Mumbai Court March 2006 Judgments

Continental Construction Limited Vs. Export Import Bank of India and a ...

Court: Mumbai

V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This petition arises out of the original proceedings instituted by the Exim bank in DRT, Bombay for recovery of certain monies due from the defendant. Civil Suit No. 660/98 was filed on 5-2-1998 in the Bombay High Court. It was for a sum of Rs. 102,93,09,734.98 paise, as the amount due under an agreement between the parties dated 6-2-1995.2. Similar application was filed before the DRT, Delhi by the State Bank of India, Delhi. The Tribunal decreed the claim of the State Bank of India and therefore the present petitioner filed an appeal before the DRAT, Delhi. Along with the appeal they also filed an application under section 21 of the Act for waiver of the amount of deposit as required by that section.3. The petitioner Continental Construction Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) was to receive large sums of monies (approximately 16 millions US dollars). This amount was payable to the company by United Nations Compensation Commission for the loss caused...

Shantaram Ganesh Shenoy Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR167; 2006(5)BomCR299; 2006(3)MhLj781

A.S. Oka, J.1. Admit. Shri Tated, learned A.G.P. waives service for the Respondent. Since the Appeal can be decided on the basis of the facts which are not in dispute it is immediately taken up for final hearing.2. The appellant is the claimant who made an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1894). On the basis of the said application, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ratnagtri made a reference to the District Court. By impugned Judgment and Award dated 13th October 2005, the reference has been dismissed on the ground that the application for reference was barred by limitation.3. There is no dispute between the parties that the Award under Section 11 of the said Act of 1894 was made on 8th December, 1995 and the appellant received a notice under Section 12(2) of the said Act of 1894 on 6th May, 1998. Undisputedly, the application for reference was filed by the appellant on 30th September 1998. The...

Dayashanker Dashrat Chaubey Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)BomCR597; 2006(4)MhLj537

Kingaonkar V.R., J.1. The petitioner seeks to assail the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, in Original Application No. 203 of 2002 dismissing his application for stepping up of pay.2. The case of the petitioner is that he entered the Department of Telecommunication as Phone Inspector on 16th October, 1976. He appeared for competitive examination for promotion to the cadre of Junior Engineer, which post redesignated as Junior Telecom Officer. In 1983, he was deputed for training, category of graduates and was later on posted as Junior Engineer w.e.f. 24th March, 1987. One Shri S. R. Dussane was junior in rank to him and is from 1984 batch. His appointed was made earlier on 21st May, 1986. There was revision of pay in 1996. In the revised pay structure, pay of Shri S. R. Dussane was increased.3. The petitioner claims that though he made various representations for grant of deeming date of promotion or stepping up of the pay equal to that of his ju...

Valsamma Mamachan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)BomCR595; 2006(4)MhLj270

Kingaonkar V.R., J.1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 1048 of 1996 dismissing her claim for regularisation of her services in the cadre of Lower Division Clerk from the date of her appointment w.e.f. 7th June, 1974 and to grant her incidental benefits arising therefrom.2. Briefly stated, the petitioner's case is that she was appointed as Temporary Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on establishment of Southern Command, 'A' Branch, Pune on probation for a period of two years w.e.f 14th October, 1971. Likewise many others, she was directly appointed and was not a candidate recruited through employment exchange. She was transferred to College of Military Engineering, Pune, against regular vacancy. She completed the probation period satisfactorily and was later on confirmed in the grade under Office Order dated 25th November, 1991. She was assigned benefits of quasi permanency in the grade of LDC from 14th Oct...

Mayashankar R. Singh Vs. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)BomCR812; 2007(1)CTLJ287(Bom); 2006(4)MhLj70

Kamdar S.U., J.1. The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 8.11.2005 passed by the Corporation deregistering the petitioner for the period of three years from 18.2.2005 to 17.2.2008 in all the categories of registration. Some of the material facts of the present case briefly enumerated are as under:2. The petitioner is a registered contractor with the Corporation and thus entitled to participate in tenders which are floated from time to time by the Corporation. In respect of the contact for P/L 150 mm, 250 mm and 300 mm dia water mains at various places in K/East Ward public tenders were floated by the respondent Corporation. The petitioner was one of the tenderers. His tender was found to be the lowest. Therefore his tender was accepted and work order issued on 11/5/2004 fixing the date of commencement of work as 1.10.2004. The time period for completion of the work was seven months therefrom. There is no dispute that the petitioner did not commence and execute any wo...

VipIn Das Baijal (Captain) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR735; 2006(4)MhLj362

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. Petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and sought to challenge an order dated 20th June, 2003, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, whereby his Original Application No. 85 of 2003 was dismissed. Petitioner, being aggrieved by an order dated 11th November, 2001, issued by the respondent No. 1, whereby respondent No. 4 who is junior to the petitioner has been promoted as Deputy Nautical Advisor (for short DNA) against the vacancy of the year 1999-2000, whereas the petitioner has been promoted against the vacancy of the year 2000-2001, had preferred the said Original Application before CAT.2. The petitioner was appointed as Nautical Surveyor in the office of the Director General of Shipping on 15th March, 1991. Respondent No. 4 was appointed as Nautical Surveyor on 17th December, 1993. Petitioner obtained degree of M.Sc. from World Maritime University, Malmo, Sweden sometime in December, ...

Prakash Parshuram Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)MhLj652

F.I. Rebello, J.1. All these petitions are being disposed of by a common order as the facts are more or less similar and the issue of law is common. The facts as stated in Writ Petition No. 86 of 2004 are being set out for disposal of the issues in this group of petitions. The Regional State Service Selection Board, Konkan Division had issued advertisement in the newspaper Navakal dated 1-10-1992 for filling in the post of Assistant Deputy Education Inspector, hereinafter referred to as ADEI. The petitioner appeared for the selection before the Selection Board and was consequently selected. Based on the said selection, respondent No. 2 issued a letter of appointment to the petitioner which is dated 10-1-1994. The advertisement apart from the post of ADEI had also invited applications for various other posts. The pay scale for the post of ADEI was Rs. 1640-2900. The essential qualifications and experience were graduates as also B.Ed, and 3 years teaching experience in secondary school a...

Pramod Devaram Bhangale Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR480; 2006(44)MhLj110

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard.2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 18th February, 1997 passed by the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad fixing the seniority of the petitioner below the respondent No. 5. The challenge is on the ground that the same is in contravention of the provisions of law applicable to the parties.3. Few facts relevant for the decision are that the petitioner was appointed as the Assistant Teacher in the respondent No. 4's High School on 9th June, 1980. He was thereafter appointed as the Head Master of the said High School on 31st October, 1996. Further he was appointed as the Head of the School on 4th November, 1996. The respondent No. 5 was appointed as the Assistant Teacher on 15th June, 1981.4. The petitioner acquired the qualification of D.Ed, in the year 1977, of B.Ed, in the year 1984 and further qualification of M.Ed, in 1994, while the 5th respondent acquired the qualification of H.D.Ed, in 1980.5. The qualification of H.D.Ed, is equivalent to B.Ed...

Sir Cars Travels Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service tax of Rs. 28,721.30 confirmed on the ground that the applicants herein were rendering services of renting out cabs and penalty of Rs. 500/- under Section 75A for not obtaining Service Tax Registration, penalty of Rs. 24,000/- under Section 76 for not paying Service tax dues on time and penalty of Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 for not filing returns on time and penalty of Rs. 24,000/- under Section 78 for having concealed the taxable value to the department with an intention to evade the payment of Service tax.2. We have heard both sides. The applicants' contention that over and above rendering services of renting out cabs to the person who avails the service himself which is not disputed and on which Service tax has been paid, they have also rented out cabs to other cab operators and no Service tax would be payable by the applicants when the cabs are rented out to other cab operators, is not prima facie tenable. The amount ...

Datar Switchgear Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide Stay Order No. S/585/WZB/2005/C.I dated 31-10-05, pre-deposit of Rs. 25 lakhs was directed. Against this order, the applicants went up to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court by way of filing Writ Petition No.192 of 2006 and by Order dated 7-2-2006, the High Court directed the assessees to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the Tribunal for modification.2. We have heard both sides. The issue relates to disallowing of Modvat credit on capital goods in terms of Rule 57Q on the ground that the applicants had claimed depreciation of the amount, which was contrary to the provisions of Rule 57R(5) and (8) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The applicants rely upon the earlier decision of the Tribunal in Terna Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [2001 (138) E.L.T. 1225].We have carefully perused the above decision and find that printa facie it is not of any assistance to the applicants. In that case, the Tribunal held that Modvat credit on capital goods cannot be denied merel...