Mumbai Court December 2006 Judgments

Nageshwar Basantram Dubey Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR612; 2007(3)MhLj275

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. All petitions may be disposed of by common judgment. These petitions may be divided in three groups. In the Writ Petition Nos. 5526/95, 1388/96, 4341/96,7648/2000, 1579/2002, 2575/2003, 9160/2003, 9162/2003,9178/2003, 847/2006, 2025/2006, 3047/2006, 377/2001, 5584/2006, 6537/2006,OSWP Nos. 407/1992,3693/1991 and 452/2005 the petitioners claim to hold either the degree or diploma of Vaidya Visharad or Ayurved Ratna or some other equivalent degree awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag or Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad and some other institutions, whose degrees and diplomas are not recognised in Schedule II of the Indian Medical Central Council Act, 1970 (In short The Central Act). Most of them claim to have been registered with the State Council of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh. These degrees and diplomas in Ayurveda conferred by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag after 1967 and all the degrees and diplomas conferred by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad are no...

Shailendra Prakashchandra Darda Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR685; 2007(3)MhLj170

V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition was heard by us on 22-12-2006 and the same was dismissed for the reasons to be recorded. Accordingly, the facts and reasons are being recorded.2. This petition is burning example exhibiting gross impropriety in selecting and appointing the petitioner as Laboratory Attendant in the respondent No. 5 School, known as Abhyankar Girls' School and Junior College, Yeotmal run by the respondent No. 4 Womens' Education Society, Yeotmal. The School Committee of the respondent No. 5 School headed by its President Mr. Amarchand Pannalal Darda has selected and appointed his nephew i.e. real brother's son, the present petitioner, Mr. Shailendra Darda to the post of Laboratory Attendant. The approval to the said appointment was refused by respondents No. 2 and 3 - The Director and The Deputy Director of Education., Hence, this petition.Facts:3. Factual matrix reveals that the post of Laboratory Attendant was lying vacant in respondent No. 5-school almost for a period of ...

The Maharashtra State Electricity Board, at Present Maharashtra State ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR563; 2007(2)BomCR76

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties.2. This petition involves question whether inherent powers available Under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code could be invoked by the trial Court for allowing extension of time to deposit deficit Court fees and restoration of suit when the plaint was rejected Under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. due to nonpayment of the required Court fees.3. A resume of few facts may be set out in order to gather the dimensions of the disputed questions. A Special Civil Suit was filed by the Respondent for recovery of damages and compensation to the tune of Rs. 853.50 lacs against the petitioner M.S.E.B. There was deficit Court fees when the plaint was filed. An application was filed for grant of one month's time to deposit the remaining Court fees. After lapse of one month, again extension of time was sought which was rejected by the trial Court. The Respondent filed yet another application da...

Bajaj Auto Limited Through Its Assistant Manager-personnel Dilip Hanam ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR280

Naresh H. Patil, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service.2. The petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for striking down the impugned order of reference dated 21st March 2006 made by the Deputy Commissioner Labour Aurangabad Division Aurangabad under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.3. The petitioner Bajaj Auto Limited is a manufacturer of two wheeler and there wheeler automobile vehicles. The manufacturing activity is carried out at its plant at Waluj, Aurangabad. The petitioner contends that the members of respondent No. 3 were given temporary, fixed term employment by the petitioner for the first time 18 years ago from the date when the third respondent Bhartiya Kamgar Kranti Sangathana put up its demand notice on 27-1-2004. The appointments of the workers were made by the petitioner to meet the increase in demand arising out of market exigencies. This ap...

Pramod S/O. Baliram Wavge Vs. Sahadev S/O. Kisan Khadke

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR139

R.C. Chavan, J.1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties.2. By this petition the petitioner-defendant in Regular Civil Suit No.17/2004 takes exception to rejection of his application for permission to file reply and written statement on record.3. The petitioner/defendant had appeared in the said proceedings before Civil Judge Jr.Dn., Patur on 16.07.2004. Instead of filing written statement on the same day he filed an application Exh. 11 under Section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure taking exception to jurisdiction of the Civil Court. This application was decided by the learned Judge on 28.01.2005. On 03.02.2005 i.e. five days after rejection of his application under Section 9-A of the C.P.C., the defendant filed application for permission to file reply and written statement on record. With this application he annexed reply to application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, but did not annex any written statement. 4. The learned Judge considered plaintiff's objection t...

B.V. Jewels and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC264

1. The appellants' (M/s B.V. Jewel's) unit located in Santacruz Electronics Export Processing Zone is engaged in the manufacture of jewelleries studded with diamonds for 100% exports. They were availing exemption from Customs duty on cut and polished diamonds imported under Notification No. 177/94-Cus dated 21.10.1994. On the basis of certain intelligence gathered to the effect that there were shortages of diamonds in the stock of M/s B.V. Jewels, stock-taking was carried out in the premises of the appellants by SEEPZ Customs Officers from 01.02.2000 to 03.02.2000 when it was found that the appellants were not maintaining prescribed records properly and certain shortages and excesses were detected during the course of stock taking. The unit was asked to prepare a statement of import and export of diamonds according to the rate at which the diamonds were imported and exported which was prepared by one Shri Ramesh Iyer, Accounts Manager and submitted under his signature. On verification...

Mannesmann Demag Huttentechnik Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)9STJ96CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 1,86,205/- and penalty of equal amount confirmed against the applicant, we find that it is possible to decide the appeal itself at this stage and, hence, proceed to do so, with the consent of both sides, after waiving the pre-deposit.2. The Service Tax has been levied upon the appellant's company (foreign company) on the ground that they had rendered and provided services as Consulting Engineer to M/s. Ispat Indu. Ltd., during the period 1999-2000 to 2001-2002.3. The main grievance of the appellant is of contravention of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity was ever extended to them to appear before the Commissioner, who passed the impugned order.4. We have gone through the order of the commissioner and find that there is nothing to establish that hearing notice was issued to the appellant's company. Notice of hearing has been issued to the Indian Company viz., I...

Evergreen Engg. Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(116)ECC365

1. Heard both sides. The issue involved is reversal of credit of duty paid on inputs on subsequent changes in the price of inputs. The learned Counsel interalia submitted that they have raised Debit Notes only for the difference in the basic price and not for the duty amount.2. The case of the Department is that no documentary evidence in support of this contention was filed by the appellants, whereas the contention of the Department is that the Appellant has taken Cenvat Credit of the duty paid by the supplier of input on the value which was on higher side. After the appellant issued the Debit Notes to the suppliers on account of rate difference, the value of the goods was proportionately be reduced. It is obvious that if the lower rate would have been charged at the time of clearance of the goods by the supplier itself, the appellant would have been entitled for lesser amount of Cenvat Credit as the duty element paid would have been less. Therefore, it was obligatory for the appella...

Gfa Anlagenbau Gmbh Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)6STR131

1. We have heard both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 14,84,782/- confirmed against the applicants herein on the ground that they were providing Consulting Engineer Services to M/s. Ispat Industries and penalty of amount equal to duty, covering the period March 99 to September 2001. We find prima facie force in the submission of the applicant that prima facie the demand is not sustainable in the absence of any proposal in the notice for recovery of duty from the applicant as the notice dated 29/01/2004 adjudicated against the applicant in the impugned order only calls upon the assessee M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd., to show cause as to why duty should not be demanded and recovered from the assesses M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd., and there is no proposal for recovery of duty from the applicant Company. We, therefore, grant the prayer. Stay application is hereby allowed....

F.A.A. Jasdanwalla Vs. Commissioner

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Commissioner-13, Mumbai relating to assessment year 1997-98 against the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 1. The order dated 14-3-2002 (The impugned order) passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax-13, Mumbai ('the Commissioner') is illegal, erroneous, contrary to the evidence and the material on record and without jurisdiction and ought to be cancelled. 2. The Commissioner erred in setting aside the order dated 10-1 -2000 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range-40, Mumbai ('the JCommissioner'). 3. The Commissioner erred in alleging that the JCommissioner had not passed a speaking order analyzing the bad debts claimed by the appellant. 4. The Commissioner erred in holding that the appellant's claim for a deduction of Rs. 50,00,000 under Section 36(2)(i) read with Section 36(1 )(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Income Tax Act was not correct. 5. The Commissioner erred in holding that since th...