Mumbai Court March 2006 Judgments

Shekoba Auto Pvt. Ltd. Vs. B.D. Hajare and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR722; 2006(4)MhLj43

P.V. Kakade, J.1. This petition is preferred by the petitioner impugning the order dated 29th September, 1999 passed by the Industrial Court, Pune, inter alia, holding that the petitioner had committed unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said 'MRTU and PULP Act') while retrenching the respondent Nos. 1 to 40, who were the complainants, and directing the petitioner to continue them in service with further direction to pay each of them Rs. 1000/- as compensation and further sum of Rs. 1000/- by way of cost.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the record.3. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. In or about 1972 a partnership firm by name Electro Components Company was formed which was engaged in the manufacture of capacitors for electronics and automobile industries. On 15-11-1978, th...

Delforooz Darius Dorabjee Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)MhLj149

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.The petitioner herein had filed a petition for divorce against respondent No. 3 being Marriage Petition No. 6 of 2001 which is pending before the District Court, Pune under the provisions of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 hereinafter referred to as the Act. The respondent No. 2 is the Poona Parsi Panchayat, a registered charitable Trust in the city of Pune. By the present Petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the Government notification dated 10-2-2005. By that notification, the State Government under the purported exercise of its powers under Sections 24 and 25 of the Act, has appointed 11 persons as delegates for the period of 10 years from the date of publication of the notification, to aid in the adjudication of cases arising under the provisions of the Act, in the Parsi Matrimonial Court, at Pune. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the said not...

Suresh Baban Kakodkar and ors. Vs. State of Goa and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR752

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 21st December, 2005 passed by the Mamlatdar in Case No. JM-III/MUND/ DECL/01 and 02/2005 under Section 8-A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkar (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975. By the impugned judgment the learned Mamlatdar has dismissed the application solely on the ground that the respondent before the Mamlatdar had purchased the house in his capacity as mundkar having been registered under Section 29 of the said Act and not by a stranger to the property. The learned Mamlatdar has held that if a person who is alien to the property purchases the property as a whole including the mundcarial house then only such a person steps into the shoes of the mundkar. If a person is registered as mundkar under Section 29 of the said Act, he does not step into the shoes of the batkar.3. Few facts relevant for the decision are that the petitioners herein approached the Mata...

Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Hari and Company

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2006]148STC92(Bom)

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The present sales tax reference has been made under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, to this Court for the determination of the question of law which arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal dated October 11, 1991 in an appeal filed by the respondent herein.2. The question arises under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Sales Tax on the Transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of Works Contracts (Re-enacted) Act, 1989, (hereinafter, 'Works Contract Act'), read with Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The corrected question as argued upon by both the parties reads as follows:In the facts and circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of Section 2(1)(d) of the Maharashtra Sales Tax on the Transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of Works Contracts (Re-enacted) Act, 1989 (hereinafter, 'the Works Contracts...

Godrej Sara Lee Limited Vs. Knight Queen Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(34)PTC364(Bom)

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. The learned Counsel appearing for the Defendant has placed on record two labels, which are taken on record and marked 'X' and 'Y' for identification. The learned Counsel appearing for the Defendant, without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the 'suit and in opposition proceedings, submits that during the pendency of the suit the Defendant will only use the label at 'Y' in relation to mosquito repellants and electrically operated apparatus in respect thereof. The learned Counsel further states that they have existing stock of labels, cartoon and other advertising material bearing label at 'X' and that within a period of six months from today that stock will be disposed of. He further states that the value of the material referred to above is approximately Rs. 1 crore. The learned Counsel further submits that except for disposing of the stock as aforesaid, the label at 'X' shall not be used by the Defendant in relation to mosquito repellants machines and elec...

Antewerpse Diamant Bank N.V. Vs. Kamal and Co.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2007]138CompCas966(Bom)

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this summary suit to recover a sum of US $ 1,21,180.08 together with interest on US $ 87,180 at the rate of 18 per cent, per annum from April 1, 1999, till payment.2. The suit is based on a bill of exchange drawn by Rosmira Diamonds Bavba and accepted by the defendant. The bill of exchange was drawn on April 16, 1997, and was made payable on July 14, 1997. In view of the defence raised by Mr. U.J. Makhija, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant, it will be convenient to set out the relevant part of the bill of exchange, which reads as under:DRAWN UNDER COLLECTION BW970482No. ... USD 182,130.00 ANTWRE 16/04/97On 14 July 1997 pay this FIRST OF EXCHANGE, (SECOND unpaid) to order of ANTWERSPSE DIAMANTBANK NV ANTWERPEN the amount of USD ONE-EIGHT-TWO-ONE-THREE-ZERO-AND 00/100 payable at the UNITED BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI 400001 drawing rate for demand drafts on...with interest at...per cent, per annum added thereto from date hereof to ...

Mohan Bros. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The prayer in the application is for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 6,88,166/-(Rupees six lakhs eighty eight thousand one hundred sixty six only) confirmed by the authorities below in respect of the imported liquor by rejecting the applicants request for relinquishment of title to the goods. The authorities below have observed that the provisions of Section 23(2) of the Customs Act, are not applicable. Inasmuch as, an order of warehouse of the goods under Section 60 has already been passed. The provisions of Section 68 have also been examined by the authorities below, and which has been held that the proviso to the said Section, which allows the importer to relinquish the title to the goods was issued w.e.f. 14-5-2003 and inasmuch as the period in the present appeal is prior to the said proviso, the same is not applicable.2. We do not, prima facie find any infirmity in the impugned orders. As such, we are of the view that the appellants have not been ab...

Air Cargo Agents Association of Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for early hearing of the above appeal against the order of the Director General of Service Tax, by which he has held that services rendered under IATA Cargo Agency Agreement by the Members of the Association, viz. the Air Cargo Agents Association of India, are covered within the scope of Business Auxiliary Services, and the Air Cargo Agents are liable to pay service tax since 1-7-2003 under Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994, is dismissed, as neither has any demand of tax been quantified nor is there any other ground for jumping the queue....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Solar Packaging Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC145

1. The adjudicating authority confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 16,110/-and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the respondents herein on the ground that they were liable to pay duty on the clearance of ink for marker pens which were cleared without payment of duty under notification 83/90. The manufacturer was availing the benefit of notification 67/95 (captive consumption notification) which was held not to be available to them since the final product, viz. marker pen, was being cleared without payment of duty under exemption. The claim of the assessee that the ink for marker pens was not marketable as it had no shelf life etc. and therefore the ink was not an excisable commodity, was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner who relied upon a test report of the Chemical Examiner who had opined that the product may be considered as a type of ink, and rejected the assessee's submission at the time of personal hearing that even if it was considered as an excisable commodity, it was a writin...

Taj Birdys Food Services Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issues for determination in the above appeal are whether the concessional rate of duty as per notification 16/97-CE dated 1.4.1997 (for small scale units) is admissible to chocolates cleared by the appellants herein during the period March to July, 1997 and whether the extended period of limitation is applicable against them.2. The benefit of SSI exemption has been denied to the appellants on the ground that the chocolates bore the brand name "ASSORTED TAJ CHOCOLATES" owned by the Indian Group of Hotels Co. Ltd. and not owned by the assessees, while the extended period has been invoked on the ground that in the classification declaration No. 1/97-98 dated 1.4.1997 under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, they claimed the benefit of exemption and declared that that they do not manufacture the product under the brand name of any other person or company, thereby leading to suppression of vital facts from the Revenue authorities.4. The finding that the name "ASSORTED TAJ CHOCOL...