Mumbai Court November 2006 Judgments

Naresh Sadanand Budhani Vs. Laxmandas Bajarmal Advani and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2007)BC337

M.G. Gaikwad, J.1. By this application original complainant claims leave to prefer appeal against the acquittal.2. Applicant filed complaint against respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). According to him, in the month of April, 2000, he had advanced an amount of Rs. 1,08,000/- to the accused and for its repayment the accused had issued cheque dated 3.5.2002. Said cheque was presented in the Bank, however, same came to be dishonoured. After the intimation of dishonour of the cheque, demand notice was issued on 8.5.2002 but the same was returned unserved. So second notice dated 16.5.2002 came to be issued and it was served on the respondent. In spite of receipt no payment is made. So alleging offence under Section 138 of the Act, complaint came to be filed.3. The accused came with a defence that there was no transaction at all in between complainant and the accused. His defence is specific that he had t...

Sunil Kumar Marwaha Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants submits that the appellants should be given two years for passing the Regulation 8 Exam from the date of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General) Mumbai instead from 8th July, 2004 as indicated in the order. His submission is that it is totally unreasonable to put such a condition of two years from the date of probate order where-as the Commissioner has passed the order on 16-11-05. There is no bar in the CHALR Regulations in this regard. The learned JDR appearing for the Revenue opposes the request of the appellant.2. Perused the grounds in the Appeal and heard the submissions of the learned Advocate. I consider his plea reasonable and allow the appellant two years to pass the examination from the date of the order i.e. 16-11-2005 passed by Commissioner of Customs (General) Mumbai....

Ciba Specialty Chemicals Inc. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)9STJ24CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. The issue to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether the services provided by the appellants filed under the category of "Consulting Engineer Services" leviable to Service Tax.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants based in Switzerland are engaged in business of research, development, manufacture and sale of the products "Ingranox". They have also established plants, factories, research and testing laboratories, as well as engineering development and promotion facilities and have also acquired valuable scientific technical and other knowledge pertaining to the manufacture and application of said products. The appellants have entered into agreement with M/s. Ciba Specialty Chemicals (India) Ltd., Illhas, Goa (hereafter referred to as M/s. Ciba India) wherein it has been stated that M/s. Ciba India desire to receive the aforesaid technology from the appellants for the manufacture and sale of the products "Irganox".It has been alleged that the appellants have faile...

All India State Bank Officers Federation and State Bank of India Offic ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Bom)562; [2007]288ITR614(Bom)

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. The first of these three writ petitions, i.e. Writ Petition No. 1411 of 1992, is filed by a Federation of Officers of State Bank of India and its regional unit from Mumbai. The second writ petition, i.e. Writ Petition No. 1915 of 1997, is filed by All India Reserve Bank Employees' Association and its Association in Mumbai. A Civil Application is taken out therein for interim relief. The third petition, i.e. Writ Petition No. 213 of 1997, is filed by an officer of Reserve Bank of India. All these three writ petitions seek to challenge the constitutional validity of the latter part of Clause (v) of the first proviso to Section 17(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [appearing in the section after Clause (vi)] to the extent it treats the medical reimbursement above Rs. 15,000/- per annum as taxable perquisite for the salaried persons. Since all the three petitions raise the same question of law, they have been heard and decided together. 2. The main contesting Respondents to...

Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board Vs. K ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR198; 2007(1)BomCR607; 2007(1)MhLj642

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.2. The Counsel for the review petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that in the instant case by impugned order dated 21-8-2006 the Board was directed to show the paper concerned to the non-applicant including the model answers within a period of one week from the date of passing of the impugned order if the non-applicant/petitioner approached the applicant/respondent Board. It is further contended that in the impugned order the Division Bench has also observed that if the applicant after verifying the papers feels that cause of action survives, in that case, liberty was given to the applicant to approach appropriate forum.3. Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for review petitioner, has contended that the above referred direction given by this Court in the impugned order being inconsistent with the law laid down by the Apex Court cannot be sustained in law and, therefore, order impugned may be quashed and set...

Shrikrishna Haribhau Gore and ors. Vs. Sadashiv Laxman Pudale and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR159; 2007(3)BomCR723

Karnik D.G., J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the revision applicants. None present for respondents.2. This revision application is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge, Sangli, dismissing their appeal and confirming the decision of the trial Court dismissing their suit for damages.3. The applicants filed a suit against respondents who are officers of the Sangli Municipal Council, for damages of Rs. 12,360/- for illegal removal of tiles (Farshi) in front of their shop. The applicants had laid tiles covering the drainage passing in front of their shop. The respondents, purporting to act in exercise their powers under the Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short 'the Municipalities Act') removed the said tiles which amounted to erection of an obstruction on the road. According to the applicants, the respondents had no authority to do so and their act was illegal and ultra virus their powers under the Munic...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Arvind Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The matter referred to us if regarding admissibility of cash discounl in the context of new Valuation provisions coming into force with effect from 1-7-2000.3. Shri Ajay Saxena, the Ld D.R. for Revenue submits that the provisions relating to valuation of excisable goods for the purpose of charging duty of excise are incorporated in Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and these provisions have undergone a basic change with effect from 1-7-2000 when the concept of transaction value instead of a deemed value has been introduced. He took us through the relevant provisions of Section 4 existing both prior to and after 1-7-2000 which read as under : Section 4. Valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of duty of excise- Whereunder this Act, the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with reference to value, such value, shall, subject to the other provisions of this section, be deemed to be - (a) the normal price thereof, that is to say, the price at which s...

Frito-lay India Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC367

1. The issue in this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune who has confirmed duty demand of Rs. 11,28,46,060/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs relates to classification of 2 products viz. 'Cheetos Masala Balls' and ' Cheetos X & O' manufactured and cleared by the appellants herein during the period December, 2003 to August, 2005 - whether under CET sub-heading 1904.10 covering "prepared foods obtained by the swelling or roasting of cereals or cereal products and put up in a container, as held by the Commissioner or under CET sub-heading 2108.99 covering "edible preparations, not elsewhere specified or included bearing a brand name" as contended by the appellants.2. We have heard both sides. The ingredients of Cheetos Masala Ball are corn meal, rice meal, gram flour, wheat fibre, water and seasoning, while, the ingredients of the second product are corn meal, edible oil, seasoning and water As seen from the adjudication order, the manufacturing ...

Shankar Baluram Ladehllu Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(1)SLJ316CAT

1. The O.A. under reference has been filed against nonpayment of retiral dues to the applicant and demand for recovery of salary paid for services rendered for the period beyond the actual date of retirement. The documents annexed to the O.A. have been perused, written as well as oral submissions advanced by both applicant and respondents including affidavit filed by the respondents and applicant's reply thereto have been considered.The applicant was appointed in the Railway service on 17.10.1968 and accordingly he was to retire on 31.10.1992. However, he retired on 18.6.2003 i.e. approximately 11 years later than the actual date of his retirement. Accordingly, he overstayed in service from 1.11.1992 to 17.6.2003. During the period of overstay, the applicant was also promoted as Junior Engineer Grade -I on 10.1.1997, and even thereafter he continued in that capacity till 18.06.2003 when he finally retired.Further, the respondents sent a letter to the applicant that since he had overst...

Hiralal Son of Suryabhan Hedaoo Vs. H.S. Pundkar, President, Panchshee ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)BomCR232; 2007(3)MhLj14

A.H.J. Joshi, J.1. In Writ Petition No. 6097 of 2004, this Court passed an order as follows:7) For the reasons stated herein above, the impugned order dated 11.11.2004 is hereby quashed and set aside and he Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to verify the caste claim of the petitioner as per the direction issued in this Judgment.[quoted from page 18 of the paper-book of Contempt Petition].2. This Court also recorded the grievance of the petitioner about non-payment of salary. In that regard, this Court recorded as follows:6) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also made grievance about non-payment of salary to the petitioner. However, it will be appropriate for the petitioner to make a representation in this regard to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who shall decide the same on its own merits according to law at the earliest.[quoted from page 18 of the paper-book of Contempt Petition].3. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as a Laboratory Assistant in the respondent-Institution ...