Mumbai Court April 2006 Judgments

Commissioner of Excise and Vs. Aditya Products and Bageshwari

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC351

3. The issue involved in this appeal is that where the confirmed duty amount has been paid much prior to the issuance of the Show-Cause-Notice, can there be penalty and interest amount imposable.4. The facts of the case which shows that the original adjudicating authority itself did not impose penalty and interest having found the duty was paid before issue of the Show-Cause-Notice.5. On reviewing the matter, the Department has filed for appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn confirmed the Order-in-Original. Hence the appeal by the revenue.6. Having gone through the facts and circumstances of the case and ratio laid down in the case law of Machino Montell (I) Ltd., Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. and other connected decisions, I find no merits in the appeals filed by revenue, therefore, both appeals are dismissed....

State Bank of India Vs. Heera Laxmi Contractor Pvt. Ltd.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: I(2007)BC224

1. The main legal question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether mandatory provisions of the Arbitration Act would be applicable in a proceeding initiated under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "The SRFAESI Act").2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 2nd February, 2006 passed by the In-charge Presiding Officer of D.R.T., Nagpur rejecting the application made on behalf of the appellant Bank to refer the dispute between the parties for arbitration by virtue of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the following circumstances.3. The appellant Bank had put property mortgaged to it by one of its borrowers for auction. The respondent No. 1 was a successful bidder, who had offered to buy the said property for Rs. 10.40 crores. As the respondent No. 1 failed to pay the balance amount within stipulated period, the deposit p...

Lic Housing Finance Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)105ITD86(Mum.)

1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 16-12-1998 of CIT(A)-XXVI, Mumbai. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 74,42,187 claimed for deduction under Section 35D of the IT Act. Without prejudice to the above ground, the Id. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of the entire amount of Rs. 74,42,187 under Section 35D(1)(a) although the said amount included Rs. 3,56,990 which was claimed on the assessment record under Section 35D(1)(f) and was as such being correction allowed in the earlier assessment years.2. The assessee is a public sector undertaking of the Government of India and the grounds of appeal have been permitted by the Cabinet Committee on Disputes as per the copy of the Minutes of the Meeting of COD held on 2-2-2006, filed by the assessee. The grounds of appeal raised are inter-connected. The facts are that ...

Z.F. Steering Gears (India) Vs. Ramchandra S. Tapkir

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR230; [2006(110)FLR468]; 2006(3)MhLj586

V.C. Daga, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Shri Deshmukh waives service on behalf of the respondent. Heard finally by consent of parties. Perused petition. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 1-1-2006 passed in Revision Application (ULP) No. 190/2005 by the Industrial Court, Pune, confirming the order dated 13-10-2005 passed in Complaint (ULP) No. 158/93 by the Third Labour Court, Pune, directing reinstatement of the complainant/respondent herein to his original post with continuity of service with a direction to pay 50% backwages from the date of termination till reinstatement. The Facts : 3. The petitioner-company states that the respondent was appointed as 'Trainee' in the year 1991 and, thereafter he was appointed for a period of 8 months i.e. from 14-10-1991 to 17-5-1992. Thereafter, he was re-appointed from 1-1-1993 till 30-6-1993 as 'Trainee Assistant Furnace Operator'. The training period of the respondent was further extended by another one month i.e. till 30...

Neeraj Kumar Umeshkumar Mor Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR142; 2006(5)BomCR235; 2006(3)MhLj695

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, by consent returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel are agreed to a hearing and final disposal at this stage.2. By a sale deed dated 25th August, 1998, the petitioner purchased certain landed property from the Fourth respondent at Mauje Khambewadi, Taluka Karjat in the District of Alibag at and for a consideration of Rs. 9.55 lacs. The sale deed was stated to have been duly stamped and to have been executed by the petitioner and the Fourth respondent on 25th August, 1998. The Fourth Respondent lodged the sale deed in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Taluka Karjat on 25th August, 1998. The registration charges of Rs. 25,116/- were paid and a receipt was handed over to the Fourth respondent. The document was lodged in the office of the Third respondent under Sr. No. 1783/98, upon the General Manager of the Fourth respondent admitting execution of the document. It has been stated that the petitioner was prevented on account of his ill health from appearing before...

Housilal Balchand Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR144; 2006(5)BomCR211; 2006(3)MhLj763

D. B. Bhosale, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises a question whether or not the State Government after sanctioning and publishing the final plan under Section 31 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, 'the Act'), by issuing corrigendum, could restore the status-quo ante without taking recourse to the entire process of republication of notification under sections 28 and 31 read with Section 37 of the Act. In other words, whether or not for rectifying an error in the final development plan published under Section 31, the procedure contemplated under sections 28 and 31 read with Section 37 of the Act could be by-passed. In the present case, the entire area in survey No. 34, which was reserved for botanical garden in the draft development plan, was reduced and 15,000 sq.meters on the western side was shown in residential zone. This error of reduction was rectified by issuing corrigendum and the status-quo ante was res...

Krishnamohan Ananda Saindane Vs. Anilkumar Bherumal Mawani and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)MhLj563

S.P. Kukday, J.1. The petitioner has impugned order dated 12-3-1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhule in S.T.C.C. No. 2137/1994 acquitting the respondent No. 1 of the offence punishable Under Section 385 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').2. Relevant facts stated briefly are that petitioner runs a Hospital, by name and style, Suyog Hospital, Sakri Road, Dhule. His wife is a Gynecologist. In the month of October, 1993 an extortionist threatened the complainant to blow his Hospital by using a bomb, if amount of Rs. 5 lakhs is not paid. Threats were given on telephone and by sending letters also. After detection of the chit attached to the packet, which is supposed to have contained a bomb, complainant got suspicious and opened the tin. To his utter surprise, he found that there was no bomb inside. Thereafter, complainant gave an intimation about the threats and the letters to the police. On the basis of this report dated 4-2-1994 (Exh. 14) offence came...

Bharatiya Kamgar Sena Vs. Vishwa Kalyan Kamgar Sanghatana and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR892; (2006)IIILLJ865Bom; 2006(44)MhLj193

V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has impugned the order passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Pune on 22-2-2006 below Exh. U-5 and C-4 on the ground mentioned in the petition and verbally canvassed before us.2. The petitioner No. 1 Bharatiya Kamgar Sena is a union of employees working in Bajaj Auto Limited, Akurdi, Pune, who is respondent No. 2 in the present case. Respondent No. 1 is another trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act 1926, claiming to be recognised union of employees of Bajaj Auto Limited in place of the petitioner, which already is such recognised union.3. The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the purposes of brevity) provides the manner in which such recognition can be granted. Respondent No. 1 union filed an application in the year 2003 claiming recognition under the Act. This application is pending.4. On 11-8-2005 another application is f...

Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is a stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty demanded amounting to Rs. 2,32,06,277/-. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants in the manufacture of their final product are required to use Low Ash/Low Phosphorous Coke. Both the aforesaid types of coke are required to have a phosphorous content of less than 0.035% to enable the appellant to manufacture their final product. Since coke with phosphorous content of less than 0.035% was not easily available in India, the appellants are importing the same. They have imported three consignments in the year 1990 claiming the phosphorous content to be less than 0.035% and also claimed exemption in respect of basic and additional custom duty. However, in August 1995 they were issued a show cause cum demand notice stating that as per Chief Chemist report the phosphorous content was .058% and accordingly they were required to pay duty amounting to Rs. 30,89,223/-. This show cause notice was confirmed by the Assistant ...

Mumbai Pradesh Arya Vidya Sabha Vs. Arun Sitaram Kuwar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)BomCR506; 2006(4)MhLj237

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. Both these writ petitions are identical and therefore the same are disposed of by this common order and judgment. The facts in writ petition no.572 of 2006 are as under:2. The petitioner is a technical educational institutions and was interalia running a course of technical education in the faculty of Fitters trade. The said course was for 2 years duration. The respondent no.1 was appointed as a teacher in the said Fitters trade. The said petitioner institution is affiliated to the National Counsel for Vocational Training functions being a state agency. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were not getting sufficient number of students for the said course and thus, the petitioners wanted to discontinue the said course. By a letter dt.28.5.05 the services of respondent no.1 were terminated w.e.f.31.7.05. The reason given for terminating the services of the respondent no.1 was that for the academic year 2003-04, only four students have taken admission ...