Mumbai Court March 2006 Judgments

Neon Laboratories Limited, a Public Limited Company Incorporated and R ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)BomCR589

R.M. Lodha, J.1. The petitioners seek to challenge the impugned order dated 12th May, 1999 passed by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Mumbai whereby the exports made by the first petitioner vide six shipping bills from 27th February, 1996 to 5th November, 1996 were held not covered by the provisions of the Pass Book scheme.2. Neon Laboratories Limited -the first petitioner is a company registered and incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The second petitioner is one of the directors of the first petitioner - company. Hereinafter we shall refer the petitioners as 'Neon'. Neon claims to be engaged in the manufacture of Hi-Tech Parental and Pharmaceutical formulations since 1984. It has its own plant for manufacture of injectable and oral preparations. It claims to be specialised in Anaesthetic & Anti Cancer drugs. Neon applied for Pass Book under the Pass Books Scheme, Export and Import Policy, 1992-1997. On 23rd August, 1995, the Pass Book is said to ...

Rama S. Sharma Vs. Principal, R.K. Talreja College and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR287; 2006(5)BomCR313; 2006(3)MhLj847

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The short issue raised by the petitioner in this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether she is entitled to receive Senior College Pay Scale of Rs. 2,500 - 4,000/- from July, 1989 instead of June, 1991.2. The petitioner came to be appointed as a lecturer in the R. K. Talreja Jr. College run by the respondent No. 2 society on 1-7-1977, after she had acquired the qualification of M.A. (Economics) + B.Ed., by the appointment order dated 29-6-1977, on a substantive full time vacant post. In 1979 a vacancy arose for the post of lecturer in Economics in the Senior College run by the respondent No. 2 society and the petitioner applied for the same. She went through the selection process and came to be appointed as a lecturer in the Senior College in a substantive vacant post from 20-6-1979 as per the appointment order dated 16-6-1979. She continued as a lecturer in the Senior College from 20-6-1979 till the end of the academic year 1980-1981. On 1...

Vassudev Pandurang Naik and anr. Vs. Krishna Vithoba Xete Tilve and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR481; 2006(3)BomCR636; 2006(4)MhLj306

Lavande A.P., J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners take exception to Judgment and Order dated 3.7.2001 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa at Panaji in Mundkar Revision Application No. 107/2000. During the pendency of this petition, original respondent No. 1 expired and his legal representatives have been brought on record.2. Briefly, the facts which are relevant for the disposal of the petition are as under :The petitioners herein filed an application for declaration of mundkarship bearing Case No. MUND/19/1996 before the Mamlatdar of Tiswadi Taluka, Panaji for declaration under Section 8A of the Goa Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against Rui Alvaro Francisco Ribeiro de Santana alias Rui Ribeiro do Santana, the legal representative of Armindo D'Souza, the opponent in the said case. Upon being served with the notice, it was brought to the notice of the Mamlatdar that the ...

R.D. Avhad Vs. Maharashtra State Farming Corporation Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR459; 2006(4)BomCR270; [2006(110)FLR255]; 2006(4)MhLj470

Marlapalle B.H., J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has brought in question the order of termination dated 28.9.1993 passed by the management of the respondent No. 1- corporation on account of abolition of the post of Controller-Stores and Purchase held by the petitioner and the subsequent order dated 30.9.1993 informing the petitioner that he stood terminated from the service of respondent No. 1 from the afternoon of 30.9.1993.2. The petitioner was employed as an Assistant by an order dated 18.10.1972 in the Sales and Purchase Department at the Head Office of respondent no. 1 on an initial pay of Rs. 190/- per month. He was thereafter confirmed and promoted to the post of Superintendent in the Stores and Purchase Section as per the order dated 15.4.1978. By the further order dated 30.6.1979, he was appointed as In-charge Controller of Stores and purchase with effect from 1.7.1979 in the pay scale of Rs. 440-940 (pre-revised). He was offered the post of Controller of Stores and Purc...

Nikumbh Dairy Products Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2007)BC358

R.S. Mohite, J.1. Heard both sides.2. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.3. By this application, the applicant impugns an order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court at Esplanade, Mumbai in C.C. No. 550/S/2002 condoning delay in filing of the complaint. The application further seeks to quash and set aside an order dated 14.2.2006 passed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 123/2006 whereby the said revision has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge.4. The brief facts of the case are as under:The complainant had filed a criminal complaint against the present applicant and other accused alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The process was issued on 23.7.1997. In 2005, the present applicant and one of the other accused had filed Criminal Application No. 899 of 2005 for quashing of complaint and the order issuing process. The ground taken in the said application was that the complaint has been filed ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Essen Products (i) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), vide which he has classified the respondent's product i.e. "Coconut Oil" under heading 1503.00 as against the Revenue's contention of classifying the same under Chapter 33, revenue has filed the present appeal.2. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri S.S. Bhagat, Ld.SDR for the revenue and Shri. A.S. Kulkarni, ld. Advocate, it is seen that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of edible grade coconut oil under the brand name "Para-care" and Vitamin E was being added in the same. The oil was then re-packed in small plastic bottles of 50 Ml 100 Ml. 200 Ml. and 500 Ml. It is seen that for a limited period i.e. from 15.6.1999 to 29.6.1999, they also advertised the product by printing on the bottles as "enriched with Vitamin E and keeping fresh for a longer time vitalize of skin and hair". Since the coconut oil was of a edible grade, the above "advertisement was objected to by the Food & Drug A...

Warna Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The Id. Counsel for the appellants submits that entire Service tax has already been paid along with the interest prior to issue of show cause notice. The Id. Counsel also submits that he is not contesting Service tax, interest and the penalty of Rs. 2,950/- imposed under Section 77 of the Service Tax Act. He is only contesting the penalty imposed under Section 76 on the ground that since the Service Tax has already been paid along with the interest prior to issue of show cause notice, the penalty under Section 76 is not leviable. In this regard he relied on the decision in the case of Catalyst Capital Services (P) Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 582 (Tribunal) : and in the case of Urban Improvement Trust v. CCE . He also relied on the decision in the case of CCE v. Viswanath Karkera reported in 2006 (1) S.T.R 282 (Tri.) and submits that since the Service Tax has been paid along with the interest the penalty imposed under Section 76 may be set aside.3. I fully agree with the...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Vijay Metal Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(106)ECC491

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal.2. As per the facts on record respondents is engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium Circles falling under Chapter Heading No 7606 00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and was working under Compounded Levy Scheme in terms of the provisions of Notification No. 109/94. During the period November 1997 to August 1998 the assessee intimated the Revenue as regards closure of their cold rolling machines. Intimations to that effect was given to the Revenue. However, the assessee's factory was visited by the Central Excise officers on 1,9.98 and it was noticed that the said assessee was undertaking manufacture of Aluminium circles and some stock of rolled sheets was also lying therein.Scrutiny of the private records reflected manufacture of aluminium circles and their clearance without payment of duty, though the appellant had declared the factory to be closed and had filed Nil R.T.12...

Ultramatrix System Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India and ors.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2006)BC57

1. Mr. Paralikar for the appellants and Mr. Bhambhalani along with Ms.Meenal Bhambhalani for the respondent No. 1 Bank are present.3. This appeal has been filed by the borrowers/original defendants impugning the order dated 16th December, 2003 where by the application of the respondent No. 1 Bank i.e. the original applicant for issuing recovery certificate against the appellants under Rule 12(5) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, was granted by the DRT., Pune.4. The respondent No. 1 Bank had filed original application on 3rd June, 2003 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,91,63,589.52 against the appellant company, the main borrower and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the guarantors. On 16th June, 2003, the respondent Bank made an application under Rule 12(5) of the Debts Recovery. Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") read with Section 19(20) the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referr...

G.M. Breweries Ltd.^* Vs. Dy. Cit, Central Circle 17

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)9SOT133(Mum.)

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) XV dated 6-12-1999 at Mumbai for the assessment year 1996-97. The proceedings arise out of assessment made under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.We have heard both the parties, perused the records and other applicable legal. position.Ground Nos. 1 to 10 deal with the issue of treatment of loss on sale of shares as speculation loss and denial of setting-off of the same against the capital gain earned by the assessee on other assets during the year under consideration.Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture of liquor. In the return of income, the assessee showed capital gain on sale of assets at Rs. 2,71,489 which was arrived at after netting off against loss on sale of investment at Rs. 80,95,183. The assessing officer noted that the assessee had incurred loss in multiple share transactions wherein the shares were held for a very b...