Mumbai Court July 2006 Judgments

Rajesh Nana Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ4578

ORDERD.B. Bhosale, J.1. Heard Mr. Chitnis, learned senior Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Mhatre, learned APP, for respondent No. 1.2. This petition is directed against the order dated 19th June, 2006 passed by IIIrd Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Thane, on the application at Exhibit-15 in Sessions Case No. 241 of 2005 filed under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. By that application, the petitioner has prayed for proceeding against PW 2-Tarashankar Mishra, an eye-witness, as an accused since it appears from the evidence that he has also committed the offence for which he could be tried together with the petitioner-accused in the aforesaid sessions case. The application at Exhibit-15 was filed at the stage when PW 2 was being cross-examined by the petitioner during trial. The petitioner along with others is charged of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.3. Mr. Chitnis, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, invited my att...

Galaxy Surfactants Ltd. and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Ep)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(202)ELT495Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These are three appeals against three orders-in-original passed by Commissioner of Customs but since the issue involved in all these three appeals is more or less same, they are being decided through a common order.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture and export of surfactants and specialty chemicals. These chemicals are used by them as raw materials for the manufacture of toothpaste, shampoos. One of the major and important raw material required by them is Lauryl Alcohol which is used for the manufacture of Sodium Lauryl Ether Sulphate (SLES) and Sodium Lauryl Sulphate (SLS). These products are mainly manufactured at their Taloja unit. However, the appellants were having other units at Tarapur where other product wore also being manufactured. The appellants were sourcing Lauryl Alcohol by indigenous purchases on payment of appropriate duty of excise, imported under advance licence without payment of duty and imported on payment of duty.3. In the three appeals before us...

East and West Shipping Agency Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Gen.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. Shri Kantawala, learned Advocate for the appellants submits that in this case the licence has been suspended by the Commissioner vide his Order No. 4-5-2005. The licence was suspended on the ground of the alleged involvement of power of attorney holder of the CHA firm Shri Pradeep Ambre in the case of mis-declaration of import of ball bearings. In that show cause notice CHA was not made a party but only the power of attorney holders Shri Pradeep Ambre was made a party. The noticees in that case have approached the Settlement Commission and the case has been settled. However, the suspension has not been revoked against the CHA nor any enquiry report has been furnished to him to enable him to present his defence. More than a year has elapsed & the CHA has been deprived of his livelihood without any means to defend himself. It was accordingly prayed that the suspension should be revoked.3. The learned S.D.R. Shri Umashankar however submits that the show cause notice was issued to ...

Aska Equipment Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(112)ECC443

1.1 The appellants M/s. Aska Equipments Ltd. a limited company is engaged in the business of trading in Tower structures fitted with light bulbs called Telescopic Tiltable Lighting Towers (Lighting Towers). These Towers are of various types from 6 mtrs. to 18 mtrs.hight and would fall under heading subheading 8543.00 of CETA, 1985 if not embeded to earth. The appellants have their godown at K-21, MIDC, Hingna Industrial Estate, Nagpur and their Office at Gargashraya's Civil Lines, Nagpur and are registered with the Sales Tax Authorities.The other appellant is the Managing Director of this Trading Company.1.2 Orders for erection/supply of 'Lighting Towers' in various places all over India are obtained and thereafter orders placed with other companies, who are manufacturers of 'Lighting Towers', which are (i) M/s. Telekrik Electricals (hereinafter as TELEKRIK), W-47, MIDC, Hingna Rd, Nagpur (ii) M/s. Orbit Industries. (hereinafter as ORBIT), U-123, MIDC, Nagpur.They are manufacturers in...

income-tax Officer Vs. Kalyan Gupta

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These three appeals pertaining to the same assessee and involving common issue, are disposed of by this common order in the following manner: Par as 2 to 8 (These paras are not reproduced here as they involve an issue purely based on facts).9. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 20th March, 2002 of CIT(A)-V, Mumbai. The appeal is delayed by 220 days and the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay on 3rd February, 2004. In this application, it is stated that the order of the learned CIT(A) for the assessment year 1998-99 was received by the assessee on 27th March, 2002. The issue involved was taxability of deemed dividend of Rs. 73,00,000. The assessee's advocate, who represented before the learned CIT(A), conveyed to the assessee that it would be fruitless to pursue the matter further before the Tribunal as the issue was correctly decided by the CIT(A). The assessee was misguided and could not file appeal. Subsequently the assessee ...

ito Vs. Kalyan Gupta

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)293ITR249(Mum.)

1. These three appeals pertaining to the same assessee and involving common issue, are disposed of by this common order in the following manner: Paras 2 to 8 (These paras are not reproduced here as they involve an issue purely based on facts).9. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 20-3-2002 of Commissioner (Appeals)-V, Mumbai. The appeal is delayed by 220 days and the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay on 3-2-2004. In this application, it is stated that the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 1998-99 was received by the assessee on 27-3-2002. The issue involved was taxability of deemed dividend of Rs. 73,00,000. The assessee's advocate, who represented before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), conveyed to the assessee that it would be fruitless to pursue the matter further before the Tribunal as the issue was correctly decided by the Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee was misguided and could not ...

Appa @ Prakash Haribhau Londhe Vs. State of Maharashtra and Superinten ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ165

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned P.P. and A.P.P. for the Respondents State.2. The Petitioners have challenged by these petitions the applicability of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (for short 'MCOC Act'). The main grievance of the petitioners is that on the date when MCOC Act was applied they had not committed any offence and there was nothing before the Competent Authority to come to the conclusion that the petitioners were indulging in continuing unlawful activity, and, therefore, it was totally wrong and illegal to apply MCOC Act, to them.3. Mr. Pradhan drew our attention to certain provisions of MCOC Act, viz. Section 2(d), (e) (f). The same reads as under:(d)'continuing unlawful activity' means an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or o...

Shaikh Mohamed S/O Shaikh Vajir Patel Vs. Naseembegum W/O Sk. Mohamed ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2007)DMC226; 2006(44)MhLj339

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioner - husband has challenged the impugned order dated 19-9-1999 passed by the Family Court Aurangabad, in Petition No. E-789/1998 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 300/- per month to the respondent - wife from the date of the application by holding that the petitioner has refused and neglected to maintain her and she is entitled to the maintenance even though the petitioner has given divorce to her.2. The respondent had filed earlier Misc. Application No. 30/1996 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gangapur (JMFC). The parties are governed by the Mohammedan Law. By the said order the JMFC had granted the maintenance in following terms.1) The petition of the petitioner No. 2 Asma (minor) is granted totally from the date of filing this present petition till future period she is liable for maintenance. The respondent is ordered and directe...

President, Shri Saraswati Education Society and anr. Vs. Vinayak Bhagw ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR868; 2006(5)MhLj431

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The petitioner - employer has by this writ petition challenged the judgment dated 10-4-1992 passed by the School Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Appeal No. 123 of 1989-A in relation to District - Akola. The School Tribunal has held that transfer of present respondent No. 1 from Saraswati Vidyalaya, Ambashi to Saraswati Vidyalaya at Maslapen amounted to 'otherwise termination' of his services as Peon and has therefore, quashed and set aside the order and directed the petitioners to reinstate him as Peon in the School at Ambashi within a period of 40 days. This Court has while issuing Rule in the matter, after hearing both the sides, granted interim stay to this judgment of the School Tribunal.2. Heard Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Sable, learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Shri Thakre, learned AGP for respondent No. 3.3. Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel urged that Section 9 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions ...

Airports Authority of India Vs. Cama Aviation Services

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR472; 2006(6)MhLj134

Ranjana Desai, J.1. The petitioners are a Body Corporate constituted under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 for the management, control and maintenance of all the airports within the territory of India except the international airports. The respondents are a sole proprietary concern and one Phiroz Khershed Cama is its sole proprietor. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged order dated 8th October, 1996 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 83/96 filed under Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short 'the said Act').2. It would be advantageous to give gist of the facts as set out by the petitioners in the instant petition. A plot of land admeasuring 361 sq.m. with existing Hangar thereon being Hangar No. 5 at Juhu Aerodrome was given on licence to the respondents vide agreement dated 20-2-1978. According to the petitioners, the said licence expired by efflux of time ...