Mumbai Court July 2006 Judgments

Laxman Hari Tambe Since Deceased by Heirs Sushila Laxman Tambe and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR389; 2006(6)MhLj289

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution impugns the Judgment and Order dated 6th November, 1987 passed by the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune thereby allowing the Revision Application No. 279 of 1986. By the said order the application filed under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short the Tenancy Act) came to be allowed. The factual matrix relevant to the present proceedings could be shortly stated as under.The agricultural lands admeasuring 1 acre and 18 gunthas located in Survey No. 41/1 and 1 acre and 34 gunthas located in Survey No. 41/3+4 of village Dhavadshi in Taluka and District Satara were under cultivation of Dattu Sonu Pawar for some years upto 1954-55 and his name came to be deleted from the column of cultivation by Mutation Entry No. 1609 effected on 31-1-1956. Survey No. 41/3+4 was formed by amalgamation of two separate survey numbers i.e. Survey No. 41/3 and Survey N...

State of Maharashtra and anr. Vs. Ramdas Construction Co. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)MhLj678

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the parties.2. This is an appeal stated to have been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 23-12-2005, whereby the lower Court has rejected the application filed by the appellants in terms of Section 34(3) of the Act.3. A preliminary objection has sought to be raised on behalf of the respondents that the impugned order is not an appealable order within the meaning of said expression under Section 37 of the Act.4. The contention of the respondents is that Section 37(1) of the Act clearly provides that an appeal is maintainable against granting or refusing to grant any measure under Section 9 and against setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act. By the impugned order, the Court has neither dealt with nor disposed of the application which was filed by the respondents for setting aside of the award...

Dnyandeo Dhakane Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ4581; I(2007)DMC306

ORDERAnoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner-husband has challenged the concurrent findings given by both the Courts below in granting maintenance to the respondent-wife, solely on the ground that the criminal case filed against the petitioner-husband under Section 498A was resulted into an acquittal. The acquittal order means the allegations made by the respondent-wife about harassment and ill-treatment goes. In such circumstances, there was no reason that both the Courts should reopen and reconsider the same issue and grant maintenance by overlooking the fact of failure on the part of the respondent-wife to prove the allegations of harassment.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has strongly relied on a decision in Shankar Anant Bandal v. Smt. Suman Shankar Bandal : 1983(1)BomCR601 , wherein, this Court has observed that, 'both the Courts erred in placing reliance on the happenings said to have taken place on 10-4-1978, more particularly in view of the clean acquittal which the oppo...

Shreeram Marketing Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The assessee, aggrieved by the Order (Revisional) of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nasik dated 6-9-2005 came in appeal.3. The matter pertains to the Service Tax of the assessee. An amount of Rs. 1,25,978/- was confirmed as Service Tax for the period relating to September, 1999 to March, 2003 under Sections 68 & 75 of the Finance Act. Accordingly, the assessee has paid the same with interest of Rs. 18,359/-. Further, penalty of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed for non-filing of return in time under Section 77 of the Act, 1994 and Rs. 10,000/- was also imposed under Section 76 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 for delayed payment of the Service Tax. A Show-Cause-Notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner (ST.), Central Excise & Customs, Nasik, Divn. II.4. The assessee had assailed the said proceedings for imposing the penalty amount by the Commissioner (A), but no relief was granted.Again the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal whereas th...

Commissioner of Customs and C. Ex. Vs. Blue Blend (i) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The respondents are not present. There is also no request for adjournment despite notice. Heard the Ld. SDR. These appeals are filed by the appellant Commissioner against the impugned order-in-appeal. The original authority had denied Modvat credit in respect of packing material, anti-static oil, lubricating oil, bobbins, spools, paper tubes and similar other inputs used in the conversion of POY into PTY on the ground that the value of these inputs were not included in the value of PTY (finished goods) since tariff values were fixed for PTY.The lower appellate authority has allowed the Modvat credit on the ground that there is no logic in the assumption/presumption of the original authority that value of the inputs are not included in the computation of the tariff value.2. After hearing the Ld. DR and perusal of case records, we find that under the Excise law, value of the finished goods can be determined either under Section 4 or under Section 4A. However, such valuation is not ne...

Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. JaIn Shudh Vanaspati Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide the impugned order the Commissioner of Customs (Import) has inter alia ordered confiscation of seized Stainless Steel Drums and parts thereof with an option to redeem them on payment of a fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only). The Revenue, vide the present application seeks permission of the Tribunal to dispose of the goods under confiscation either by auction or by private treaty pending the hearing of its appeal against dropping of proceedings for penal action against the co-noticees.2. We find that since option to redeem the goods has not been exercised by the importers, no permission from the Tribunal is required for disposal of the confiscated goods. Therefore this application is dismissed as not required....

M.L. Yarns (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The assessee is providing the C & F Services and came into Service Tax Network from 16.07.1997. The assessee had failed to pay the Service tax under Section 68 of the Finance Act and also file the return in time as per Section 70 of the Finance Act, Show-Cause-Notices dated 24.09.2003 and dated 21.01.2004 were issued with the provisions of the aforesaid provisions and levied of Service Tax including penalty amount. This was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner (Service Tax), Central Excise & Customs, Nasik, by the Order-in-Original dated 30.03.2003 wherein he has confirmed the Service Tax amounting to Rs. 1,52,475/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 and interest is also ordered. He also further ordered penalty to the tune of Rs. 1,000/-under Section 77 of the Act.The assessee has accepted the order and paid the amounts as directed, including interest and penalty amount on 10.05.2004. The order-in-original passed by the A...

ito 9(1)(1) Vs. Artmis Exports Pvt. Limited

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)108ITD1(Mum.)

1. This is a revenue's appeal directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-IX, Mumbai dated 14.8.2002 for A.Y. 1995-96. Ground No. 1 & 2 of the appeal read as under: 1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to exclude unrealized export proceeds from the total turnover in the computation of deduction Under Section 80HHC, without appreciating the fact that the definition of total turnover in Explanation (ba) below Section 80HHC(4B), as distinct from the definition of export turnover in Explanation (b), does not provide for such exclusion and in the mercantile system of accounting followed by the assessee turnover depends on sale and not on the realization of sale proceeds. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to exclude direct costs pertaining to the export of the goods whose export proceeds were not realized, from the direct cost attr...

Zahid Ahmedali Mazgaonwalla and Smt. ShahIn Zahid Mazgaonwalla Vs. Smt ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR481; 2006(5)MhLj522

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The Respondent is the paternal aunt of Appellant No. 1. Appellant No. 2 is the wife of Appellant No. 1. The suit premises was tenanted by the Appellant No. 1's grand father Pyarali Mazgaonwalla since deceased in the year 1957. At the time of his death, the Respondent and eight other siblings including Appellant No. 1's father Ahmedali along with their mother lived in the suit premises. Admittedly, the rent receipts were issued in the name of the Respondent's father Pyarali until his death and continued to be issued in his name until December, 1974. Since 1st January, 1975, the rent receipts have been admittedly issued in the name of Respondent's mother -Jenabai on the basis of a Will left by Pyarali. Jenabai, during her lifetime, got the rent receipts transferred in favour of the Respondent in 1981, as claimed by the Respondent. The Respondent, thereafter filed a suit, bearing Suit No. 1743 of 1992 before the Bombay City Civil Court for a declaration that she was...

Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. State of Maharas ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR132; 2006(5)MhLj480

H.L. Gokhale, J. 1. Heard Mr. Surana in support of this petition. Mrs. Thakur, AGP appears for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mrs. Helekar for respondent No. 4(b).2. (i) The petitioner herein is a Co-operative Sugar factory registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and functioning in Sangli District. Original respondent No. 4 owned certain agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 152/1B and 152/2 in the erstwhile village Sangli, which is now a part of the Sangli Municipal Corporation.(ii). Respondent No. 4 has since expired and his wife i.e. respondent No. 4(a) and his married daughter respondent No. 4(b) were joined as the respondents to this petition. We are told that respondent No. 4(a) has subsequently expired and respondent No. 4(b) has contested the petition.3. Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are as follows:The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ('the ULC Act' for short) covered the urban agglomeration of Sangli City, The Act came into fo...