Mumbai Court December 2006 Judgments

Air India Employees Guild Vs. Air India Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR78; 2007(1)BomCR529; (2007)109BOMLR1; [2006(108)FLR879]; (2007)IILLJ217Bom; 2007(1)MhLj659

F.I. Rebello, J.1. A learned Division Bench of This court while hearing the above petitions, doubted the correctness of the view taken in Oil and Natural Gas Commission Karmachari Sanghatana v. Ministry of Petroleum and Ors. in Writ Petition No. 1785 of 1997 and also found other contentions urged before it were of great importance and arose in a number of matters and accordingly referred these matters for consideration to a larger Bench. The questions of law formulated and referred for our consideration are as under:(1) Whether the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Automobile Products of India Employees Union v. Association of Engineering Workers Bombay and Ors. 1990 2 CLR 344 and the Judgment (of the Division Bench of This court) in Association of Engineering Workers v. Dockyard Labour Union and Ors. 1993 1 CLR 637 and the judgment of the (Division Bench of This court) in Association of Engineering Workers v. Dockyard Labour Union 1992 2 CLR 382 applies to the verification...

Secretary, Gramodhar Vidya Prasarak Shikshan Sanstha and anr. Vs. Asho ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR269; 2007(3)MhLj299

R.C. Chavan, J. 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties.2. By this petition the petitioner management takes exception to order passed by Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur allowing respondent No. 1's appeal and directing the petitioner to reinstate respondent as Assistant Teacher with continuity of service and backwages.3. Respondent No. 1 holds qualification of B. Com, B.P.Ed. He was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the petitioner's school in the year 1994. His services were terminated after an inquiry into misconduct by an order dated 20th June, 2001. This order was challenged by respondent No. 1 by preferring appeal before the School Tribunal which the Tribunal allowed, holding that the petitioner was recognised school and that respondent No. l's appointment was made as per Section 5 of the MEPS Act and Rules framed thereunder, and approved by the Education Officer in pursuance of the MEPS Act and Rules framed thereunder. The Tribunal also held that t...

Navdeep Packaging Industries Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The issue involved is whether the refund of unspent PLA balance is covered under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The ld.Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has considered the provisions of Rule 9(1A) read with Rule 173G(1A) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which provides fur withdrawal of amount from PLA by the Commissioner and the said power of Commissioner has been delegated to Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise. The contentions of the ld. Consultant for the appellant is that Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 applies for refund of duty. This is not disputed by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, referring to Clause (b) of the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 11B, the Commissioner records that unjust enrichment shall not apply to refund of unspent PLA balance, but at the same time he also records that he does not mean that the unspent PLA balance is duty. He has recorded that the said provision has been incorporated as an abundant precaution ...

Shri Kiran Nagji Nisar Vs. Ito

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)300ITR286(Mum.)

1. This is an assessee's appeal directed against the order of learned CIT(A)- XIX, Mumbai dated 25.02.2003 for the assessment year 1998 - 99.2. Grounds No. 1 to 3 are regarding validity of the assessment order mainly for the reason that no notice was issued Under Section 143 (2).Ground No. 4 is regarding the disallowance of interest of Rs. 967,727/-.3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessment was first completed under Section 143 (1) on 30.03.2001 and subsequently, it was noted by the assessing officer that the figure of business loss included speculation loss of Rs. 51,757/- claimed twice and that interest expenses of Rs. 967,727/- was incurred on funds utilized for personal withdrawals and investment in shares. For these reasons, the assessment was reopened and notice Under Section 148 was issued on 31.05.2001. In reply to the same, the assessee filed a letter dated 25.06.2001 informing the assessing officer that the return of income was filed on 02.11.1998 and it was submi...

Smt. Saminussa Tawakal Hussein, Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Great ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR497; 2007(2)BomCR84; (2007)109BOMLR170

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. The judgment and order dated 12.6.2006 rendered by the City Civil Court, Bombay in L.C. Suit No. 5088 of 2000, instituted by the appellants, is under challenge in the instant first appeal. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties the appeal is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. The parties have placed all the relevant material before me consisting of the pleadings, notes of evidence and all the documents relied upon by them before the trial Court. I heard Mr. Godbole, learned Counsel for the appellant for quite sometime and Mr. Xavier, learned Counsel for the Corporation.2. By the impugned judgment, the suit instituted by the appellants challenging the notices under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, (for short 'the Act') issued against them dated 26.8.2000 and 24.8.2000 has been dismissed by the trial Court. All the three appellants claim that they are in possession of the structures in dispute as tenants of M/s. Kay Ka...

Shriram Ganpatrao Yawale Vs. Resident Deputy Collector and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR125; 2007(3)MhLj95

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The parties were heard on 11-12-2006 at the stage of Admission itself and matter was adjourned to 18-12-2006 for passing orders. However, it appears that on account of wrong noting of date matter was not listed on 18-12-2006 and then it was mentioned by learned Counsel for petitioner. The mistake was thereafter discovered and matter is listed today on board for admission.2. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent of parties matter is heard finally.3. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 6-11-2006 passed by the respondent No. 1 Collector, directing deletion of name of present petitioner from the voters list of respondent No. 4 Co-operative Society and directing inclusion of name of objector before him i.e. the present respondent No. 3 in the voters list. The respondent No. 1 Resident Deputy Collector has upheld the objection of respondent No. 3 on the ground that as petitioner did not complete two years period as member of Primary Socie...

Hanumanprasad Durgaprasad Mishra Vs. Collector and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)MhLj109

V.C. Daga, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 28-2-2002 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur, Bench Nagpur in Transfer Application No. 1376 of 1992 (Original Writ Petition No. 2689 of 1990) whereby the petition/application filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed.Factual Matrix:2. The facts giving rise to the present petition in nutshell are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk on purely temporary basis vide order dated 22-7-1981 and came to be posted at Government godown, Yeotmal. He worked at Government godown, Yeotmal from July, 1981 to November, 1982.3. The petitioner was served with the show cause notice dated 2-6-1983 wherein he was described as Godown-Keeper at Government godown, Yeotmal having worked during the period July, 1981 to November, 1982 as per office order dated 22-7-1981. The petitioner was charged with misconduct of having issued food-grains and edible oil in excess of quantity than mentioned in the permits ...

Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)MhLj144

A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. By the present appeal, the appellant M.S.R.T.C. has challenged the judgment dated 7-12-1995 in W.P. No. 2479/1992, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby writ petition was allowed and the order of the Industrial Court dated 30-9-1992 in Complaint (ULPN) No. 1070/1990 was set aside with further direction to the appellant M.S.R.T.C. to grant promotion to the respondent sole as traffic controller w.e.f. 12-5-1982 along with all promotional benefits including monetary benefits.Facts:2. The respondent had filed complaint before the Industrial Court at Nagpur, which was registered as Complaint U.L.P. No. 210/1983. He stated that he joined the appellant Corporation in service as conductor in the year 1972 in Nagpur Division of which Chandrapur was Sub-Division. In 1974, Sub-Division, Chandrapur was declared as division and as such the respondent continued to work in Chandrapur Division. In the year 1979, he made a request for transferring him from Chand...

General Manager, Department of Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)8STJ353CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. This is a miscellaneous application against the dismissal of stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of interest vide Order No.S/752/WZB/2006/CSTB dated 07.09.2006 on the ground that the appellant could not attend the hearing on the said date and since they have a goods case on merits. The appeal may be restored.3. We find that vide the above order the Tribunal has dismissed the application for waiver of pre-deposit of interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act for the reason that provision of Section 35F under which the application has been made, do not cover waiver of pre-deposit of interest. This order in no way dismisses the appeal but only dismisses the stay application fir dispensing with the pre-deposit of interest which is not within the powers of the Tribunal. The application is therefore infructuous and is accordingly dismissed....

Wescon Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide the impugned order Commissioner of Customs Goa, has rejected the appellant's claim for drawback of Rs. 26,12,736/- under proviso 2 to Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962, and has imposed personal penalty of Rs. 2,60,000/- under Section 114(iii) of the Act. The above order is based on the findings that the appellant had exported the goods by mis-declaring the description, rate and value of the same.2. We have heard Shri S.N. Kantawala, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant and Shri Uma Shankar the ld. SDR appearing for the Revenue.3. As per facts on record appellant filed the shipping bill dt.10-12-99 with the Custom House Goa, for export, of 500 cartons containing 36000 pieces Ready Made Garments Men's exclusive Woven Trousers at the declared FOB value of Rs. 1,63,29,600/-. The said goods were meant for export to M/s. Kamal International Trading Dubai, under claim for drawback of Rs. 26,12,736/-. The market price of the goods was declared as Rs. 52,20,000/- at unit price of...