demand notice was issued on 16.1.2003. It is submitted that immediately the petitioner sent a reply to the demand notice informing the complainant and their Counsel by letter dated 28.1.2003 that he has resigned as a director of M/s. Intel Travels...

Bhogawati Ssk Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 8,64,372/-, I find that it is possible to decide the appeal itself today as the issue in dispute stands covered in favour of the assessee by the earlier decisions of the Tribunal; hence after waiving pre-deposit, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal.2. The issue in dispute is whether the appellants herein who are registered Co-op, society engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses are liable to service tax as they had availed the service of Goods Transport Operator. The period in dispute is November 16th 1977 (sic) to June 1st 1998.3. I have heard both sides and find that the issue is no longer res-integra as it has been settled by the Tribunal's decision in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut-II .holding that even though persons receiving taxable service of goods transport operators are deemed liable to pay tax under Section 69 of Finance Act 1944....

Bhogawati Ssk Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 8,64,372/-, I find that it is possible to decide the appeal itself today as the issue in dispute stands covered in favour of the assessee by the earlier decisions of the Tribunal; hence after waiving pre-deposit, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal.2. The issue in dispute is whether the appellants herein who are registered Co-Op. Socy engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses are liable to service tax as they had availed the service of Goods Transport Operator. The period in dipsute is November 16th 1977 to June 1st 1998.3. I have heard both sides and find that the issue is no longer res-integra as it has been settled by the Tribunal's decision in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. v. CCE Meerut II holding that even though persons receiving taxable service of goods transport operators are deemed liable to pay tax under Section 69 of Finance Act, 1944, they are ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Gujarat GoldcoIn Ceramics Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT193Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Gujarat Goldcoin Ceramics Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the service receiver) manufactures ceramic tiles. They entered into contract dated 2-10-1997 with an Italian company for technical assistance/erection/commissioning of the plant and machinery. They received technical assistance for erection and for commissioning. The Supdt. of Central Excise issued a show cause notice dated 23-8-2001 calling upon the service receiver to pay service tax of Rs. 4,86,514/-. The notice also proposed imposition of penalty.The demand of service tax was upheld by the Dy. Commissioner who also imposed penalty of equal amount of duty under Section 76 and a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. In appeal, The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand of service tax; however, he reduced the penalty under Section 76 to Rs. 50,000/-. The service receiver is in appeal against upholding the demand of service tax and penalties while the R...

Hyd-air Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT285Tri(Mum.)bai

1 After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit, we take up the appeal itself for final disposal. The order impugned before the Commissioner (Appeals) was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs in an appealable form. While passing the said order, the original adjudicating authority relied upon an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs refusing to extend the period to re-export the imported goods. When an appeal was filed against the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, the Commissioner (Appeals) took a view that since the basis of the order is a communication by the Commissioner, he does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. We are afraid, the above view of the appellate authority is not correct. The Commissioner's communication refusing to extend the period was the basis for the Deputy Commissioner to pass orders. The order, in fact, was passed by the Deputy Commissioner and as such was rightly appealed against by the appellants before the Commissioner ...

Sicom Limited Vs. Co-nick Alloys (India) Limited and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR244; II(2006)BC350; 2005(4)BomCR653; 2005(3)MhLj67

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present petition is filed under section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as the guarantors. 2. Some of the material facts can be briefly enumerated as under :- 3. The petitioner is the financial corporation incorporated by the Government of Maharashtra with an object to provide inter alia assistance to industries in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner is a deemed state financial corporation under the provisions of section 46 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. The respondent No. 1 approached the petitioner for sanction of a term loan of Rs. 320 lacs and accordingly by a letter dated 10.2.90 the said loan was sanctioned by the petitioner in favour of the respondent No. 1 herein. The said loan was availed and in consideration thereof the assets of respondent No. 1 company including plant and machinery and building were mortgaged under a deed of mortgage dated 13.8.1998. 4. In consideration of the sai...

Sicom Limited Vs. Padmashri Mahipatrai J. Shah and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR35; III(2006)BC304; 2005(3)MhLj125

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. These two petitions are filed under section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act against the guarantors. Since the facts as well as the contentions raised in both the present petitions are substantially identical, the same are disposed of by this common judgment. The facts are taken from misc. petition No. 34 of 2002. 2. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the guarantors and for enforcement of their liabilities under the said guarantees, the present petitions are filed by the petitioners under section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act. 3. One M/s. Mehta Rubber Chemical Ltd,. was a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956. This company is the respondent No. 4 in the present petition. The said respondent No. 4 made an application for sanction of the loan amount of Rs. 149 lacs towards the term loan. The same was sanctioned by the petitioner on the various terms and conditions one of which was to mortgage the entire plan...

Govind Gangadhar Walve (Since Deceased by Heirs Barku Govind Walve, Ha ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR111; 2006(2)BomCR870; 2005(3)MhLj326

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Tenancy Appeal No. 198 of 1988 remanding the case back to the Sub-Divisional officer for fresh enquiry under Section 9 of the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'). In view of the stay order granted by this Court in terms of prayer clause (c) while admitting the petition, the Petitioners are in possession of the subject agricultural land about 1 H. 72 Are (4 Acres 22 Gunthas) from Survey No. 24/27 which is converted to Gat No. 102 of village Ganga Padali Taluka and District Nasik. 2. Admittedly, the said land was formerly an inferior Village Watan land Class VI-B and after coming into force of the Act, with effect from 26.11.1959 the suit land was resumed by the State Govt. and intern re-granted to the original Watandar by name Baban Salve but on new tenure. The present Respondents are the ...

Narendra Ishulal Rahangdale Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR222; 2006(1)BomCR890; 2005(3)MhLj567

B.R. Gavai, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.In Writ Petition No. 3311/2004, Mr. A. G. Mujumdar, A.G.P. waives notice for respondent No. 1; Mrs. Munshi waives notice for respondents No. 2 and 3 and Shri Pardhy waives notice for respondents No. 4 and 5.In Writ Petition No. 3942/2004 and Writ Petition No. 3943/2004, Mr. A. G. Mujumdar, A.G.P. waives notice for respondent No. 1; Mrs. Munshi waives notice for respondents No. 2 and 3.In Writ Petition No. 6113/2004, Mr. D. B. Patel, the learned A.G.P. waives notice for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3; Shri Pardhy waives notice for respondents No. 4 and 5.Heard by consent of parties.2. Since a common question, as to whether the service conditions of Teachers working in the Secondary Schools managed by Zilla Parishads, are governed by the provisions of the Secondary School Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) or by the provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as the MCSR...