Mumbai Court April 2006 Judgments

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chandrabai N. Kamble and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2006)ACC527

A.S. Oka, J.1. Rule. Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 waives service. The applicant has preferred this appeal for challenging the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The award is in the sum of 3,33,000. The claim for compensation arises out of a fatal accident.2. By filing the additional written statement, the Insurance Company submitted that there is a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy on the part of the insured /. e. the owner of the offending vehicle as he had allowed the deceased to travel in a goods vehicle as a passenger.3. The applicant-Insurance Company has admittedly not led any evidence. Reliance is placed by the Advocate for the applicant on statement of one Makhare which is allegedly recorded by the police in investigation. The Advocate for the applicant submitted that certified copy of the said statement was produced on record and the said statement discloses that the decea...

Yangir Synthetics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are 100% E.O.U. engaged in the manufacture of texturised/crimped Polyester yarn. They were permitted to make clearance to the domestic tariff area. While clearing the goods the average assessable value came to Rs. 57/- per kg. as declared in the bill of entry. However, it was noticed by the department that the clearance were taken at the rate prescribed under notification No.101/93 dated 27.12.1993 and proviso to this notification stipulated that the amount of duty payable in accordance with this notification in respect of the said goods shall not be less than the duty of the excise leviable on the like goods produced or manufactured outside the 100% E.O.U.2. It was further noticed that under notification No. 32/94 tariff value under Section 3 of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 was fixed at Rs. 105/- per kg. in respect of Polyester Filament Texturised Yarn.In view of this the assessee wore required to pay the differential duty of Rs. 14,49,718.96 which was co...

Jupiter Nevesh Private Limited Vs. Administrator of Specified

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2006)BC165

1. The short question raised in this appeal about the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal arises in the context of the following facts.The appeal has been filed against the order dated 4.2.2005 passed by the DRT-I, Mumbai rejecting the application of the appellants moved for dismissal of the original application on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the same. The respondent which is a financial institution filed original application before the DRT under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the RDB Act) for recovery of its claim pursuant to an undertaking executed by the original defendant Nos. 1 to 11, appellants herein, on 21.7.1999. It is the case of the respondent that they had advanced financial assistance to the defendant No. 12 company for meeting a part of the costs of the project for manufacturing copper and copper alloys flat products of strips and foils...

Rachel Gunther Mathias Vs. Mahadev R. Mishra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR129; 2006(4)BomCR168; 2006(5)MhLj26

S.U. Kamdar, J. 1. The present petition is challenging the impugned order dt.2.6.03 passed by the Industrial Court in exercise of power under Section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1997 by which the revision application of the petitioner has been rejected. The revision application was preferred against the order of the Labour Court interalia holding that the complaint under item No. 1 (a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act is partly allowed. Some of the material facts of the present case are briefly stated as under: 2. The respondent was in employment of the petitioner and on 5.4.97 he tendered his resignation from services. On 5.4.97 it seems that the petitioner had settled the accounts of the petitioner and paid his dues. On 20.5.97 the Union addressed a letter to the petitioner company interalia contending that the resignation was given under an impression that the company is likely to close down the factory and if it restarts the factory, all the workmen will be ta...

Rasik Govind Mankar Vs. the Oberoi Towers

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR162; 2006(4)BomCR689; [2006(110)FLR965]; 2006(4)MhLj323

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order and judgment dated 7.8.2002 in Revision Application (ULP) No. 143 of 2001. Some of the material facts of the present case are as under :2. The petitioner was an employee with the respondent No. 1 since 1.4.1982. The petitioner joined the services as a utility worker in Kitchen Stewarding department bearing Clock No. 1858. The petitioners last drawn up wages was Rs. 8600/- per month. It is the case of the petitioner that during the period 15.10.1996 to 12.1.1997 the petitioner was suffering from mental depression and was under mental treatment and thus could not report on duty and he resumed the duty only on 12.1.1997. He produced the fitness certificate dated 15.4.1997 after resuming the duty on 12.1.1997. Thus the petitioner was absent from duty for a period of 89 days. Accordingly the respondent issued a chargesheet on 12.1.1997 charging the petitioner with a misconduct as specified in standing order ...

Union of India (Uoi) Through General Manager, Western Railway and Chie ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR134; 2006(6)BomCR210

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. Respondent was the original applicant in Original Application No. 592 of 2004 filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bombay Bench, Mumbai. The petitioners herein, through the Railway Recruitment Board, Ahmedabad (for short 'RRB') had invited applications from eligible persons for vocational training, for giving them employment in the Commercial Department of Western Railway. The respondent appeared for the written examination and having successfully passed the same, was called for an interview and was selected. A communication was sent, dated 1st June, 1999, regarding his provisional selection subject to the respondent being found eligible in all other respects after verification of the various documents produced by him and also found fit in medical check-up by the Railway doctor. Respondent was sent for training for two years after he was found medically fit. Respondent accordingly underwent the training course for two year...

Commissioner of Central Excise and anr. Vs. Indorama Textiles Ltd. and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR914; 2006(204)ELT222(Bom); 2006(4)MhLj366

ORDERD.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri A.B. Chaudhari, the learned Assistant Solicitor General for the petitioners, and Shri M.G. Bhangde, the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 1.2. The present writ petition is filed against the order dated 22-8-2005 passed by respondent No. 2. The Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue).3. Shri M.G. Bhangde, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that the order is passed by the Central Government and, therefore, the Central Government is bound by the said order and cannot challenge its own order by filing the writ petition. Similarly, the petitioners being the subordinate officers of the Central Government, are not legally entitled to challenge the order passed by the Central Government and, therefore, the writ petition itself is not maintainable and the same should be dismissed on this preliminary issue al...

Sow. Saraswatibai Parle Vs. Mokinda Parle

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ2633; I(2007)DMC83

ORDERS.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel Smt. Deepali Jape-Ansingkar, for the applicant and learned Counsel Mr. B. G. Deshmukh, for the respondent.2. The applicant had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 40/1994, in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First class, Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was alleged in the application by the present applicant/wife that she was married with the respondent/husband, 10-11 years prior to the filling of the said application at village Banwas, taluka : Palam, District : Parbhani. The marriage was blissful for about three years. Thereafter, she was being ill-treated and reached to her mother's house by the respondent at Gangakhed before 1993. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gangakhed, after hearing the parties, by the Judgment and order dated 08-02-1996 awarded an amount of Rs. 300/- per month towards maintenance in favour of the present applicant and amount of Rs. 100/- was awa...

Silicon Graphics System (India) Private Limited Vs. Union of India (Uo ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(204)ELT247(Bom)

R.M. Lodha, J.1. We heard Mr. S.N. Kantawala, the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. A.J. Rana, senior counsel for the Revenue.2. Rule. Returnable forthwith.3. By consent of the parties, rule is heard finally at this stage.4. The order-in-original dated 28th December 2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import) is impugned in the present writ petition. Vide order-in-original, the Commissioner has confirmed demand of differential duty of Rs. 2,99,91,236/- along with interest. The Commissioner ordered appropriation of Rs. 1.75 crores deposited by the petitioner on 6th July, 2002 and the recovery of the remaining amount. The Commissioner also ordered confiscation of the goods but since those were cleared provisionally, the order of redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation was made. The Commissioner further imposed penalty of Rs. 2,99,91,236/-.5. That the order-in-original dated 28th December, 2005 is appellable under Section 129 is not in question...

Patel Field Marshal Inds. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC329

1. These are two appeals arising out of two separate orders but since the issue involved is the same, they are being decided through a common order.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacturing of Diesel Oil Engine. These engine are sold in two types of packing one ordinary in polythene packing and second wooden packing.According to the appellant the local sales at the factory gate are in ordinary polythene packing which were to the extent of 38.45% in 1997-98, 39.83% in 1998-99, 24.67% in 1999-2000 and 16.04% upto June, 2000. The balance sale was to outstation buyers and was in wooden packing. They were issued a show cause notice stating that since the majority of the goods are sold in wooden packing it has to be considered that the goods are ordinarily marketable in wooden packages and therefore the cost of the wooden packing is also requited to be included in the assessable value. The show cause notice also relied upon on the statement of the par...