Mumbai Court October 2006 Judgments

Sahara India T.V. Network Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)8STJ379CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. The issue relates to refund and adjustment. The Commissioner (Appeals) in appeal No. 282/05 has recorded as under : 4. I have carefully considered the arguments taken in appeal memo, oral/written submissions made by appellants and also the provisions of law governing the subject matter. 1 find that the issue regarding filing of refund claim or adjustment of so called excess paid amount under the provisions of Sub-rule 3 of Rule 6 of the. Finance Act, 1944 was settled by the then Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. 211/MV/2002 dated 31-10-2002. The tax liability, interest and penalties arises as a consequence of the Order-in-Appeal. There is nothing on record showing that the said Order-in-Appeal has been stayed or set aside by competent authority. Under the circumstances, the issue has attained finality. As far as imposition of penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Service Tax Act, I find that the lower authority in order-in-original dated 30-3-2004 has mentioned th...

Vijay Baburao Petkar Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing learned SDR for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 9,25,881/- confirmed against the assessees herein on the ground that they were engaged in the business of rendering services as Rent-A-Cab operators, and penalty of Rs. 18,60,762/-, we found, on perusal of the records, that it was possible to dispose of the appeal itself today and hence proceed to do so, after waiving pre-deposit (the appellants are not present in spite of notice).2. We find that the adjudication order dated 18-6-2004 was issued on 21-6-2004 and the Commissioner (Appeals), in paragraph 9 of the impugned order, has given a clear finding that the order-in-original despatched by Registered Post was delivered to the appellant on 23-6-2004 as per the report of the Sub-Post Master, Ghodasar Post Office, Ahmedabad, under cover of his letter dated 11-5-2006. He has also found that the order-in-original was acknowledged by Gita v.Petkar in Gujarati. Therefore, the appe...

Shri B.M. Khodade Vs. Shri Kumar Saptarshi

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ571

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This is a reference made under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (the Act for short) made by Shri B.M. Khodade, Deputy Charity Commissioner, Pune Region, Pune, as then the learned Judge was. Scheme Application No. 28 of 2000 filed under Section 50-A(1) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 was pending on the file of the Deputy Charity Commissioner and after oral as well as documentary evidence was placed on record and arguments were advanced by the learned Advocates of the respective parties, the application came to be decided on merit on 29/3/2001 and the scheme in respect of the trust came to be framed. On 17/4/2001 the present respondent held a press conference at Pune and allegedly made reckless and unfounded allegations against the Deputy Charity Commissioner. The report of the press conference was published in some of the Marathi newspapers like Sakal, Loksatta and Lokmat and cuttings of the said news items have been annexed to the reference....

Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Aghadi Vs. State of Maharashtra,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR769; 2006(6)BomCR493

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. The petitioner herein is a registered Trade Union which espouses the cause of the private security guards. Through the present Petition, the petitioner Trade Union is seeking to challenge the two Notifications dated 24.7.2003 and 8.11.2004 issued by the State of Maharashtra granting exemption under Section 23 of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') and prays that the same may be quashed and set aside. These two Notifications grant exemption to two agencies supplying private security guards to the factories and/or establishments run by the principal employer. This Section 23 empowers the State Government to grant such exemption if the security guards concerned are in the receipt of benefits which are on the whole not less favourable to the security guards provided under the said Act or the Scheme thereunder. It is the contention of the petitioner - Trade Union that, in fact...

Karantikari Suraksha Rakshak Sanghatana Vs. State of Maharashtra and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR401; 2006(6)BomCR673

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. These three Writ Petitions are filed by three different Trade Unions but all of them pray that the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) (Amendment) Act, 1996 be declared to be illegal and unconstitutional and be struck down.2. The main submissions of the petitioners - Trade Unions to put in a nutshell are twofold. (i) The first submission is that under the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) (Amendment) Act, 1981 ('the said Act' for short), as it stood prior to this amendment and as it was interpreted by the Courts, the agencies or the contractors were not permitted to provide the Security Guards and that the employment of the Security Guards who were not the direct employees of the factories or establishments, had to be provided only by the Board constituted under the said Act. It is their contention that this amending Act brings back and permits the agencies or the contractors to provide t...

Conceicao Fernandes Joao Jose Fernandes and ors. Vs. Asst. Engineer an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR253

Kakade P.V., J.1. The aggrieved applicants have preferred this revision application against the order passed by the District Judge, South Goa, Margao dated 27/09/ 2002, dismissing their application for compensation and also for enhanced compensation under Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 16(3) of the said Act.2. Heard both the sides. Perused the record.3. The applicants had initially filed a civil suit against the respondents before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Margao and apparently obtained an order in their favour, but in appeal, filed before District Court which was allowed, respondents were allowed to install the said electricity line in the impugned land. The applicants, thereafter, preferred a revision petition before this Court which was disposed of by order dated 11/ 10/2001 and it was an order passed by consent, formulating the conditions to be abided with by the parties as follows:(i) The respondents should deposit an amount of...

Gas Authority of India Limited and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR595; 2006(6)BomCR527

Bedi H.S., C.J.1. The petitioners - Gas Authority of India Limited made an application to the Central Government for acquisition of the rights of user in 17 villages under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipe-lines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 [hereinafter called 'the Act']. By an order dated 11th April, 1994, one Mr. V.S. Naik was appointed as the Competent Authority under the provisions of the Act. On 13th May, 1995, the Government of India issued a Notification under Section 3, declaring its intention to acquire right of user in land in respect of the 17 villages in question. On 10th September, 1996, the Competent Authority by its letter informed respondent No. 2 - the District Collector Raigadh of its intention to lay a natural gas pipeline from Thal to Usar. The Government of India issued Notifications dated 9th January, 1997 and 23rd April, 1997, declaring its intention to give a right of user in land to the petitioners for the purpose of laying an underground pipe...

Scoop Industries (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Income Tax Officer and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Bom)599; [2007]289ITR195(Bom)

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. In all the above tax appeals the following two substantial questions of law have been raised which read as under:(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of the AO thrusting the depreciation which was not claimed in the return of income and reject the claim of deduction under Section 80IA ?(ii) Whether on the facts and in law, the Tribunal is right in holding that the deduction under Chapter VI-A has to be allowed only after allowing the depreciation under Section 32 of the Act which has not been claimed in the return of income ?2. As the identical substantial questions of law are involved in all the above tax appeals, by this judgment and order, we are disposing of all the above ten tax appeals by this common judgment and order.3. To understand the controversy, we are giving the brief factual background in the first appeal and even in the other tax appeals facts are identical excepting the amounts involved and the dates. As such we a...

Prakash Ghevarchand Kothari Vs. Balasaheb Sakharam Jadhav

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR460

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard.2. The present petition arises from the orders passed by the competent authority and revisional authority under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter called as 'the said Act'). The challenge to the order of eviction passed by the competent authority and confirmed by the revisional authority is five fold. Firstly that, in terms of Section 55 of the said Act, every agreement whether it is a lease or leave and licence should be in writing and registered under the Registration Act and in case of failure in that regard, there is presumption in favour of the tenant that an agreement is executed by the tenant or by the licensee as the case may be. Considering the same, and in the case in hand as no written agreement between the parties, in relation to the suit premises was produced, the authorities below ought to have considered that the petitioner's claim of tenancy in respect of the suit premises was established and the respondent had failed to ...

Pandurang Eknath Patil Vs. Chandrakant Trimbak Deshmukh

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2008)BC466; 2007(1)BomCR146

M.G. Gaikwad, J.1. According to Mr. Venjane, this Court had already granted leave by order dated 17.8.2006 and notice came to be issued to the accused. So this appeal may be admitted.2. On the other hand, learned Advocate Mr. Dhorde, appearing for respondent submitted that the judgment of the Trial Court shows that the complainant failed to prove existence of liability. Complaint is also held not maintainable. Notice is also held not served. So under these circumstances, there is no material to admit this appeal.2.1 On Ajay Sharadchandra Pathak, the manager of E.M.I. board filed complaint on behalf of one Pandurang Eknath Patil alleging that accused issued cheque dated 18.10.2004 for Rs. 20,000/- for repayment of the dues outstanding. Said cheque came to be dishonoured on 19.10.1994. In spite of service of demand notice dated 28.10.1994 amount is not repaid. Hence complaint came to be filed alleging offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the...