Mumbai Court May 2006 Judgments

Prabhodan Education Society, Society Registered Under the Societies, R ...

Court: Mumbai

N.A. Britto, J.1. Heard Shri Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner and Shri S.S. Kantak, the learned Advocate on behalf of the Respondent. 2. On account of dwindling in the number of students in Government Primary Schools, the Government decided by order dated 22/12/2000 to amalgamate the Government Primary School situated at Pomburpa with the Government Primary School situated at Ecoxim alongwith other 52 primary schools located in various Talukas of the State. The Government Primary School (GPS) at Ecoxim is at a distant of 2.6. kms. 3. The Petitioner by letter dated 20/04/2001 approached the Director of Education stating that they were in education for the last 13 years and that they had learnt about the said order and requested the Director to hand over the management of two schools, one of them being Government Primary School at Pomburpa and the other being Government Primary School at Khorjuvem. The last school has already been handed over by the Petiti...

Mackinon Mackenzie Ltd. Vs. G.S. Raj and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR625; (2006)IIILLJ810Bom; 2006(4)MhLj492

Sathe S.R., J.1. Mackinon Mackenzie and Co. Ltd. original respondent in Complaint (ULP) No. 1081 of 1992 and petitioner in Writ Petition No.2733 of 1996 has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court, whereby, the order passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai declaring that respondent company has committed unfair labour practice under Item No. 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter for the sake of convenience refer to as MRTU AND PULP Act), as there was non observance of Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 and Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was held, legal and valid and writ petition was rejected.2. For the sake of convenience hereafter the parties shall be referred to as the complainant union and respondent company.Brief facts giving rise to this L.P.A. are as under:The responden...

Subash Arjandas Kataria Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom293; 2007(2)BomCR945; 2006(44)MhLj361

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Petitioner is engaged in the business of trading in Sun Glasses and has a counter on commission basis at Globus Stores, Bandra. On 17th October, 2003 the 2nd respondent visited Globus Stores and under a panchnama seized 5 sun glasses belonging to the petitioner for violation of the provisions of the Rules framed under the provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (which hereinafter shall be referred to as the Act), which are known as the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged) Commodities Rules, 1977, which hereinafter are to be referred to, as the Rules. There is yet another Act known as the Standards of Weights and Measurements (Enforcement) Act, 1985 which hereinafter shall be referred to as the Enforcement Act. On 22nd October, 2003 as per the pleadings in the petition the respondent No. 2 along with other officers visited the office premises and handed over a show cause notice in Proforma 'A' calling on the petitioners to compound the offenc...

Maganlal Dalichand Santokchand Vs. Narpatraj Besarmal Mehta and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR464; 2006(6)MhLj71

Vazifdar S.J., J.1. This is an Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant, challenging an award dated 31-3-2004 made by the learned arbitrator.2. By an order dated 30-9-2003, Suit No. 2335 of 1994 filed by the respondents was disposed of in terms of the minutes of the order signed by the parties and their ( Advocates. Clauses 1 and 6 of the minutes of the order read as under:1. By consent the pending disputes as mentioned in the above suit between the parties hereto are referred to the sole arbitration of 30/06(5) Mr. Justice S.M. Jhunjunwala (Retd) to be conducted under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Learned Arbitrator shall pass a reasoned Award which shall be final and binding on the parties.6. The Arbitrator shall dispose off the reference within a period of 4 months from the date of entering upon the reference and the parties shall co-operate and endeavour to dispose of the reference.3. The...

Sarojini W/O Motisao Sarodaya and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR171; 2006(5)MhLj573

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 197/2006, Shri Mohta, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 783/2006, Shri Mujumdar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents State of Maharashtra and Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, Shri Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent Nagpur Improvement Trust, Shri Choube, learned Counsel for the respondent Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Shri Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 to 7, and Shri Manohar, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 8.2. Both these writ petitions are directed against order dated 20-10-2005 passed by the respondent No. 2 Chairman, Nagpur Improvement Trust and since facts, circumstances and law involved in both these writ petitions are similar, both these writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.3. Shri Kulk...

Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. Pudumjee Plant Laboratories Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(108)ECC456

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) who has held that the bar of unjust enrichment is not attracted against the respondents herein, who are importers of Cold Storage Plant used for flowers, merely on the ground that they had claimed depreciation of capital goods for Income Tax purposes.2. We have heard both sides; we find that the lower appellate authority has recorded a categoric finding, which is not challenged, that since the importers are a 100% EOU and hence exempted from payment of Income Tax, even by claiming depreciation they are not going to get any benefit whatsoever or even would not be in a position to recover cost of the impugned goods indirectly. It is also be noted that the depreciation claim had been returned back, as certified by their Chartered Accountant.3. On hearing both sides, we find that similar issue had come before the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v.Resham Singh & Co. Pv...

Mazagon Dock Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The claims for refund of duty of Rs. 42,59,214/-, Rs. 34,10,322/-, Rs. 4,12,8111- and Rs. 4,51.892/- paid by the appellants herein in respect of goods such as OCI Vessels etc. imported under Bills of Entry dated 17.3.97, 9.4.97, 25.3.98 and 6.4.98 have been rejected by the authorities below on the ground of non submission of requisite Essentiality Certificate issued by the Director General of Hydrocarbon as specified at Sr.No.34 of the Table to Notification No. 11/97-Cus dated 1.3.97 at the time of clearance of the goods.2. We have heard both sides. We find that the appellants claimed the benefit of concessional rate of duty as provided for in the Notification even at the time of seeking clearance of the goods and undertook to produce essentiality certificate from the competent authority and that immediate clearance was sought because the items imported were urgently required at the site of Off-Shore oil field of Oil and Natural Gas Commission. ONGC applied for the certificate subs...

Fine Fibres Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(109)ECC110

1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of sized yarn. On the basis of an information, the officers of Customs visited their units and found 300 cartons of imported polyester yarn having "HAULON" marka weighing 7800 Kgs. which was admittedly received by the appellants without cover of any duty paying documents from an 100% E.O.U. by the name of M/s Millat Fiber. The proprietor of the appellants' firm admitted the receipt and named the broker through whom this yarn was received and the broker also admitted the delivery of this yarn.2. In addition to the above yarn the officers also recovered loose yarn weighing 4800 Kgs. bearing "HAULON" marka which again was admitted by appellant as having been received from the same broker Shri Pankajbhai Patel. The broker also admitted the delivery of the seized 4800 Kg.yarn which according to him was purchased from another broker from Bombay. The present proceedings are confined to the seizure & confiscation and demand of duty relating t...

Hindustan Hardy Spicer Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)6STR56

1. The appellant in this case were receiving technical know how from their foreign supplier for the manufacture of their goods in India.They were held liable to pay the service tax which was not contested by them and the demand was confirmed against them by the Asstt.Commissioner amounting to Rs. 59,132/- along with interest. A penalty of Rs. 25,000.00 under Section 76 and Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 was also imposed. This order was reviewed by the Commissioner who enhanced the penalty to Rs. 59,132/- under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. The Learned advocate for the appellant submits that the supply of technical know how and royalty paid for technical know how is not taxable as consulting engineering services. They referred to the decision of the CEGAT in case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex.Pfizer Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Navinon Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise wherein it has been held that recipient of technical know how from foreign compa...

Samir Nijam Landge Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ3429

Ranjana Desai, J.1 The appellant was tried in the court of the III Additional Sessions Judge, at Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 187 of 2000 for offences punishable under Section 394 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short). By his judgment and order dated 31/8/2001, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- in default to suffer R.I. for one month. 2. The appellant was further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- in default to suffer R.I. for one month. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by this judgment and order, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. Shortly stated the prosecution case is that deceased Khanderao Kerba Vhatkar was serving in Shahu Co-operative Sugar Factory, ...