Mumbai Court October 2006 Judgments

Daleep S. Chandnani Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals filed by the assessee involve common issue, hence, these were heard together and are being disposed off through this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. We have heard both the sides and have also perused the material on record.3. First we shall take up assessee's appeal in ITA No. 4059/M/04 which is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Thane dated 15-3-2004 and it pertains to the assessment year 1999-2000.4. In this appeal ground Nos. 1 to 3 are in respect of rate of depreciation for the use of car whereas ground No. 4 is regarding the validity of reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. Since no arguments were made in respect of ground No. 1, it is presumed to be not pressed. Hence same is dismissed as not pressed.5. The facts in brief are that the assessee purchased a motor car between the period from 1-10-1998 to 31-3-1999. This car was used by the assessee for his business of civil construction. The assessee ...

State Vs. Mohandas S. Gawade

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ850

N.A. Britto, J.1. This is a State's appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Sections 279, 337, I.P.C., by Judgment dated 1-3-2004 of the learned J. M. F. C., Panaji.2. There is no dispute that the accident took place between the Mini Bus driven by the accused bearing No. GA-01 -T-5686 and the Mini Bus bearing No. GA-01-T-4568 driven by Rajesh Jadav/P.W. 6 6. The Mini Bus driven by the accused was coming from the direction of Ponda to Panaji while the Mini Bus driven by Rajesh Jadav/P.W. 6 6 was proceeding from Panaji towards Ponda and the said accident took place near a primary school at Sapem, Ribandar on 27-7-2002 at about 17.00 hours. A message of the said accident was received on telephone by Head Constable Pramod Gawas/P.W. 9 of Old Goa Police Station who recorded the same on the station diary, an extract of which was produced at Exh. PW9/A, and, he proceeded to the scene and conducted a scene of offence panchnama and prepared a sketch in support of which Ramakant Shirod...

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Vasant Namdeo Tayade

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR27; (2007)IILLJ278Bom; 2007(1)MhLj720

H.S. Bedi, C.J.1. The petitioners before us are the Union of India through the Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railways. The respondent was the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench. The respondent shall, hereinafter, be referred to as 'the applicant '. The facts are that the applicant joined the services with the Railway Administration as a monthly casual labour with effect from 1st April, 1974 in the Catering Unit at Jalgaon. From 1st April, 1987, the Catering Units were privatized as per the directives of the Railway Board and the services of the applicant as a casual labour were dispensed with. It appears that, thereafter, the applicant and several others like him, were offered seasonal appointment by the Railways which continued off and on till 1991. The applicant aggrieved by the refusal of the railways to restore him to service filed A.O. No. 931 of 1998 before the Tribunal, and made a prayer that his services had been wrongly dispensed with from...

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs. Kusum Virendra Shah and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR161; 2007(4)BomCR441

Karnik D.G., J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. None present for the respondents.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25th January, 2001 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai allowing the Motion No. 926 of 1999 and thereby granting injunction restraining the appellant municipal corporation from acting upon the notice dated 6th December, 2000 issued under Section 394(4) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short, the 'M.M.C. Act).3. The respondents are carrying on business of motor repairs in the suit premises after obtaining the licence under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Shop Act') from the appellant from 10th February, 1993. Respondents carried on the business smoothly without any objection from the appellant till December, 2000, when the appellant passed an order purportedly under Section 394(4) of the M.M.C. Act, directing the respondents to discontinue the use of the suit premises within 48 hours. The order a...

Yashwant Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(208)ELT86Tri(Mum.)bai

2. In the present appeal, the assessee had sent the inputs to their Job Worker for re-processing. But the assessee did not receive the goods back after re-processing from the job worker. This is a main allegation of the Department against the assessee including that they did not produce any satisfactory evidence in support of receipt of goods.Whereas, it is a contention of the assessee that they have received the goods within a period of 180 days, but without the green copies of bill.3. The appellants have produced the relevant copies for perusal by the adjudicating authority in appeal proceedings. But the authorities below said to have not considered the record furnished by the appellants and hold that the goods are not received back by assessee within stipulated period. Both authorities below have refrained from imposing the penalty amount, but ordered the interest under Section 11AB from the date of sending the goods to the job worker till per the date of payment of duty.4. In the ...

Chemie Alliance (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC452

1. The issue in dispute in this appeal is the correct classification of Boric Acid imported by the appellants herein - whether under Chapter 38 of the Customs Tariff Act as chemical, or under Customs Tariff Act heading 28.10 which subsequently covered Boric Acid.2. On hearing learned S.D.R. and perusing the records (none appears for the appellants in spite of notice), I find that the issue is no longer res integra as it has been settled by earlier order of the Tribunal in t he case of Hardware Trading Corporation v. C.C. Nhava Sheva 2006 (74) RLT 546 wherein it has been held that Boric Acid falls for classification under Heading 28.10 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and not as insecticides under heading 38.78 of the Customs Tariff Act. The above decision was recently followed in the case of Aries Agro-Vet Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad - Order No.A/589/WZB/2006/CSTB/CII dated 16.03.2006. Following the ratio of the above decisions which are on all fours ident...

Shramik Sena, a Trade Union of Employees Registered Under Trade Unions ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR29; 2006(6)BomCR502; 2007(1)MhLj588

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 23-8-2006 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane in Application (MRTU) No. 11 of 2004. By the impugned order, the Industrial Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 2 under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter called as 'the said Act', for being registered as the recognised Union in place of the petitioner-Union. 3. The challenge to the impugned order is firstly on the ground that the impugned order is a non-speaking order in the sense that it does not disclose any reasons for the conclusions arrived at, secondly, that the conclusions are contrary to the materials which were placed before the Industrial Court and, thirdly, the application filed by the respondent No. 2 was not in compliance with the requirements of law in as much...

Yadavrao Ganpatroa Raje Vs. Tahsildar (Stamp and Valuation) Office of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR286; 2007(1)BomCR132; 2007(1)MhLj484

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Thorat for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Chinchalikar for the respondents/State. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged Notice dated 21st May 1992 (Exhibit-C) which is pursuant to the provisional order of the same date by Respondent No. 1. The petitioner has challenged validity of Section 32-A of the Bombay Stamp Act (Determination of True Market Value of Property) Rules 1981 and certain other provisions of the said Act. However, learned advocate Mr. Thorat for the petitioner conceded that this issue was decided by court and it was no-longer open to him to challenge the same again. Therefore, he restricted himself to other prayers viz. legality and validity of the notice dated 21st May 1992 (Exhibit C). 3. The petitioner has purchased some agricultural land at village Dindori Taluka Dindori Dist.Nashik. The agreement for sale was registered on 23.10.1980 for Rs. 62,000/- out of which Rs. 7000/-was paid on the date of the ...

Ramanand Shrikishan Sharma Vs. Kailasnath Ramraj Tripathi and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR547

Bhatia J.H., J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties both the petitions are taken up for final hearing immediately.2. To state in brief, the present petitioner filed two complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against respondent No. 1 on the ground that he had issued two cheques which were, on presentation, dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and inspite of notice, respondent No. 1 failed to make payment. After filing of those complaints by the petitioner, respondent No. 1 lodged two complaints before the Judicial Magistrate for offences punishable under Sections 464, 468, 389, 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner. The learned Magistrate directed the police to make investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After investigation, instead of filing charge-sheet the police submitted a repot as if the investigation was under Section 202 of the Cri. P.C. In v...

Nirala Education Society and ors. Vs. Jugalkishore Bhagwatiprasad Shuk ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR672; 2007(1)MhLj695

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner-employer has challenged the judgment dated 18-12-1995 passed by the School Tribunal and the subsequent orders dated 15-4-1995 and 22-4-1996 passed after decision of appeal by the very same Tribunal. On 18-12-1995, the School Tribunal has allowed the appeal of present respondent No. 1 and has directed the management to reinstate him with continuity and full backwages. The order of termination dated 1-5-1992 issued by the petitioners was set aside. It appears that thereafter the management moved application for setting aside order on the ground that it was an ex parte judgment and said application was rejected on 15-4-1996. It further appears that management had also moved an application seeking time to comply with the directions issued by the School Tribunal and that application has been rejected on 22-4-1996. Thereafter the management approached this Court and this Court initially on 4-10-1996 directed the parties to mainta...