Mumbai Court December 2006 Judgments

M.R. Manoj, Ex, Lme Vs. Union of India (Uoi),

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR298; (2007)109BOMLR187

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner was promoted to the rank of Acting Petty Officer Mechanical Engineer (POME) on 7th September, 2001 vide General Form dated 7th September with effect from 1st February, 2001. The petitioner was due to retire on 30th September 2003. However, before his retirement the petitioner was reverted to the rank of Low Medical Category (LME) with effect from 1st February, 2001 vide order dated 17th September, 2003 containing General Form dated 17th September, 2003. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the said order of reversion.2. It is the case of the petitioner that under Navy Instructions No. 2/96, the qualifications for promotion have been laid down. For promotion to the post of POEM the requirements are as under:(b) Must be in possession of a Boiler-Room Watch keeping certificate of ICE Competency Certificate. This certificate may be awarded by the Engineer Officer of the Ship as soon as an Acting Petty Officer Engineering Mechanic is compete...

Niraj Singh Vs. Shishu Vihar Mandal and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR664; 2007(4)BomCR217

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 27th February, 2006 passed by the School Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal No. 123/2000. The challenge is on the ground that irrespective of the nature of the appointment letter issued by the Management, the petitioner was deemed to have been appointed on probation in terms of Section 5 of the M.E.P.S. Act read with Rule 10 of the M.E.P.S. Rules and, therefore, the Management could not have terminated the services of the petitioner without following the usual procedure prescribed under the law which would include issuance of notice, holding of inquiry and appropriate order. In the case in hand, undisputedly, the petitioner was sought to be terminated by issuing an order dated 28th Mardri, 2000 informing the petitioner that her services would stand terminated with effect from 29th April, 2000. It was also sought to be contended that though the appoi...

Rallies India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(115)ECC124

Whether 8% of the amount as per erstwhile Rule 57CC of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (now Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002) is required to be discharged, before removal of by products/subsidiary products when such products are exempted from whole of duty, therein in light of the conflicting view in the above two decisions.The above issue came to be referred to the Larger Bench by noticing two streams of views regarding interpretation of the provisions of Rule 57CC by different precedent decisions of the Bench.2. Before we proceed to decide the issue it is worth referring to the manufacturing process of the appellant, who are engaged in the manufacture of gelatin. For the said purpose the initial raw material is animal bones and hydrochloric acid. The appellants were availing benefit of modvat credit in respect of HCL. The animal bones were treated with HCL. As a result inorganic material in the animal bones react with the HCL to form water-soluble compound. This inorganic material in ...

Kutch Kadva Patidar Samaj Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)8STJ328CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. The prayer in the application is to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 3,51,192/- and personal penalty of Rs. 90,000/-. The said tax stands confirmed against the appellant in respect of donation received from various persons. The appellant is a trust and provides services as Mandap Keeper.2. Learned advocate fairly agrees that some of the donations received by them are against the services provided as Mandap Keeper and as such had to be treated as amount charged by the service provider for such services rendered by them. However, he submits that the entire donation were not only on that count. Part of the donation amount was independent of the services rendered by the appellants' trust. On being quarried, learned advocate submits that the tax amount would come down to Rs. 2 Lakhs and he is ready to deposit the same.3. In view of the above, we direct the appellants/applicants to deposit an amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs within a period of 4 weeks and report comp...

Sunny Frp Products Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants in this case are receiving motor vehicle from the manufacturer and after removing canopy are fitting FRP body on the same and were claiming exemption under Notification 162/83 which exempts vehicle manufactured on chassis on the duty of excise has been paid and no credit of duty paid on such chassis and other inputs used in the manufacture of such vehicles has been taken under Rule 56A or 37A of the Rules. They were issued a show cause notice demanding duty on the ground that the exemption was not available to them as what was being received by them was a motor vehicle and not a duty paid chassis and therefore the conditions of the notification are not satisfied.2. Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that though they are receiving a motor vehicle but nevertheless they are removing the canopy and what remains thereafter is only a chassis on which FRP body is being fitted and therefore they are entitled to the exemption under the said notification. He also refe...

Bajaj Auto Ltd. a Company Registered Under the Indian Companies Act, 1 ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR216; 2007(1)BomCR569

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. These two appeals from order challenge the common order dated 9.8.2006 passed on the applications at Exhibit-5 in Special Civil Suit Nos. 973 of 2002 and 643 of 2004 by which both the applications filed by the appellants-Bajaj Auto Ltd., are partly allowed. By the impugned order the respondents-Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation', have been temporarily restrained to close/stop the facility of current account No. 3 of the appellants till the disposal of the suit on their depositing an amount of Rs. 31.98 crores in Civil Suit No. 973 of 2002 and Rs. 2,56,43,923/- in Special Civil Suit No. 643 of 2004 within one month from the date of the impugned order. The Corporation, by this order, is allowed to withdraw the amount, that would be deposited by the appellants.2. The questions involved in these appeals are common. The facts and the prayers made in both the suits are similar. Both the learned senior counsel for the partie...

Manubhai Paragji Vashi Vs. the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR135; 2007(1)BomCR849; (2007)109BOMLR17

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Heard forthwith.For the purpose of deciding the controversy the facts in Writ Petition No. 903 of 2004 are being set out.2. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate. By the present petition, the petitioner has prayed that all the Advocates on the roll of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa - respondent No. 1, be allowed to cast their votes and contest the elections without being disqualified for non-payment of the amounts as per Rule 40 of Chapter II of Part-VI, Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette of the Bar Council of India Rules. The other relief was a direction to the Members of the Bar Council at the time the petition was filed, to restrain them from distributing Law Books to the Bar Associations from the Bar Council Funds as elections had been declared. During the pendency of the petition the elections were held and a new Committee has been elected. Pursuant to the results declared on 4th March 2004, the respondent Nos. 6 to 29 and the petitioner w...

Anil S/O Bajirao Badgujar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)BomCR574

M.G. Gaikwad, J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties.2. By these petitions, the petitioner who is one and the same person in both these applications, sought review of the judgement and order dated 21/04/2006, a common judgement by which Writ Petitions No. 3893/2005 and 3881/2005 preferred by this petitioner came to be dismissed.3. According to the petitioner, he belongs to Other Backward Class. All the while he was treated to be from open category and he was eligible to get employment by relaxation of age limit in view of the Government Resolutions dated 12-03-1998 and 27-05-1998, being an Ex-senses employee as well as part-time employee. However, his petitions came to be dismissed on the ground that he was age-barred. It is contended by the petitioner that there is error apparant on the face of record. Hence, the order needs to be reviewed.On a notice being issued to the respondents, they appeared and objected these review applications. According to t...

Castrol India Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007[5]STR246

ORDER1. Heard Mr. Patil in support of this petition Mrs. Bharucha appears for the respondents.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties taken up for final hearing.3. The petitioner had furnished a bank guarantee through H.D.F.C Bank for Rs. 12.50 lakhs during the course of provisional assessment of their excise duty for the year 2003. The provisional assessment has been finalised and order-in-original has been passed on 28th November, 2006 whereby the respondent No. 3 has lodged their claim with the bank for encashing the bank guarantee by his letter dated 29th November, 2006.4. The petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which it can file within 60 days and also apply for stay of the impugned order in original. Section 35F provides that a party against whom such duty is levied can apply for an order not to insist on this deposit on the ground of undue hardship. Mr. Patil submits that this remedy will become ...

Maruti Fetrochem Ltd. Vs. Sheetal Krushi Seva Kendra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2008)BC76; 2007(2)BomCR444

M.G. Gaikwad, J.1. The original-complainant by this application seeks leave to prefer appeal against acquittal. Advocate Mr. Sengaonkar for the applicant made submission that accused No. 2 was the authorised signatory for accused No. 1 and in that capacity he has issued cheque. So judgment of acquittal suffers from infirmities, hence it is a fit case to grant leave to prefer appeal against acquittal.2. As per complainant's own case the complainant had transaction with accused No. 1, a proprietary firm. Accused No. 2 has no concern with that business. Advocate Mr. Sengaonkar made submission that sole proprietor is dead. It is not his contention that the property of respondent No. 1 is inherited by accused No. 2. Admittedly cheque was not issued by accused No. 1, so transaction against accused No. 1 was not tenable. The cheque was alleged to have been issued by accused No. 2 in his capacity as authorised signatory. It is not the contention that accused No. 2 stood as guarantor for accuse...