Mumbai Court March 2006 Judgments

Maha Pragya Vidya Nidhi Foundation and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR317; 2006(4)MhLj50

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Mr. Dwarkadas in support of this petition and Mr. Mokashi, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent No. 1, as also Mr. Thorat for respondent Nos. 3 to 36.2. The petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 8.2.2006 passed by the Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra, Mumbai, finalising the list of valid members for elections to petitioner No. 1-trust whereby some 32 new members (i.e. respondent Nos. 5 to 36 herein) have become eligible to become members and vote. The petition also seeks to challenge the notice dated 10.2.2006 fixing the election programme and the Charity Commissioner's order dated 14.2.2006 declining to postpone the elections.3. The brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows:-Petitioner No. 1 herein is a charitable trust governed under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. Amongst others, one of the objectives of this trust is to establish and to take over and maintain schools and educational institutions. One Seth Gokuldas Tejpal...

Dalsing S/O Shamsing Rajput Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR580; 2006(5)BomCR691; 2006(3)MhLj592

N.V. Dabholkar, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Shri V.D. Hon, for the petitioner, learned AGP Shri Ghute Patil, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and learned advocate Shri V.B. Patil, for respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 5 is served and absent. He is absent in spite of specific directions vide our order dated 10-3-2006 asking him to remain present in person along with documentary evidence regarding his membership of the Society which is going to polls on 26-3-2006. After order dated 10-3-2006, the matter was on board on 14-3-2006. Even on that day, respondent No. 5 had not appeared. Today, neither respondent is present, nor he is represented by lawyer of his choice. Hence, we are dealing with the matter in the absence of respondent No. 5. 2. Admittedly, Shrikrushna Takli (Bk) Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Limited, Takli, Taluka Jamner, District Jalgaon is an ordinary Society (it is neither Specified Society nor Notified Society). The election programme for the election of Managing Com...

Arjun Narayan Patil and ors. Vs. I.D.B.i. Bank Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2006(110)FLR242]; (2006)3LLJ66Bom

1. The petitioners had moved respondent No. 2 by way of conciliation proceeding. Their case before respondent No. 2 was that the respondent No. 2 was the direct employer and contract between the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 4 was sham and bogus. Respondent No. 2 submitted failure report to respondent No. 3. The appropriate Government in exercise of its power under Section 12(3) has rejected the reference as sought for by the petitioner. It is on that account that the parties have moved this Court.2. From the record it appears that there was settlement in conciliation entered into between the petitioner on one hand and respondent No. 4 on the other to which officers of respondent No. 1 and 2 were also signatories. By that settlement which is under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, respondent No. 4 agreed to offer employment to the petitioners and they were to report immediately at re-deployed places.3. It is the case of the petitioners that though settlement has been ...

Helios Food Improvers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The dispute in the present stay petition relates to the classification of the products manufactured by the appellant and as a consequence of confirmation of demand against them.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Bakery Importers, Cake Imporvers, Helios Liquid Emulsifiers and Cake-N-Soft whereas they have classified the Emulsifiers case and soft product under Chapter 15 and Bread Imporver under Chapter 19. Revenue is of the view that the same are properly classifiable under heading 2108.99 as "other branded edible preparation not elsewhere specified or included".3. It is the appellant's contention that said Chapter 21 is residuary entry and when the products are specifically specified against Heading 1508.90. Inasmuch as the same are manufactured out of Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil. Sugar Emulsifier etc. and according to the appellant heading 15.08 covers inedible mixtures or preparations of fats and oils of this Chapter. Chapter 21 Miscellaneous edible preparation an...

Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. Pac Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. It is seen from the impugned order that the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) has inter alia held that the respondent is seeking the refund of warehousing charges paid by him due to the late decision or wrong decision of the customs. He has held that anything collected by the department which is not due to the department has to be refunded whether there is any specific provisions in the Act or not. He has noted that if the respondent was made to pay the warehousing charges due to delay caused by the department then such warehouse charges can be remitted. He has also recorded that the authorities was not competent to recover the warehouse charges, therefore the original authorities were directed to process the refund of warehouse charges as per the instructions issued by the Board. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also recorded that in his order dated 24.10.2003 he has directed the lower authorities to decide the case within one month from the date of the order but he found the order was pas...

Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Samarth Travels

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. This is an application filed by the revenue for staying the operation of the Impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (A).3. The assessee comes under network of Service Tax Act. The assessee appears to have collected the Service Tax from his clients from 2000 onwards, but obtained the registration under the Act in the year 2003.Therefore, penalty was imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act and the same has been upheld by the learned Commissioner in Order-in-Appeal. Penalties were also imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act for non-payment of Service Tax in time. This has been set aside by learned Commissioner (A), which is assailed before the Tribunal in this appeal by the revenue. It appears that the assessee has paid confirmed amount of Service Tax along with interest ordered thereon and also penalty imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, even before the issue of the Show Cause Notice. Basing on the aforesaid facts the learned Commissioner (A) deleted the ...

Gurmeet Singh Kohli Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC314

1. Common issues arise for decision in these appeals which are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The case of the department is that M/s. Omjeet Industries, the proprietary concern of Shri Goutam Jain, M/s. Jain Enterprises, proprietor of Shri Naresh Jain and M/s. Four Field Electroplast Pvt.Ltd. exported readymade garments of inferior quality and claimed inadmissible drawback. In the case of M/s. Omjeet Industries and M/s.Four Field Electroplast Pvt. Ltd., drawback amount of Rs. 1,08,76,041/- and Rs. 35,94,695/- has been ordered to be recovered from Shri Goutam Jain and M/s. Four Field Electroplast Pvt. Ltd. and penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- has been imposed on one Gurmeet Singh Kohli (in the case of exports by Omjeet Industries) and Rs. 10,00,000/- has been imposed upon Shri Gurmeet Singh Kohli in the case of exports by M/s. Four Field Electroplast Pvt. Ltd. under the provisions of Section 114(iii) on the ground that he rendered the goods liable to confiscatio...

Capt. Nikhil Divecha Vs. Ito, 27(L)(3), Mumbai

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)8SOT659(Mum.)

These appeals are preferred by the assessee on various grounds. But, during the course of hearing, the assessee has opted not to argue on merit except the mode of computation of charging of interest under section 234A of the Income Tax Act.We, therefore, restrict ourselves to an issue with regard to computation of interest under section 234A of the Income Tax Act and reject other grounds of the assessee raised on merit as no argument was advanced on behalf of the assessee in this regard. We, accordingly, dismiss the other grounds raised in these appeals and confirm the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on merit finding no infirmity therein.We have heard the rival submissions on the issue of charging of interest under section 234A of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The main dispute is with regard to the period for which interest under section 234A is to be charged. Whether it starts from the due date of filing of the return under section 139 of the Income Tax A...

Ms. Yukta Mookhey Vs. Bank of India and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR737; 2006(3)BomCR26; 2006(4)MhLj61

ORDERH.L. Gokhale, J.1. One Harmonics Fabrics Fashions Ltd. is the defaulting borrower of respondent No. 1-Bank to the tune of Rs. 56 lakhs which amount, with interest, has risen to Rs. 88 lakhs. Respondent No. 2, Sanjivani Properties Pvt. Ltd., was the guarantor in respect of the said amount and had mortgaged their flat at 401, 2-A, Excellency Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai--400 053, in favour of respondent No. 1-Bank by depositing the title deeds way back in the year 1995. Since the amount was not refunded, respondent No. 1-Bank sent a notice to both these companies under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Securitisation Act') for selling the said flat for recovery of the dues. Respondent No. 1-Bank sent a notice to the petitioner on 25.1.2003 since she was in possession of the said flat.2. Thereafter, on filing an applicati...

Universal Pollution Control (i) P. Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Co ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR401; [2007]137CompCas319(Bom); [2006(110)FLR163]; (2006)IIILLJ1085Bom; 2006(3)MhLj831; [2007]77SCL192(Bom)

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present petition is filed challenging the order seeking to recover from the petitioner an amount of Rs. 9,49,267/- and Rs. 3,23,802/- towards interest. There is no dispute that the said amount is due and payable by the company known as Universal Fans Ltd The petitioner company is known as Universal Pollution Control (I) P. Ltd. the liability is not of the petitioner company. Under the companies Act each of the company is a separate legal entity and recovery of the dues of one company cannot be recovered from another company.2. The only aground on which recovery is sought to be made is that the two directors of the company were common and that the petitioner had issued a cheques when the goods of the petitioner were seized by the Provident Fund Authorities in respect of the liabilities of Provident Fund dues of Universal Fans Ltd. There is also no dispute that the both the companies are separately registered with the Provident Fund Office. The Universal Fans Ltd is...