Mumbai Court April 2005 Judgments

Cable Corporation of India Vs. Additional Commissioner of Labour and o ... Overruled

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2005(106)FLR1011]; (2005)IIILLJ691Bom

A.P. Shah, J.1. The ambit and scope of Section 25-N(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), falls for consideration in this appeal which is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1947 of 2003. The question is whether once a review application is rejected, the appropriate Government/ specified authority is precluded from making a reference for adjudication under Section 25-N(6) of the Act. The circumstances under which the question arises for our determination need brief notice at the threshold.2. The appellant company was established in 1957 for the manufacture of high voltage electric cables and wires. The company has manufacturing units at Borivli and Nashik. In the present case we are concerned with the company's unit at Borivli. The company made an application under Section 25-N(2) to the specified authority on January 16, 2003 to retrench 280 workmen out of 509 workmen working at its Borivli Unit. The specified au...

Maharashtra Rajya Prathamik Shikshak Samiti Vs. Kolhapur Municipal Cor ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR447

Rebello F.I., J.1. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2. The petitioners are an association registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and claim to be representing a large number of teaching and non-teaching staff employed in Primary Schools set up by the Zilla Parishads, Municipal Corporations and Municipal Councils in the State of Maharashtra. It is the case of the petitioners that by the present petition they are seeking to espouse the cause of the teaching and non-teaching staff employed in Primary Schools set up and managed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the City of Kolhapur. The specific relief sought for in this petition is implementation of the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission in terms of the Resolution dated 19th November, 1999 of Respondent No. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No. 4 has directed the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to apply the said resolutions to those employed in the schools run by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The recommendatio...

Cable Corporation of India Vs. Additional Commissioner of Labour and o ... Overruled

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2005(106)FLR1011]; (2005)IIILLJ691Bom

A.P. Shah, J.1. The ambit and scope of Section 25-N(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), falls for consideration in this appeal which is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1947 of 2003. The question is whether once a review application is rejected, the appropriate Government/ specified authority is precluded from making a reference for adjudication under Section 25-N(6) of the Act. The circumstances under which the question arises for our determination need brief notice at the threshold.2. The appellant company was established in 1957 for the manufacture of high voltage electric cables and wires. The company has manufacturing units at Borivili and Nashik. In the present case we are concerned with the company's unit at Borivli. The company made an application under Section 25-N(2) to the specified authority on January 16, 2003 to retrench 280 workmen out of 509 workmen working at its Borivli Unit. The specified a...

Geologistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 9,34,099/- arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. The penally has been imposed on the ground that the applicants did not obtain Service Tax Registration for a period exceeding about 4 years.2. We have heard both sides. We find prima facie force in the submission that the penalty of Rs. 6,78,599/- imposed for suppression of value of taxable service received by the applicants under Sec. 78 of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 as amended is not sustainable in view of the proviso to Section 78 which states that "if the value of taxable service (as determined by the Central Excise Officer on assessment) in respect of which value has been suppressed ...exceeds a sum of twenty five thousand rupees, the Central Excise officer shall not issue any direction for payment by way of penalty without the previous approval of the Commissioner of Central Excise" as in this case the value of taxable ser...

Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Hameed Kunhipally Hussainar

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(187)ELT502Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This application for stay of the operation of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is filed by Revenue. The issue before the Commissioner (A) was whether the goods imported by the present respondents are bona fide baggage are not for availing duty consumption under Notification No. 137/90-Cus., 20-3-1990. He held that the department was not in position to categorically say that the goods brought as baggage were not in possession of the passenger before he left for India. The Revenue's case is that the goods brought as baggage are not bona fide baggage of the passenger; that under Clause 8(1) of the Baggage Rules clearly states that the benefit of duty free clearance can be given to bona fide baggage only; that the respondents was not financially well if in Dubai and therefore could not have acquired or purchased the costly electronic items and other goods by him.3. Ld. Advocate for the respondents raised a preliminary objection stating that the appeal is not maintainable as it does ...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Shri Ashraf Kottikulam

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This application for stay of the operation of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai is filed by the Revenue. In the impugned order the Commissioner set aside the order of the lower authority denying the benefit of TR concessions to the appellant before him. The issue before him is whether the goods imported by the passenger are bona fide baggage are not for availing duty concession under Notification No. 137/90 Cus. dt. 20.3.90. He agreed with the appellant before him that he was in possession of the goods before he left for India.2. The revenue in its application for stay stated that the respondents was not financially well off in Dubai and therefore could not have acquired or purchased the costly electronic items and other goods brought by him at baggage; that he did not produce all the invoices while filing the Baggage Declaration Form and that the Commissioner has not taken cognizance of the inconsistencies in the numbering of the invoices and other discrepa...

Raymond Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 3,40,63,727/- and penalty of equal amount imposed upon the applicant company and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on its General Manager (Indirect Taxation) arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, who has confirmed the demand on Polyester Tops captively consumed by application of Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules, 1975 (cost construction method).2. The period in dispute is April 1997 to June, 2000. The assessees' contention that the goods are to be valued according to the provisions of Rule 6(b)(i) - on the basis of value of comparable goods-has been rejected.3. We have heard both sides. We note that prior to March, 1996, the applicant company was paying duty by valuing goods on cost construction basis. On 4^th March, 1996, while submitting the price declaration, they stated that they would be paying duty on all future clearances of tops and yarn based on the value of comparable goods. Objection was r...

Aderbad Co-operative Hsg. Scty. Ltd. Vs. Aspi Framroze Goluwalla (Dr.) ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR6; 2005(4)BomCR73

Karnik D.G., J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the defendant Nos. 8, 9 and 10 who have taken out this motion and the learned Counsel for the plaintiff who opposes the motion.2. In the special general body meeting of the plaintiff's society held on 6th February, 2005 the members resolved to revoke/cancel the nominal membership of defendant Nos. 9 and 10. The plaintiff society thereafter approached the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies by an application under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short the Act) for approval of the said resolution. Defendant Nos. 8, 9 and 10 have taken out this motion praying for an injunction restraining the plaintiff society from prosecuting and proceeding with the said application made by it before the Deputy Registrar.3. Learned Counsel for the defendant Nos. 9 and 10 submits that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff society inter alia for a declaration that the defendant Nos. 9 and 10 have procured mem...

The Osmanabad Dist. Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. and anr. Vs. the State of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom8

P.V. Hardas, J.1. The petitioners in this petition have prayed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents No. 1 to 3 to pay the insurance claim for Kharip season 1991. The petitioners have also prayed that the random system adopted by the respondent to decide the actual yield for a particular season and crop for adjudging the liability of claim be declared as not proper.2. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this petition can be stated as under :Petitioner No. 1 is the District Central Cooperative Bank Limited. It is Co-operative society registered or deemed to be registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The petitioner No. 2 is a Deputy General Manager of the petitioner No. 1. Respondent No. 1 has undertaken various schemes for the benefit of agriculturists in Osmanabad District. One of such schemes being the Comprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme, which has been floated by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 at the instance of respondent No. 3....

Glaxo India Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit, Sr-17

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2005]97ITD98(Mum); (2005)98TTJ(Mumbai)466

ORDERDr. O.K. Narayanan, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 1990-91. This appeal is directed against the revision order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-V, under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said order has been passed on 2-11-1994. The subject-matter of the revision order is the assessment order passed by the assessing authority on 31-3-1993 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. In computing its taxable income, the assessee company has claimed the deduction available under section 32AB. In its profit and loss account prepared for the relevant previous year, the assessee-company has credited an amount of Rs. 25,60,000 by way of 'provisions written back'. This amount of Rs. 25,60,000 credit to the profit and loss account also formed part of the eligible profits computed by the assessee-company for the purpose of claiming deduction under section 32AB. The assessment was completed accepting the ab...