Mumbai Court July 2005 Judgments

State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. Prakash Pandharinath Patil and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR567; 2006(2)BomCR827; 2005(4)MhLj930

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Since the common question of law and facts arise in all these petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith in all the petitions. Perused the records.3. In all these petitions, petitioners are challenging the judgment and older dated 29th June, 2005 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal at Aurangabad whereby the original applications filed by the applicants in the Original Application Nos. 425, 426, 427 and 428 of 2005 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad, and who are the respondent No. 1 in the Writ Petition Nos. 4749, 4750, 4751 and 4752 of 2005, have been allowed while setting aside the orders of transfer in respect of the said respondents. Similarly, the petitioners in the Writ Petition Nos. 4939, 4940, 4941 and 4942 of 2005, who were the private respondents in the said Original Applications before the Maharashtra Admi...

Akshaykumar S/O Uttamlal Jaiswal Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR888; 2006(2)BomCR278; 2005(4)MhLj571

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Since common questions of law and facts arise in both these petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Rule.3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.4. We have heard Shri S. R. Barlinge, learned Advocate for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, Shri U. K. Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents in both the writ petitions and Shri P. K. Joshi, learned Advocate for the Intervenor - Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation.5. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners are the owners of the luxury buses and hold permits of contract carriage. The petitioners seek relief in the nature of directions to restrain the respondents from detaining the vehicles under the garb of taking action under Sections 66 and 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the 'said Act') and also to restrain the respondents from seizing the documents of registration and other papers relating to t...

Santramsing S/O Arjunsingh Rajput Vs. Shivlal Ramling Rajput and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR371; 2006(2)BomCR834; 2005(4)MhLj987

A.B. Naik, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner ex-tenant of the land S. No. 91(B) situate at Shivankhed, Taluka Ahmedpur, Dist.Latur has challenged the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, allowing the revision application filed by the respondent. No. 1.2. These proceedings has a checkered history and to understand the controversy raised in this petition few facts required to be noted.The land S. No. 91(B) (hereinafter referred to as the suit land situate at Shivankhed, admittedly belong to Gazioddin @ Janimiya. The present petitioner was undisputedly occupying the land as a tenant thereof. Gazioddin landlord has submitted an application under Section 44 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking possession of the land for cultivation of the same personally. The said application filed under Section 44 read with Section 2 of the Act was allowed by Tahsildar, Ahmedpur on 20th October, 1959. Pursuant to the...

Shivaji S/O Vishwanath Dongre Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR261; (2006)ILLJ1024Bom; 2006(1)MhLj417

S.P. Kukday, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent of the parties. Heard both the sides and perused the records.2. Petitioner was working as a bus driver (Buckle No. 5526) with Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Latur Division, Latur since 17-12-1982. Petitioner was performing his duties properly and diligently. However, during the course of the service, he developed an ailment and was sent for medical examination to Civil Surgeon. After the medical checkup, Civil Surgeon issued certificate dated 25-8-2003 certifying that the petitioner is suffering from mental sickness of Resistant Major Depression and is unable to work as a driver, but he is fit for discharging any other light work. On the basis of this certificate, respondent No. 3 terminated services of the petitioner by order dated 26-8-2003 with immediate effect. Petitioner was informed that if he so desires, he can submit an application for employment on compassionate ground for his dependent within f...

Shah Investments Financial Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)8SOT334(Mum.)

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 21-6-2004 of Commissioner (Appeals)-XXI, Mumbai. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee may be reproduced below : (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 1,27,65,447 on plant and machinery which were leased out, as operating lease.(ii) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 1,27,65,447 on leased assets, particularly when the appellant's main business is leasing of assets.(iii) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 22,44,853 which has been included in Rs. 1,27,65,447 being 50 per cent depreciation in respect of machinery purchased in the assessment year 2000-01 particularly when 50 per cent depreciation was allowed in the said assessment year.From the above, it may be seen that the only issue in disput...

Madhukar S/O Laxman Umalkar Vs. Keshao S/O Laxman Shilawant

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR393; 2005(3)MhLj947

B.R. Gavai, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.Shri Parchure, the learned counsel, waives notice on behalf of the respondent.By consent, heard finally.2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 28th October, 2003, passed by the learned District Judge, Buldhana, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 2/2003, thereby allowing the appeal of the respondent.3. The present petitioner had filed suit for possession and arrears of rent under Sections 15 and 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). It was the contention of the petitioner-plaintiff that the suit premises had fallen to the share of the petitioner after the partition between him and his brothers. It is his contention that after partition, the petitioner was living separately and as such was requiring the premises for carrying the business of jewellery. It was further the contention of the petitioner that the respondent was in arrears of rent at Rs. 18,0...

Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. Vs. Regional Provid ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR189; [2006(109)FLR368]; (2006)IILLJ1109Bom

Rebello F.I., J.1. The matter was on board for confirmation of interim relief as rule was issued on 24-6-2005. However, considering the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the matter was taken up for final hearing itself.2. A few facts may now be set out. The petitioner is a Corporation set up by the State of Maharashtra and its main activity is to raise plantation in the forest areas earmarked for the company by Government of Maharashtra after clearing existing degraded forest and to undertake maintenance, preservation, protection and development of the existing forest. The issue involved in this petition is whether the petitioner is governed under the provisions of the Employees Provident and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The main submission of the petitioner is based on the fact that no notification has been issued under Section 1(4) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). It is the case of the petiti...

Ramply (India) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT94Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides at length. The appellants manufacture Plywood, Flush Doors and Blockboard on which they have been claiming small scale exemption. It is the case of the department that they have used a monogram "Ram's" belonging to and registered by M/s Ram Decorative and Industrial Laminates Ltd., and hence they are not eligible for small scale exemption . Shri Hitesh Shah, learned SDR appearing for the Department contends that on merits, the Department's case is squarely covered by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Trichy v. Grasim Industries Ltd. - 2005(68)RLT 11(SC) : (2005-TIOL-69-SC-CX-LB). He further states that even in the appellant's own case, the Apex Court has merely sent the matter for re-decision on the matter on the issue of limitation and not on merits.2. It is the contention of the appellants that under Board's Circular no. 88/88-CX.6, dated 30.12.1988, small scale exemption is available to different manufacturers using the brand name ...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Indu Nissan Oxo Chem. Indus. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT749Tri(Mum.)bai

1. A very short point is involved in the present appeal of the revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), vide which he has granted interest on the refund amount in terms of the provisions of Section 11BB by following the Board's Circular No. 670/61/2002-CX dated 1-10-2002.2. The revenue's contention is that since the application was filed before the provisions of Section 11BB were enacted on 26-5-1995, the provisions of Section 11BB will not apply. However, I find that the proviso to said section clearly provides for payment of interest in respect of the applications pending before the Finance Bill 1995 receives accent of the precedent and is to the effect that if the refund is not granted within three months from such date, there shall be paid to the applicant interest under section from the date immediately after three months from such date. Said section itself is applicable to the refund application, which were filed before the said section came into existence. As su...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Lloyd Rock Fibres Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue is in appeal, who wants classification of "Rockwool" falling under Heading 6803 of the Tariff.2. The facts in brief are that the Respondents are manufacturers of "Rockwool" made from 25% by weight of Blast Furnace Slag falling under Chapter 68 of CETA, 1985. Prior to 14.5.1997 this product was classified under Sub Heading 6803.00 and the appellants were availing benefit of Exemption Notification No. 5/97. But the notification was rescinded vide Notification No 32/97 dated 14.5.1997 and the Respondents changed the classification to 6807.10 by filing fresh classification list effective from 14.5.1997 and thereby paying duty at a lower rate of 8% Adv. Therefore, Show Cause Notices were issued and the demands were confirmed, in adjudication. In appeal, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) accepted the argument of the assessee for classification of the product under Heading 6807.10, set aside the order of the lower authority and allowed the appeal of the Respondents. Hen...