Mumbai Court February 2006 Judgments

Joaquim Joao Fernandes Vs. Nazario Pinto

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2007)BC324; 2006(2)BomCR746

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard the Advocate for the petitioner. None present for the respondent, though served. In fact, the notice of the petition was issued to the respondent for final disposal of the petition at the admission stage. However, the respondent has chosen to remain absent. Evidently, the respondent is not interested in contesting the proceedings.Perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 4-1-2005 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao in Special Execution Application No. 32/2001/A. By the impugned order, the Executing Court has reduced the rate of interest which was decreed by the trial Court in the Special Civil Suit No. 204/91/A under the decree dated 29-8-2001. The challenge to the impugned order is that the Executing Court could not have travelled beyond the decree or had jurisdiction to decrease the rate of interest awarded by the Civil Court under its decree.3. The petitioner herein filed suit for recovery of money being Special C...

Suresh Sakharam Sarankar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR768; [2006(109)FLR1052]; (2006)IILLJ1086Bom; 2006(3)MhLj95

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 1-7-1999 whereby the Tribunal has confirmed penalty imposed by the appellate authority of compulsory retirement for the charges levelled against the petitioner.2. The undisputed facts in the present case are as follows:The petitioner was appointed as a Cleaner in the Mail Motor Service Department of the Post on 20-8-1969. On 21-9-1989, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner alleging that he had remained absent unauthorisedly and that he had contravened the service rules by proceeding on a fast unto death. An enquiry was held against the petitioner ex-parte. The petitioner contends that he did not remain present at the enquiry since the charge-sheet along with the imputation of charges served on him was in the English language and he could not understand the same. The enquiry officer conducting the enquiry held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were pr...

Ranjit Satardekar and anr. Vs. Joe Mathias and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR272; 2006(4)BomCR847; 2006CriLJ2237; 2006(6)MhLj430

ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioners challenge the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the application which was filed by the petitioners for summoning the Inspector of Panaji Town Police to produce the statement recorded under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of PW. 1 which forms part of the records of Criminal Case No. 146/ 03/B pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji. The impugned Order is dated 27-10-05 and has been passed in Special Civil Suit No. 102/04/B.3. Placing reliance on the decision in the matter of Malakala Surya Rao and Ors. v. Gundapuneedi Janakamma reported in : AIR1964AP198 , the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court clearly erred in rejecting the application on assumption that the statement recorded under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. cannot be used in civil proceedings. The learned Advocate appearing for the responden...

Ar. Ashish V. Patil Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC150

1. Heard both sides. The appellant has rectified the stay application by submitting a verification certificate. After hearing the case for some time, I dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit and proceed to decide the appeal.2. The appellant is an Architect. The original authority in his order has confirmed and appropriated the amount of service tax of Rs. 44,667/- and the interest of Rs. 14,413/- paid on account of delayed payment. He has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,000/- under Section 76 and a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.The impugned order has been passed by the jurisdictional Commissioner revising the order of the original authority and enhancing the penalty of Rs. 4,000/- under Section 76 to Rs. 44,667/-.3. The appellant states that the imposition of the service tax on the Architects was before the court and that he was also unaware of the tax liability which laid to the delay in payment and that he had no intention to evade the tax. H...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Girdhar Metal Inds. Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Stay Refund Amount deposited before SCN was issued under protest Imported goods diverted to said unit in UT CENVAT Credit avail on them Held, no allegation of liability of unit No specific provision in Customs Act which authorizes the Customs Authority to withhold the refund during pendency of appeal before Tribunal Ratio of judgment in Neeraj Newspaper Association (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex (Import) Calcutta and Ors. Stay operation of order partly, whereby refund claim to be made of half the amount Stay application disposed of 2. The revenue is in appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner (A), Central Excise, Pune on 21.09.2005 who has set aside the Order-in-Original dated 31.03.2005 wherein the demand of Rs. 4,68,566/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Six only) was confirmed against which an amount of Rs. 4.00 Lakhs (Rupees Four Lakhs only) was deposited by the respondent. An equal amount of penalty also imposed a...

D.R. Gade Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The defects pointed out by the registry has been rectified by the appellant. After hearing the case for some time, I dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit and proceed to decide the appeal.2. The appellant is an Architect. The original authority in his order has confirmed and appropriated the amount of service tax of Rs. 37,309/- and the interest of Rs. 16,603/- paid on account of delayed payment. He has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,0007- under Section 76 and a penalty of Rs. 500/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.The impugned order has been passed by the jurisdictional Commissioner revising the order of the original authority and enhancing the penalty of Rs. 4,000/- under Section 76 to Rs. 37,309/-.3. The appellant states that the imposition of the service tax on the Architects was before the court and that he was also unaware of the tax liability which laid to the delay in payment and that he had no intention to evade the tax. He states that th...

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Najir Ahmad Mohid Khan Alias Mohammad Naj ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ2017; 2006(2)AIRBom.R.457(DB)

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This is a reference under Section 366 of Cr.P.C. for confirmation of the death sentence ordered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Kalyan vide his Judgment and Order dated 10/9/2004 in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2002. The Respondent-accused Najir Ahmad Mohid Khan alias Mohammad Najir Mohiddin has been sentenced to death on the charges of committing the murder of his three minor children begotten from Smt. Hafizunnisa Najir Shaikh (P.W.2) and the convict has also challenged the said order of conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal No. 350 of 2005. The broad matrix of events leading to the order of conviction and sentence would be stated, as presented by the prosecution before the trial court, as under. 2. On 1/3/2001 Police Constable Sawant attached to Dombivali Railway Police Station informed on telephone to Shri Babaram Raghoji Bhosale (P.W.1), Police Station In-charge, PI (Dombivali Railway Police Station) that near Kalyan Patri Pool and close to the ra...

Smt. Nirmala Revappa Pathanshetti Vs. Shri Mahadev Ramchandra Mali,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)BomCR200; 2006(2)MhLj566

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. This letters patent appeal is directed against the order dated 23.8.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3792 of 2000 by which the writ petition was rejected at the stage of admission. In the writ petition, the appellant had impugned the judgment and order dated 23.6.2000 of the Presiding Officer, Additional School Tribunal, Pune Region, Solapur in Appeal No.71 of 1998. Respondent no.1 had filed the said appeal challenging his reduction in rank from the post of Head to the post of Assistant Teacher. 2. The school tribunal by its judgment and order dated 23.6.2000 declared an appointment of the appellant as Head Mistress of Shri Santa Damaji Mahavidyalaya, Mangalwedha, the school run by respondent no.2 (for short 'the school'), to be illegal and against the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short 'the Act') and the rules made in that behalf and further dire...

Shabbir Ahmed Rafique Ahmed Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006BomCR(Cri)728

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus or the directions in like manner impugns the order of detention dated 13-5-2005 passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Secretary), Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and the Detaining Authority by invoking powers under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act'). The said order was served on the detenu on or about 20/5/2005 and he was taken in detention on that day. A communication bearing No. PSA -1105/2/SPL-3(A) dated 13/5/2005 was also issued by the said Detaining Authority and served on him on or about 20/5/2005 along with the list of documents. This communication had set out the statements and grounds of detention on the basis of which the impugned order was passed. Admittedly the copies of the documents mentioned in the list of documents were also served upon the detenu along with the detention order. 2. On 30/11/...

Smt. Bharti Manu Mandhora and Smt. Shubhangi Arvind Gadway Vs. the Sta ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR768; 2006(3)MhLj218

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The Petitioners, who are Assistant Teachers, have challenged the order dated 13th December 2002 granting approval to their employment as Shikshan Sevaks. It is the case of the Petitioners that their employment as Assistant Teachers had been approved earlier and, therefore, the impugned order granting them approval as Shikshan Sevaks after their transfer to the Secondary Section was bad in law. 2. Both the Petitioners were appointed as Primary School Teachers in 1979 in the school run by Respondent No.3. In the year 2002-03, some of the teachers of Standards V to VII in the Secondary Section retired and hence their posts fell vacant. The Petitioners who were Primary School teachers were entitled to be transferred and appointed to these vacant posts in accordance with the Rules applicable since they were the seniormost teachers. Respondent No.3 accordingly issued orders and appointed the Petitioners as Assistant Teachers in the Secondary Section of the School on 21st...