Mumbai Court September 2005 Judgments

National Textile Corporation (Sm) Ltd. Vs. Devraj Chandrabali Pai

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR494; 2006(1)BomCR765

Palshikar V.G., J. 1. Being aggrieved by an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 18.8.2004 the appellant has preferred this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal of this High Court of Judicature at Bombay. Facts giving rise to this appeal stated briefly are as under:2. The National Textile Corporation was the employer and the present respondent was the employee who was at the relevant time during the relevant period employed with Gold Mohur Mills Limited which has been taken over by National Textile Corporation. After take over the Corporation therefore became the employer. During this employment the employee was charge sheeted by the employer for certain alleged misconduct. The misconduct was held proved and the services of the appellant were terminated on 23.9.1980. Since the petitioner was not reinstated he filed an application under Section 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relation Act, 1946 contending that the enquiry held against the employee was ill...

Shakambari Industries and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)MhLj170

K.J. Rohee, J.1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the applicants seek to quash FIR in Crime No. 3108/2003 registered at Police Station Old City, Akola.2. Applicant No. 1 is a partnership firm which is running an industry at Ridhora road, Akola, Applicant No. 2 is the partner of the said firm. It is alleged that on 2-8-2003 Shri Istape, Assistant Engineer, M.S.E.B. visited the industry. He found that the seals of the electric meter were broken and the meter was tampered with. Shri Istape prepared panchanama of the condition of the meter and seal in presence of two panchas. Thereafter on the same day he lodged report at Police Station Old City Akola, on the basis of which Crime No. 3108/2003 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was registered against the applicants. It appears that charge-sheet is yet to be filed.3. I have heard Shri G. B. Lohiya, Advocate for the applicants and S...

Shaila Shamkant Pimple Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR295; 2006(2)BomCR772

Sinha D.D., J.1. Heard Mr. Mohgaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jichkar, learned A.G.P., for respondents 1 and 4 and Mr. Jiwane, learned Counsel for respondents 2 and 3.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the order of suspension dated 26-12-2003 passed by respondent No. 2/management automatically lapses after completion of 120 days, since as per Rule 37(2)(f) of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 the management has to complete the enquiry within a period of 120 days failing which the order of suspension lapses and the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated thereafter. It is further submitted that though the petitioner was suspended on 26-12-2003, till this date the enquiry is not completed and, therefore the order of suspension cannot be sustained in view of the above referred facts. In order to substantiate the above referred contentions, the learne...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hawkins Cooker

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. We find that while passing the impugned order, the lower appellate authority has observed as follows :- I have gone through the Order-in-Original, appeal petition, submissions made at the time of personal hearing and connected paper carefully. I find that the matter was remanded only for verification of the appellant's contention that if the items viz Separator sets, Separator Stand, Combi Set, Steaming Basket and Hawkins F. Mold etc. are sold without pressure cookers as claimed by the appellant, the benefit of exemption Notification No. 8/96 (Now 5/98) are rightly available to the appellant, otherwise denied. The appellants have produced before this authority relevant documentary evidences and on going through the relevant price lists of the appellant-firm it is seen that different prices have been mentioned for pressure cookers with or without separators and also prices of items like Combi Set, Steaming Basket have been mentioned separately. This indicates that ...

Abb Lenzohm Service Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellants as M/s. Lenzohm Electrical Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. was a company incorporated as Pvt. Ltd. Company on 29-10-70 and they were engaged, as assessee under the Central Excise Act, 1944, in manufacturer of Electrical Motor parts etc., and had filed necessary declaration claiming exemption from payment of duty. They obtained a registration on crossing the prescribed limits of turnover.1.2 They entered into a joint venture with M/s. ABB Holding (South Asia) Ltd. on 12-5-99 who held 51% of the shares. The joint venture came into effect from 19-6-98 when M/s. ABB Lenzhom Service Ltd. was incorporated vide amended certificate of incorporation. It became a subsidiary of M/s. ABB Holding (S.A) Ltd only from 19-6-98 by issue of amended Registration Certificate. Central Excise Department by a letter dated. 25-8-99 was informed of the charge and intent to avail benefit of Notification 16/97.1.3 The logo ABB was never used on any of their final products. However a notice dated 16-5-99...

Udyam Poly Plast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. At the stage of hearing the stay application, the appeal is heard; therefore, I am inclined to dispose off the appeal itself.3. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of HDPE/PP Fabrics, Sacks and Bags falling under Chapter 39 of the CETA, 1985 and were availing Modvat credit. The appellants were manufacturing the said goods on their own account, out of their own raw materials and also on behalf of others, i.e. principal manufacturers, on job work basis, out of the raw materials supplied by the principal manufacturers under Rule 57F(4) of the Customs Excise Rules, 1944. During the course of verification of the appellants' records, it was noticed that the appellants were removing their own finished goods, manufactured out of their own modvated inputs/raw materials without payment of duty, under the guise of removal of processed inputs under Rule 57F(4) and notice was served on principal manufacturers. The appellants were also served with a Notice demanding duty of Rs. 5,57,8...

Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahakari Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The applicant seeks stay of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and also waiver of pre-deposit amount. This is second round of litigation. Earlier, the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration in view of the judgment cited by the applicant in the case of CCE, Madras v. Bema Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1996 820 ELT 562 (Tribunal). Thereupon, a direction in the remand order to look into the principle evolved in the above case and dispose off the same on merits. But there is no change in the order and duty amount is said to be recovered. Hence once again this appeal.3. The issue in dispute is that whether the assessee is required to reverse the Modvat credit on inputs lying unutilized as well as contained in finished products. It is brought to my notice the observations made by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order - I find that in view of the above, reversal of Modvat credit in respect of inputs lying in sto...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Quadricon (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The miscellaneous application has been filed by the applicant Commissioner which he points out that in this appeal an order bearing No. A-428/WZB/2004/C-IV dtd. 10.06.2004 was passed allowing the department's appeal. He further points out that subsequently another order has been issued bearing No.A-705/WZB/2004/C-IV dtd. 07.07.200 rejecting the department appeal. As such, he prays that the second order dtd. 07.07.2004 may be recalled.The learned advocate for the respondents confirms that two orders have indeed been received by the respondents and he submits copies of both the orders which are placed in the file. On verification of the Tribunal File, it is seen that only copy of the first order dtd.10.06.2004 is available in the file and no copy of the second order is available. It is indeed strange that the appeal has bee listed by the Registry a second time for hearing by another member and stranger still that there is no record of the second hearing and no copy ...

Principal, Micky School, English Medium Vs. the State of Maharashtra a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR958; 2006(1)BomCR694; 2005(4)MhLj1153

1. This petition was initially listed before the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court who on 24.2.2005 passed an order holding that the petition is tenable only before the Division Bench of this Court for which the learned Single Judge placed reliance on the provisions of Rule 18 in Chapter XVII of High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960.2. The question of hearing a writ petition filed under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution or a petition filed under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution has been a debatable question on several occasions. Office also in many cases finds it difficult to list a particular petition before appropriate bench as there is some confusion in this regard. In our opinion, therefore it is necessary that the entire aspect is clarified and stated as law applicable.3. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay has framed Rules and procedure for working out matters on the Appellate side of the High Court, they are called Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. Th...

Namdev Pandurang Panchal Vs. Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater B ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR689; 2006(1)BomCR680; 2006(1)MhLj194

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard counsel for the appellant and the respondent No.1 and 2.2. Appellant is the plaintiff. He filed a suit for declaration that notice dated 19.10.2001 Exhibit 'L' to the plaint, served upon him, is bad in law, illegal, issued at the instance of the respondent No.2 and not binding on the plaintiff and that action under Section 351 of the BMC Act as per Exhibit 'O' to the plaint and the order dated 14.5.2002 in respect of his suit premises admeasuring about 256 sq. meters are bad in law, void, null, unconstitutional, and for permanent injunction. According to the plaintiff, he was in occupation, possession and enjoyment of the land bearing Survey No. 163(Part) admeasuring 500.5 sq. meters together with a pucca structure admeasuring 256 sq. meters consisting of 4 rooms at Adarsh Nagar, Dhanukarwadi, Kandivali, Mumbai. He purchased the property from one Lallu Bhika under an Agreement dated 26.4.1972 for the valuable consideration, and has been in use and occupation ...