Mumbai Court February 2006 Judgments

Chattushrungi Seva Samittee Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing submissions from both sides in this application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax Rs. 2.16 Lakhs imposed on applicant a Religious Trust, running & having provided Mandap Keeper Services, in as much as they have permitted sale of toys, garlands, flowers, food and other articles in their premises and also finding that out of total service tax determination Rs 60,000/- stands deposited, we would consider that pre-deposit to meet requirements of law as rentals on sale of toys, garlands, flowers, etc. recovered by the Trust services of prima facie may not account to Mandap Keeper.2. Application disposed ordering waiver of further deposit and stay of recovery pending regular hearing & disposal of appeal....

Shri Pradip Nanjee Gala, Karta of Hindu Undivided Family of Pradip N. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)BomCR147; 2006(3)MhLj508

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The petitioner claims that as a result of the settlement arrived at, the petitioner is relieved of all the obligations to pay the sales tax dues payable by the firm in which he is held to be a partner for Samvat year 2034 and 2035. Accordingly, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the respondents are not entitled to recover any further amount from the petitioner in respect of the sales tax dues payable by the firm. In the alternative, the petitioner claims that the amount collected from the petitioner pursuant to the above settlement must be refunded to the petitioner with 24% interest. 2. The facts relevant for the present petition are that the petitioner carried on business in the name of M/s. Hemal Traders. A Partnership Firm known as M/s. Joshi, Karanunashankar Liladhar & Company ('firm' for short), a registered dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ('B.S.T. Act' for short) was indebted to M/s. Hemal Traders for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-. With a view to ...

Sanjeev Dhondu Nikam Vs. Manjusha Sanjeev Nikam

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR219; 2006(2)BomCR2; II(2006)DMC11

Dharmadhikari S.C., J.1. Heard Mr. Bubna for petitioner-husband and Mrs. Dere for respondent-wife.2. Petitioner husband is aggrieved by an order dated 6th July 2004 passed Civil Judge, Senior Division, Malegaon below Exh.7 in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 64 of 2002.3. Order under challenge allows the application of the respondent wife and directs petitioner husband to pay to her Rs. 3000/-per month from the date of the application i.e. 26th November 2002 till decision of the petition as also Rs. 3000/- as costs.4. After this petition was filed in this Court, on 11th August 2005 this Court had directed issuance of notice and stayed the order under challenge to the extent of recovery of arrears. The maintenance at the rate awarded i.e. Rs. 3,000/- per month would therefore have to be paid from month to month, is the effect of this order.5. The above order was passed by this Court on 22nd August 2005 and, thereafter, the matter has been adjourned.6. This matter was placed today after respo...

Mahendra Jayantilal Vora and ors. Vs. Aditya Enterprises and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR209; 2006(2)BomCR251

Lodha R.M., J.1. The appellants are original plaintiffs in the suit filed by them for declaration that the agreement dated 26th August, 2002 has been legally and validly terminated by the plaintiffs with effect from 10th March, 2004 and that the defendants have no right, title or interest under the said agreement and/or in respect of construction already put up by the defendants and direction to defendants by way of mandatory injunction to remove themselves and their materials and machineries etc. from the said construction site forthwith. The plaintiffs took out Notice of Motion praying for the following interim reliefs:(a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Defendants, their servants and agents be directed by a mandatory order an injunction to forthwith remove themselves their materials and machineries, etc. from the said construction site.(b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, Court Receiver, High Court Bombay be appointed as Receiver under...

State of Maharashtra Vs. K.B. Nimbalkar and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR777

Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. The first respondent was working as a Jailor in Grade II and during the relevant time, between 10th July, 1985 and 17th August, 1985, he was assigned for duty at the District Prison, Byculla, Mumbai. At the time when the first respondent was posted as Jailor, an undertrial prisoner by the name of Abdul Hamid was lodged in the prison. It was alleged that during this period, there was a failure on the part of the first respondent to discharge his duties and that the aforesaid undertrial prisoner had brought in unauthorised articles including a Television Set, Video Recorder and Video Cassettes. There was, it was alleged, a failure on the part of the first respondent to take necessary steps which he was under an obligation to take in his capacity as a Jailor. A disciplinary enquiry came to be convened against the first respondent and on 3rd February, 1986, a charge-sheet was issued to him. On the conclusion of those proceedings, the first respondent came to be remov...

Deputy Collector and (S.D.O.) and anr. Vs. Diogo Piedade Inacio Falcao ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR769

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard the learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants. None present for the respondents though served with specific notices that the appeal would be disposed of finally at the admission stage itself. Apparently, the respondents do not seem to be interested in testing the proceedings.2. The appellants challenge the Award dated 16th April, 2005 passed by the Refer-ice Court, Margao in Land Acquisition Case No. 11/2000. By the impugned award the Reference Court has enhanced the market value of the acquired land from Rs. 4/ to Rs. 28/per sq.m. in addition to the benefits available to the claimants in terms of the provisions under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.3. Section 4 Notification was published in the Government Gazette dated 30th November, 1992 whereby the Government sought to acquire land surveyed under No. 51/11 situated in the village Betalbatim belonging to the respondents/claimants for the purpose of construction of road from...

Guna Gaonkar and anr. Vs. Administrative Tribunal and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR389; 2006(3)BomCR46

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J. 1. The petitioners challenge the order dated 21.5.2001 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa in Devasthan Appeal No. 46/01 as being contrary to the provisions of law comprised under the Regulations governing Hindu Temples (Devasthans) of Goa, Daman & Diu in terms of Diploma Legislative No. 615 dated 30.3.1933 and amended by Diploma Legislative No. 1898 dated 29-5-1959 (hereinafter called as 'the said Devasthan Regulations'). 2. The few facts relevant for the decision are that: The Mahajans of Shree Bhimika Devasthan at Chopdem, Pernem Goa and the said Devasthan are governed by the provisions of the said Devasthan Regulations. On 31.12.1999, the Managing Committee of the said Devasthan was dissolved by the Government in exercise of powers under the said Devasthan Regulations and the Mamlatdar of Pernem was appointed as the Administrator in place of the Committee for the day today management of the said Devasthan. On 5.1.2000, the respondent No. 2, the then M...

Kuldeep Pednekar Vs. Ajit Pandurang Gogate and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR606; 2006(4)BomCR392

Khanwilkar A.M., J.1. This petition is filed for declaration that the election of the respondent No. 1 as candidate from 'O4' Deogad Assembly Constituency in the general election of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly held on 13th October, 2004 as Official candidate of the Bhartiya Janata Party (hereinafter referred to as 'BJP') representing the alliance of Shivsena-BJP, be declared illegal, null and void.2. The notice in Form No. 1 declaring the Election programme was published on September 15, 2004. The date of filing nomination was from 15th September 2004 till 22nd September, 2004. The scrutiny of nomination was to be undertaken on 23rd September, 2004 and the list of valid candidates after due scrutiny was to be published thereafter. Under the said Notification, date of withdrawal of nomination was 25th September, 2004. On that date, besides the petitioner, the six respondents herein remained in the fray for polling to be held on 13th October, 2004 between 7.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. ...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Kusumgar Finestocks Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), upholding the order of the Assistant Commissioner mat clearance of goods, which are not specified under SSI Notification No.01/93 and not required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing value of clearances of specified goods under notification.2. None appeared for the respondents; hence we heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. We find that the issue stands squarely covered by the recent decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in CCE, Surat v. Mahajan Processors Pvt Ltd., vide order No.M/285/WZB/2005/LEB dated 31/10/2005. The relevant portion of which we re-produce herein below: This issue, in dispute, came up for the first time for consideration of the Tribunal in the case of Watts Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Kochi value of clearances of specified goods by unit which started availing of the benefit of small scale exemption under notification 175/86 during the cours...

Span Diagnostics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. In this appeal, the appellants are an assessee of Central Excise engaged in the manufacture of Diagnostic Test Kits one of such kits being manufactured by them is AUSTRAGEN LATEX for detection of Hepatitis B. The Diagnostic agent Aus-tragen Hepatitis B in bulk form is imported and cleared duty-free for the last several years.2. The appellants imported three litres of Latex and claim exemption under notification 23/98-Cus. Sr. No 46(B) by classifying product under Heading No. 3002.00 in bill of entry No. 7146, dated 16-11-1999. They comply the condition No. 5 applicable to such importers as set out in the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duly for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Act, 1996 which was required to be followed. They have in pursuance of this stipulation obtained necessary certifications from the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, incharge of their factory. The claim for clearance duty-free before the Asst.Collector of Customs was denie...