Mumbai Court June 2006 Judgments

Bombay Hospital Trust Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR184; 2006(201)ELT555(Bom); 2006(5)MhLj395

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. This appeal filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 was admitted on 13th March, 2006 on the following substantial questions of law:a. Whether the customs Authorities have the power to recover duties of customs dehors the provisions of Sections 28 and 125 of the Customs Act b. Whether the customs Authorities have the power to recover duty of customs on confiscated goods even when the option of redemption is not exercised 2. The facts relevant for the present appeal are that the Bombay Hospital Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') is a Public Charitable Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The assessee runs a hospital known as Bombay Hospital which inter alia provides medical relief to outdoor and indoor patients. The assessee conducts medical education courses and also medical research through the Bombay Hospital Medical Research Centre. 3. During the period from 1988 to 1994, the assessee had imported various medical equipm...

Union of India (Uoi), Through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Depa ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR36; [2006(111)FLR476]; 2006(5)MhLj369

V.M. Kanade, J.1. By this petition, petitioner -Union of India is challenging the order dated 26/3/2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai in Original Application No. 677 of 2003. The Central Administrative Tribunal (For short 'CAT') by the said order allowed the application which is filed by the respondent and quashed the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. 2. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the present Writ Petition are as under:3. Petitioner had issued a charge-sheet to the respondent dated 13/5/2003, alleging therein that the respondent had committed misconduct and that he had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and exhibited a conduct unbecoming of Government Servant. Respondent filed Original Application in the CAT for quashing and setting aside the charge-sheet which was served on him. 4. The case of the respondent is that he was working as an Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax in 1998 and was...

Dinkar S/O Balkrishna Ranade Vs. Bhagwandas Bhalchand Lohana and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR916; 2006(4)MhLj731

S.R. Dongaonkar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3102 of 1993 dated 18-8-1994; by which the order passed by Resident Deputy Collector as well as Rent Controller arising out of RM 27/71(2)/86-87 Yavatmal were confirmed.2. The facts in nutshell required for the decision of this appeal; can be stated thus:The appellant-landlord had applied for permission to terminate the tenancy of the respondent No. 1 under Clauses 13(3)(i)(ii)(iv) and (vi) of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. The landlord-appellant had claimed a case for default in payment of rent, change of user and also for bona fide requirement. It may be stated that during the course of hearing of this appeal the learned Counsel for the appellant pressed the appeal only on the ground of bona fide occupation/requirement. The learned Rent Controller, Yavatmal h...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Romit Resins Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC425

2. This appeal involves an amount of Rs. 18,235/- which is availed as Modvat credit.3. The respondents were availing the Modvat credit on the inputs namely "Light Diesel Oil' and 'Oxalic Acid' which were used in the manufacture of their final goods and as well as in the manufacture of goods on job work basis. The Department's contention was that the respondents were not entitled to the Modvat credit in view of the Board Circular No.306/22/97-CX dated 20.03.1997. Therefore, the respondents have paid the amount and subsequently claimed the refund. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim which was also confirmed by the Commissioner (A). On filing the appeal, the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (A), and allowed the appeal in favour of the respondents, considering the ratio of larger Bench decision in the case of Sterlite Industries Ltd. . The impugned order is well considered and does not call for interference by the tribunal.Therefore, the appeal is dismissed on...

S.D. Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an unusual appeal filed by against order dated 28.10.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II, in pursuant to the directions contained in the order dated 01.09.2005 passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 5767/2005. The facts in a nutshell that culminated into the present proceedings may be summoned up as follows: 2. The appellant, M/s.S.D. Enterprises situated at Unit No. 3, Gala No.8, Vasai (East), Mumbai, is engaged in the manufacture of Stainless Steel Utensils. The appellant's aforesaid factory premises were searched on 17.01.2004 by the Officers of Central Excise. A Panchnama was drawn and physical stock of raw material lying in the premises was taken, weight as well as, sizes shown in the packing, was verified and found to be tallying. No discrepancy was noticed. A second visit of the Central Excise Officers, at the appellant's premises took place on 20.01.2004, and a panchnama was drawn up on the said occasion.Strangely, this ...

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Represented by Its General Manager, Through ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR865

Ranjana P. Desai, J.1. In this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., has, inter alia, prayed that respondents No.1 and 2 be directed to issue NOC for construction of project and letter dated 25th May, 2001 directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,50,050/-as penalty and Rs. 1,00,000/-as health fees be quashed. 2. The petitioner is a Corporation. It is a Government of India Undertaking. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are the local authorities and respondent No. 3 is the over all incharge of the Panchayats in the State of Goa. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that in order to improve the telephone facilities and provide facilities in the fast developing area of Porvorim, the Government acquired a plot for staff quarters and for setting up of telephone exchange. According to the petitioner, inspite of the matter being urgent, respondents No. 1 and 2 refused to process the file and submit the same to the Chief Town Planne...

Smt. Yeshwanti Shrirang Pai, Vs. Smt. Sunita Waman Pai

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom289; 2006(5)BomCR121

Roshan Dalvi, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the original defendant in Bombay City Civil Court suit No. 6765 of 1983 against the order of the learned Single Judge in First Appeal from the judgment and order passed in the aforesaid suit dismissing the said appeal. The aforesaid suit was filed by the Respondent for an injunction against the appellants restraining them from entering upon the suit premises being Block No. 6 in Ram Nivas, 2nd floor, Agar Bazar, C. K. Bole Road, Dadar, Bombay 28 and Shop No. 8 in Prajapati Bhavan, Ground Floor, Shivaji Park Road No. 4, Dadar, Bombay 28. The said suit was decreed by judgment and order dated 8.2.1989 passed by the Judge, Bombay City Civil Court. The First Appeal therefrom has been dismissed under the impugned judgment and order dated 16.1.1991. 2. The Plaintiff in the suit claimed to protect her possession in the suit premises. One of the suit premises at Ram Niwas, is her residential premises, the tenancy of which stands in her n...

Vishwanath Ramkrishna Patil and anr. Vs. Ashok Murlidhar Sonar and anr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)MhLj671

ORDERAnoop V. Mohta, J.1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners, the learned advocate for respondent No. 1 and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent No. 2-State, at great length.2. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code against the order of issuance of process, is maintainable. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court may refuse to entertain the writ petition or petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code by observing that the appropriate remedy is to file revision in such case before the Sessions Court.3. The preliminary objection to the maintainability of this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), has been raised in view of the decision of this Court in V.K. Jain and Ors. v. Pratap V. Padode and Anr : 2005(3)MhLj778 and Saket Gore and Ors. v. Aba Dhavalu Bagul and Anr. 2005 A...

Punnilathu Bappu Navas Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(202)ELT430(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the rival parties. Perused petition.2. The petitioner on 10th October, 1993 arrived from Muscat holding Gulf Air Ticket for the Sector, Bombay-Muscat-Bombay. The petitioner was intercepted and his baggages were examined and gold weighing 10,144.20 gms. was recovered from him. Panchanama was duly drawn and the gold in question was seized. The petitioner on 20th October, 1993 was arrested and produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and came to be remanded to the Judicial Custody. The petitioner's statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and thereafter, he was released.3. In the aforesaid statement, the petitioner made a statement that the gold which was purchased by him was out of his own savings. The said gold was to be sold in India at Trichur for the purpose of making a profit since the petitioner had desired to start some business in India.4. After recording aforesaid statement of the petitioner, a show caus...

Board of Trustees of Port Vs. Pioneer Engineer and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ARBLR343(Bom); 2006(5)BomCR628

Desai Ranjana P., J.1. The appellant is a body corporate, constituted under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 having its Office at Mormugao, Goa. Respondent 1 is a partnership firm, registered under the Indian Partnership Act. Respondents 2 and 3 are the arbitrators appointed under the terms of the contract dated 12/10/1985 entered into between the appellant and respondent 1 for construction of transit shed, superstructure for multipurpose general cargo berth. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 26/3/1996 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa in Special Civil Suit No. 72/91 refusing to set aside the award dated 13/9/1990 passed by respondents 2 and 3.2. The brief facts which led to the impugned order, are as follows:In or about the year 1984, the appellants invited tenders for construction of transit shed, superstructure, the principal items of work to be carried out being:(a) Construction of the superstructure of the transi...