Mumbai Court March 2006 Judgments

Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and ors. Vs. Shamrao Vishnu Kunjir ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom167; 2006(4)ALLMR257; 2006(4)BomCR242; 2006(4)MhLj4

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard Perused the records.2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 4th March, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 9523 of 2004. The appeal is essentially against the part of the impugned judgment which relates to certain observations in relation to the drafting and presentation of the affidavit under Order XVIII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the directions issued in that regard to the courts and the tribunals. .3. The said petition was filed against the order of the trial Court disallowing cross-examination of the deponents, who had filed their affidavits under Order XVIII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When the matter came up before the learned Single Judges the advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents conceded that the deponents, who had filed the affidavits, were required to be subjected to cross-examination. In that regard though the petition could have disposed of by consent, the l...

Amardeep G. Madkaikar Vs. State of Goa and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR809

Lavande A.P., J.1. Rule. Mrs. Coutinho, learned Government Advocate waives notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent heard forthwith.2. By this petition, the petitioner who is the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 315/04 pending before the IInd Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, Panaji assails the Order dated 13 September, 2005 by which an application filed by the petitioner in August, 2005 for framing of two additional issues has been rejected. The petitioner filed the above referred suit claiming refund of the amount paid to the respondents with interest as well as compensation. As per the averments made by the petitioner in his plaint, his tender was accepted by the respondents and there was a legally valid and binding contract between the petitioner and the respondents and further that the respondents had terminated the contract and it was not rejection of the tender as contended by the respondents. On the basis of the pleadings in paragraphs 12 and 13, the petitioner sought fram...

Gram Panchayat Vs. Collector and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)MhLj453

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. The petitioner by the present petition seeks to challenge the order dated 11th August, 2003 passed by the Collector, Kolhapur, and the order dated 23rd October, 2003 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune purportedly in exercise of powers Under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called as 'the said Act.'2. The Government constructed a Dam across Tulshi River at Radhanagari Taluka, District - Kolhapur, and as a result of construction of the said Dam, two villages were submerged in the back water of the said Dam. Consequently, in the year 1975, the area admeasuring about 12 acres and 11 gunthas of land was acquired under the said Act. Further, in the year 1977, an additional area from the property belonging to respondent No. 6 was acquired under the said Act for the purpose of rehabilitation of Tulsi Project affected persons for creation of new gaonthan. Out of the said land bearing No. 58/5 part, 58/6 Part, 59 part, 60/8 part and 71/...

General Secretary, Best Worker's Union Vs. General Manager, Best Under ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR497; (2006)IIILLJ924Bom; 2006(44)MhLj32

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner being a General Secretary, was an active Union member and an office bearer of the BEST Workers Union. He therefore, claimed to be a protected employee under Section 101 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act (BIR Act). The petitioner was charge-sheeted under Standing Order Clause 20(i) and (r). Due enquiry was conducted. As per the charge-sheet dated 6th May, 1995, it was alleged that the petitioner assaulted Acharekar, Ashok Honmukhe and one Ramesh Gaonkar, fellow workers, with Bamboo sticks, outside Dindoshi Bus Station gate, at about 9.15 p.m., on 6-5-1995. This was a second incident, as alleged. The Criminal prosecutions are also initiated against the petitioner. Criminal Case bearing C.R. No. 293/95, against said employee, under Sections 320, 307, and 324 of Indian Penal Code is still pending. As alleged, the charge-sheet was issued sometimes in the year January 1996 i.e. beyond a period of six months, as contemplated in Section 78(1)(D)(i) of t...

iran National Airlines Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(202)ELT588(Bom)

ORDER1. Heard Mr. Ashok Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that there was default by the petitioner in filing the Foreign Travel Tax Returns (FTT) and the payments but according to him, the default was technical and for such technical default, the penalty has been imposed on very higher side. He would submit that there was no mens rea and in any case the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs is beyond the order of remand and, therefore, unsustainable.3. We considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.4. The petitioner is air-carrier and is owned and managed by the Islamic Republic of Iran.5. The following statement depicts the details of Foreign Travel Tax returns filed by the petitioner and the payment made.Sr. FIT Date of Delay of Delay in Sub- Challan Amount Delay inte- Sho- int- re-No. Returns submis- submis- mission (no. no.date of in rest rt rest ma- per- ssion sion of day...

Ultra Drytech Engineering Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 1/95-C.E., dated 4-1-1995 has been denied to the appellants herein who are holders of Central Excise registration certificate for the manufacture of goods falling under Chapters 72 & 84 of the Schedule to the CETA, 1985 on the ground that they had cleared goods to 100% EOU M/s. Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceutical Ltd. but CT-3 certificates were not in their name but only endorsed in their name by M/s. Excelsior Design & Projects Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. and an endorsed CT-3 certificate is not recognized as a valid duty paying document for the purpose of availment of benefit under the Notification. The result of the denial of the benefit is a confirmation of duty demand of Rs. 88,500/-.2. None appears for the appellants in spite of notice and hence we heard the ld. DR and perused the records. Although the appellants have raised a ground in their appeal that one of the CT-3 certificates viz.CT-3 No. 217 dated 22-12-1994 wa...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. P.C. Pole Factory

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC156

1. None appeared for the respondents. There is also no adjournment request. Heard Shri M.K. Srivastava, learned SDR appearing for the department.2. The issue involved in this case is valuation of P.C. poles manufactured by the respondents and used in the transmission of electricity by the respondents themselves. The lower appellate authority has set aside the order-in-original assessing the goods on the basis of 115% of the cost of production and has directed assessment to be made on the basis of cost of production + a reasonable margin of profit.3. It is argued on behalf of the department that under the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000, the assessment for captive consumption is required to be done on the basis of 115% of the cost of production of the goods. The learned SDR draws our attention to Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules and also to Board's Circular No.643/34/2002-CX dated 1-7-2002 in this regard.4. After perusal of the case records including the cited Rule...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Charishma Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The applicant Commissioner has appealed before us against the order of the lower appellate authority holding that the impugned goods namely Lipsticks and Nail Polishes do not attract the provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 requiring valuation on the basis of MRP.2. After hearing both sides and perusal of the case records, we find that the lipsticks and nail polishes are transported in bigger boxes containing 288 pcs. each containing smaller boxes of 24 pcs. each.Neither the bigger boxes nor the smaller boxes are intended for retail sale. The boxes have individual pieces of lipsticks and nail polishes in attractive packs and the quantities contained in the individual pack is 4 I gm. for the lipsticks and 8 ml for the nail polishes.3. Shri S.S. Bhagat, learned SDR has shown us the definition of multi piece package in the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (SWMR) under which the "multi piece package" means a pack...

ipca Health Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC28

2 The dispute is regarding classification of "denture cleanser" as to whether the same should be classified under sub-heading 3306.10 or under sub-heading 3306.90. The relevant entry under Heading 33.06 of the Central Excise Tariff reads as under:33.06 Preparations for oral or dental hygiene, including dentifrices (for example, tooth paste and tooth powder) and denture fixative pastes and powders The impugned product is in the form of powder and is used for cleaning denture. Shri Sridharan, learned Advocate for the appellants, contends that denture is nothing but artificial teeth used in place of real teeth and hence the product in question is nothing but a toothpowder which merits classification under sub-heading 3306.10.3. Shri R.B. Pardeshi, on the other hand, contends that the product in question is not bought and sold as a toothpowder and, therefore, it cannot be classified under the claimed sub-heading 3306.10. He also relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vinay ...

Unirose Textile Processors Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The learned advocate for the appellants raised preliminary objection before the argukng thg matters on merits stating that in this case there has been denial of principal justice by the lower authorities in view of which the matter needs to be remanded back to the original authority with a direction that the relevant documents be supplied cross examination od the relevant witnesses be allowed and the matter be decided thereafter.2. It was submitted that a Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants alleging evasion of duty and clandestine removal of procgssef aovton fcbpics and MMF mcinl{ based on octroi free passes purported to be pertaining to applicant's goods. The appellants had denied all the charges and allegation levigd agaknst theo in their dgfgnae rgply dated 30-4-1997 as well as in 3 written submissions given at the time of personal hearing held on the 3 different occasions. The applicants have very categorically denied that the alleged octroi free passes were prepared...