Mumbai Court April 2006 Judgments

Pride Foramer Vs. Cc (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC577

1. Heard both sides. Under the impugned orders passed by the original authority and the lower appellate authority, refund claim of the appellants for an amount of Rs. 10 crores has been rejected leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal.2. Both sides agree that the dispute relating to valuation of the impugned Rig imported by the appellants has since been settled in favour of the appellants by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 14.2.2005. The appellants had earlier made a deposit of Rs. 10 crores through a pay order and had given a bond for Rs. 50 crores for taking release of the impugned Rig while the dispute regarding valuation of the same was pending adjudication by the Commissioner of Customs. The bond for Rs. 50 crores has since been cancelled and the grievance of the appellants is restricted to non-refund of the deposit of Rs. 10 crores.3. We find from the impugned order that the original authority has sanctioned the refund claim but she has credited the amount...

Chemetall Rai India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC191

1. The appellant in this case is challenging the classification of their products (i) Parcolene Z and (ii) Pyroklin 101 under sub-heading No. 3402.90 and Parkerss P 41 Chapter 3208.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The classification of these products was done by the Asstt. Commissioner based on the test report result received from the Deputy Chief Chemist and after issuing the necessary show cause notice to the appellant. The order of the lower authority has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the case on the basis of the report of the Deputy Chief Chemist and has not taken into account the other materials submitted by them. On being asked by the Bench whether they are disputing the test report of the Deputy Chief Chemist, the Counsel stated that they are not disputing the test results of the Deputy Chief Chemist but are pleading their case on other facts.3. We,...

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. Tirumalai Chemicals Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The appeal filed by the department is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal relates to the assessment year 1994-95. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting an amount of Rs. 86,77,374 on account of expenses incurred on catalyst heat transfer medium.3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee has debited a sum of Rs. 31,65,678 to the Profit & Loss Account filed along with the return of income as expenses written off out of total expenses amounting to Rs. 1,57,90,736 claimed to have been incurred on catalysts and heat transfer medium during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. In the computation of income attached with the said return, the assessee, however, first added back the aforesaid amount to the profit as per Profit & Loss Account and thereafter claimed deduction for the entire amount of Rs. 1,57,90...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Bhargavi Gopala Krishnan and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006ACJ1876; 2006(4)ALLMR195; 2006(4)BomCR58; 2006(3)MhLj735

K.J. Rohee, J.1. The insurer has preferred this appeal against the judgment and award passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of Greater Bombay in Application No.1992/1984 on 28th August, 1991. 2. For the purposes of the present appeal almost all the facts are admitted. One Gopal Kirshnan was a rickshaw driver. He was maintaining his family out of his earnings as a rickshaw driver. On 14th of March, 1984 at about 12.30 P.M. near Shiv Engineering Company L.B.S. Marg, Bhandup, while Gopal Krishnan was driving his rickshaw, Jeep No. MMF-7251 came from the back side and dashed against the rickshaw. With the result the rickshaw over turned and Gopal Krishanan was thrown out of the rickshaw. Later on Gopal Krishanan succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. The said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the jeep driver. Hence widow, two daughters and a son of deceased Gopal Krishnan applied for compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account o...

Archana Girish Sabnis Vs. the Bar Council of India and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom250; 2006(4)ALLMR190; 2006(3)BomCR512; 2006(4)MhLj390

V.G. Palshikar, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the communication issued by respondent no. 2, informing the petitioner that her application for enrolment as an advocate is liable to be rejected. By this communication, the petitioner was informed that the qualification of Licentiates of the Court of Examiners in Homoeopathy (L.C.E.H.) is not recognised as equivalent to graduation and therefore she cannot seek enrolment as an advocate. These communications are challenged basically on the ground that the University of Bombay has recognised the course as equivalent to a degree of Bachelor of Ayurvedic and Homoeopathic Medicines and consequently the petitioner secured admission to the course of LL.B. of the Bombay University. The Bar Council therefore could not reject her request for enrolment on the ground that the degree of LCEH is not recognised by the Bar Council of India.2. The main contention of the petitioner is that the Bar Council of Maharashtra or...

Sunil Tukaram Bharadkar Vs. Santosh Gopichand Rane

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR645; 2006(5)BomCR237; 2006(3)MhLj811

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 16-8-2005 on the ground that the law does not permit de-exhibition of documents once the documents are exhibited in evidence and secondly that no opportunity has been given to the petitioner/plaintiff to prove the documents which were sought to be refused to be admitted. 3. Few facts relevant for the decision are that the Civil Suit No.3600 of 2004, filed by the petitioner, was fixed for the plaintiff's evidence on 19-7-2005. On that day, the petitioner sought to lead evidence in the form of affidavit under Order 18, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter called as 'the C.P.C.' along with certain documents. The said affidavit along with the documents was taken on record by the trial Court. The affidavit was marked Exhibit-1. The list of the documents annexed to the affidavit was marked as Exhi...

T.T. Blades and anr. Vs. United India Fire and General Insurance Co. L ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2007)ACC109; AIR2006Bom278; 2006(5)BomCR663; 2006(4)MhLj217

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present suit is filed for the recovery of sum of Rs.4,44,155/- with further interest @ 9% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of decree and @ 6% p.a. from the date of the decree till payment and/or realisation. Some of the material facts of the present case are briefly enumerated as under:2. The plaintiff No. 1 are a partnership firm and are inter alia carrying on business of manufacturing and selling safety razor blades, having their factory and place of business at T.T. Blade Building, 9A Sakinaka, Andheri, Bombay-72. The plaintiff No. 2 are a Banking Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and having their registered office at Mangalore and branch office inter alia at Mahim. The defendants are an Insurance Company carrying on business of General Insurance prior to its nationalisation. On nationalisation of the General Insurance business under the provisions of the General Insurance (Acquisition and T...

Ashok Amgonda Birajdar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR182; 2006(4)MhLj57

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents waives service. By consent of Counsel and at the request of Counsel taken up for hearing.2. The petitioner is the owner of agricultural land admeasuring 2 Hectares and 45 Ares bearing Gat No. 218 situated at village Donaj in the Taluka of Mangalwedha in the district of Solapur. The land being required for the purposes of Ujani Canal Division No. 9, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came to be issued. The award was declared by the Third respondent on 20th May, 2002. The petitioner has stated that he was not present before the Third respondent when the award is made. A notice under Section 12(2) was issued to the petitioner on 29th April, 2005 which was received on 3rd May, 2005. It is the case of the petitioner that he accepted the amount of compensation under protest on 3rd May, 2005. On 9th June, 2005, the petitioner made an application...

Bayer Cropscience Ltd. Vs. Ms. Sampada S. Shetye and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)BomCR493; 2006(44)MhLj381

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith.2. Heard parties. The impugned order, which is challenged in the present petition is passed by the Labour Court in a reference, preferred by the respondent No. 1 workman. By the said impugned order, it is held that resignation of the respondent No. 1 was obtained by force and thus, the resignation is invalid. Secondly, it is held that there is an illegal termination of services of the respondent No. 1 with effect from 27th September, 1995. The Labour Court has also directed reinstatement of the respondent No. 1 with full backwages and continuity of service.3. Some of the material facts are as under:Respondent No. 1 was an employee of the petitioner-company and was working as telephone operator cum receptionist. On 27th September, 1985 when the respondent reported on the duty, she punched the attendance card of Miss Cynthia Misquitta at about 8.47 a.m. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 that since the attendance card of Ms. Cynthia Misquit...

Anthony C. Monteiro Vs. Government of Goa and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR687; 2006(5)BomCR272

Britto N.A., J.1. The short question for our consideration in this petition, is whether the petitioner is entitled to minimum pension of Rs. 375/-, as per Clause 7.1 r/w Clause 10(a) of the Revision of Pension for Pre 1986 Pensioners, introduced vide Office Memorandum (O.M.) No. 2/1/87-PIC-I dated 16-4-1987 and followed by the respondents. The said clauses read as follows:Minimum Pension/Minimum Family Pension: -7.1 Where the consolidated pension/family pension in terms of paragraph 6 works out to an amount less than Rs. 375 the same shall be stepped up to Rs. 375. This will be regarded as pension/family pension with effect from 1-1-1986. In the case of pensioners who are in receipt of more than one pension, the floor ceiling of Rs. 375 will apply to the total of all pensions taken together.10. The cases of Central Government employees who have been permanently absorbed in public sector undertakings/autonomous bodies will be regulated as follows:(a) Pension: Where the Government servan...