Mumbai Court August 2005 Judgments

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Miss. Vijaya R. Baait and Shri ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2006)ACC231; 2007ACJ463; 2005(4)ALLMR794; [2006(108)FLR357]; (2006)ILLJ968Bom; 2005(4)MhLj1018

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Advocate for the Appellants and the Respondent No. 1. 2. This is an appeal filed against the order of the MACT, Mumbai, dated 8.10.1996 by which the appellants was directed to pay Rs. 70,000/- inclusive of Rs. 12,000/- payable under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the Respondent No. 1 who was claimant before the Tribunal. 3. Undisputed facts in this case were that the respondent No. 1 was employed as a packer with M/s. Hybo Hindusthan. The employer had engaged bus bearing No. MMK-7039 owned by Mr. Harry V. Desilva and insured with the present appellants. The insurance policy was valid on the date of the accident. The accident occurred on 3.5.1991 at about 6.40 p.m. when the respondent No. 1 left factory of the employer and came on MIDC Road. 4. Now, at this juncture, it had to be noted that the initial case set out by the respondent No. 1 was improved by her when she was recalled after her cross examination was over. Earlier her stand was that the bu...

Bank of Nova Scotia Vs. Varinder Mehta, Assistant Commissioner of Inco ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Bom)389; [2006]281ITR435(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The short point raised in this petition is, whether, by the impugned order dt. 24th Dec., 1991 the Asstt. CIT, Circle 1(4) was justified in holding that the transfer of office premises bearing No. 5 situated on the ground floor, Plot No. 210, Block III, Nariman Point, Bombay 400 021 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said premises') by the respondent No. 3 in favour of the petitioner is void under Section 281 of the IT Act, 1961 ?2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner, a Canadian banking corporation, carrying on business of banking was put in absolute and exclusive possession of the said premises by the respondent No. 3 as per the terms more particularly set out in the agreement dt. 14th June, 1983. By another agreement dt. 9th Sept., 1983, the petitioner claims to have purchased the said premises from the respondent No. 3. The petitioner has moved the Appropriate Authority by filing Form No. 37EE/Form No. 37 and on 21st March, 1987 and no objection certifica...

Mohan S. Mane Vs. the State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ220

ORDERV.G. Palshikar, J.1. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 26-7-1994 passed in Sessions Case No. 31 of 1993 by the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded, convicting the appellant -- original accused No. 5 for offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and top fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months, the appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as well as the arguments canvassed before me.2. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, I have re-appreciated the evidence. The prosecution story as disclosed by the re-appreciation of the evidence stated briefly is that in the night of 31st December, 1991 and 1st December, (Sic) 1992, around 1.30 am when the victim PW-7 Shaikh Maqsood who was sitting in front of hotel to have ...

Sahara Fabrics Pvt. Limited and ors. Vs. Kailash Ramprashad Mehra and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR701; 2006(1)BomCR328; [2006]134CompCas472(Bom); [2006]69SCL233(Bom)

Desai Ranjana, J.1. The petitioners are original defendants in S.C. Suit No.6882 of 2000 filed in the City Civil Court at Bombay. The suit was filed for the following reliefs.(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that plaintiff No. 1 is the sole owner of 59 shares of defendant no. 1 and plaintiff No. 2 is the owner of 216 shares of defendant No. 1.(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that appointment of defendants No. 3 and 4 as Directors of defendant No. 1 is illegal, null and void and of no consequences whatsoever.(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that any acts, deeds and/or things of any nature whatsoever done by defendant No. 1 company in pursuance of the alleged appointment of defendants No. 3 and 4 as the Directors and/or any other act, deed, thing done by defendants No. 3 and 4 in exercise of powers in the alleged capacity as Directors of defendant No. 1 is illegal, null and void and not binding.(d) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to d...

Javed Iqbal S/O Chhotebabu Vs. Administrator, Jawahar Urdu High School ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR244; 2006(2)BomCR701; 2006(1)MhLj635

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner was employed as Assistant Teacher in Jawahar Urdu High School, Ashti, run by respondent No. 1-Management. The respondent No. 2 was also appointed in the same School. It is submitted that in the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of appointment of respondent No. 2 as Head Master on the ground that the petitioner was eligible and entitled to be appointed on the post of Head Master from 1-6-1990 till 7-5-1997 i.e. the date on which he was made to retire as Assistant Teacher.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has acquired qualification i.e. B.Sc. B.Ed, before he was appointed as Assistant Teacher and therefore, on the date of appointment i.e. on 26-8-1975 the petitioner was B.Sc. B.Ed. On the other hand, the respondent No. 2 was appointed as Assistant...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Alembic Chemical Works Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT243Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Respondents, an assessee under the Central Excise Act avail Modvat credit and discharges duties on me-dicaments/pharmaceuticals etc. They were issued notices seeking to disallow credit availed wrongly during the period May 98 in contravention of Rule 57CC.1.2 The respondents availed credit of duty on inputs and obtained an intermediate product Strepto Penicillin which was used in the manufacture of (i) Fortified Procaine Penicillin & (ii) Benzyl Penicillin. These two products when sold in domestic market were sold under a Brand Name and were exempt, from duty. While being exported, they were cleared in the Generic Names and hence were chargeable to duty. Assessee did not maintain separate records for inputs used in exempt product and discharge of 8% amount was allegedly not effected.1.3 CCE (A), set aside the order of the lower authority hence this appeal by Revenue on the grounds - (i) Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the case observed as under : It is observed that the a...

Bidhata Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(197)ELT207Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant is manufacturer of man-made fabrics. Prior to 1.5.2004 they were clearing the fabric on payment of duty on ad-valorem basis and after availing the deemed credit in term of the provisions of notification no. 7/2001- Central Excise (NT) dated 01.03.2001. Vide notification no, 16/2001 (NT) dated 30.4.2001 compounded levy scheme, was introduced and the appellant opted for the same with effect from 01.05.2001. As pr Rule 96ZNB 7 (a) of the said compounded levy scheme, the same was not applicable to the goods manufactured prior to 01.05.2001. and cleared thereafter. As such, the appellant was required to clear the same or payment of duty on ad-valorem basis. Rule 96 Z NB (50 provided that assessee opting for the said scheme shall not be eligible to avail any credit of duty pad on inputs or capital goods.The appellant, after opting for the said scheme, admittedly did not avail any credit of duty.2. The dispute relates to the utilization of credit already availed prior to 01....

Nikharka Dyg. and Ptg. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT307Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These twenty-five appeals, arising from the same order are disposed by this common order. The duties demanded and the penal lies imposed and redemption fine determined are as follows- (i) I order the following processing units to pay Central Excise duty amounting to rupees as indicated against each of them on the processed fabrics so removed by them to M/s. Nangalia Group of Companies during the period from 1-4-1997 to 16-12-1998, under Section 11A(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944:------------------------------------------------SR.NO. NAME OF PROCESSING UNIT DUTY AMOUNT (RS.)------------------------------------------------1 M/s. Anjani Dyg& Ptg Mills 5,76,124/-2 M/s. Asian Dyg.& Ptg Mills 3,16,122/-3 M/s. Gomti Processors Ltd. 8,836/-4 M/s. Mamta Dyg & Ptg Mills 13,422/-5 Nitharika Dyg & Ptg Mills 61,236/-6 Oriental Dyg & Ptg Mills 12,832/-7 Prakash Dyg & Ptg Mills 5,042/-8 Rajlaxmi Prints Pvt Ltd. 56,36,843/-9 Rupa Dyg & Ptg Mills 95,769/-10 Suntex Fabric...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. New India Metal Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The Appeal No. E/410/03 is filed by the Department aggrieved by the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in expunging the remarks in the Or-der-in-Original. According to the Department, this power of expunging the remarks is not vested with the Commissioner (Appeals) under Sub-section 3 of Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The said provision reads that the Commissioner (Appeals) may, after making such further enquiry as may be necessary, pass such order as he thinks fit confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against.3. The plain reading of the above provision clearly indicates that the Commissioner has power either to confirm, modify or annul the decision or order appealed before him. The expunging of remarks in the Order-in-Original or decision before him amounts to modification of the order, but nothing else. In other words, the above referred provision also empowers the Commissioner (Appeals) to expunge any decision or finding or observation ...

Ballarpur Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellant is an assessee, engaged in the manufacture of papep and paper board and is availing credit of duty paid on inputs brought and used in relation to manufacture.2. Appeal No. 1818/04, arises out of a Show Cause issued on 5-5-2003, as- (a) the assessee, who is also manufacturing paper out of unconventional raw material, which attracts Nil rate of duty and prior to January, 2001, was reversing under Rule 57-AC(2)(b), the amount of credit availed, on clearance of such 'Nil' rate paper as they were not maintaining separate accounts of the inputs. (b) On 9-1-2001, they filed a classification declaration and informed that they will be maintaining separate accounts of raw material i.e. for inputs and"thus stopped payment of 8%. (c) On verification, it was found that the assessee on 13-2-2001 informed the Range Officer that separate accounts for inputs, Enzyme and Trylon TCX, could not be kept separately since the quantities involved were very small and they would be reversing the C...