Mumbai Court August 2006 Judgments

B. Square Electronics Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC546

1. The dispute in the present appeal is as regards the correct classification of the appellant's products called by "Degaussing Coils". Whereas the appellant claimed the classification under heading 8929.00, revenue's claim is under heading 8544.00. Originally, the Assistant Commissioner accepted the appellant's contention on the ground that such Coils are specifically used in TV Sets, and as such, has to he classified as a part of TV falling under heading 8529.00. On appeal by the revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the above order of the Assistant Commissioner. Hence the present appeal.2. After hearing both sides, we find that the appellant's main contention is that "Degaussing Coils" has the effect of neutralizing the magnetic field generated during the start of the Television Set otherwise there will be colour patch on the colour TV screen. To remove this colour patch, degaussing coil is placed around the picture tube inside the-Colour TV. Hence it is a part of a Colour T...

Commissioner of Customs (i) Vs. Mumbai Cricket Association

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. Shri Umashankar, ld. SDR appears for the Revenue and Shri Madhur Baya, ld.Advocate appears for the respondents.2. After hearing both sides, we find that the respondent is a Cricketing Institution in India and a Charitable Trust registered under the Mumbai Public Trust Act, engaged in the activity of promotion of she game of Cricket in Mumbai and Thane. They organize various events like Test Matches, One Day Tournaments, Free Coaching, Seminars etc.The respondents organized Wills World Cup in the year 1996, for which purposes they required Mega Vision Colour Matrix Score Board and Flood Lighting equipment. The said goods were imported by the respondents under claim of exemption in terms of ad hoc exemption order No. 331 dated 19-12-95, vide which the importers were granted exemption from payment of whole of Customs duty and additional duty subject to the fulfilment...

Goldcrest Finance (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)105TTJ(Mum.)926

1. This appeal by the assessee is against the order of Dy. CIT, Spl.Range-32 Mumbai dt. 29th Oct. 1997 for the block assessment 1987-88 to 1997-98 (upto 19th July, 1996) against the order under Section 158BC r/w Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961.2. During the course of assessment, the assessee had filed concise grounds of appeal in lieu of the ground of appeal filed along with the appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Dy. CIT, Spl. Range-32, Mumbai erred in making an addition of Rs. 15,61,820being undisclosed income emanating from alleged non-existing assets leased to Wonder Wear Ltd. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Dy. CIT erred in making an addition of Rs. 24,36,397being undisclosed income emanating from alleged non-existing assets leased to Standard Oxygen (P) Ltd. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Dy. CIT erred in making an addition of Rs. 24,15,208being undisclosed income emanating...

iliyas Yusuf Naikwadi Vs. the State of Maharashtra,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR1; 2007(2)BomCR734; 2006(6)MhLj450

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. The petitioner challenges the communication dated 18.3.2000 by which the petitioner's claim for pensionary benefit has been rejected. The petitioner further seeks directions to the respondents to grant him all the pensionary benefits along with interest thereon. 2. The petitioner was appointed and worked as Urdu Primary Teacher in the school run by the Respondent No.1 from 20.9.1955 to 17.9.1965. The petitioner thereafter was promoted as Education Extension Officer (Urdu) and on 4.1.1978, due to some personal problem, the petitioner resigned from the said post. In all, the petitioner rendered 22 years of continuous service and as it exceeds minimum period of ten years, the petitioner claimed pensionary benefit. The petitioner sought two reliefs in that regard, consequent to the decision delivered by this Court on 18.12.1998 in the matter of some other persons. The claim, however, was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner had not retired...

National Textile Corporation (Maharashtra North) Limited and the Gener ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR77; 2006(6)MhLj487

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. By this petition filed on December 5, 2005, the petitioners seek to challenge two orders passed by the Industrial Court at Bombay on March 30, 1998 and March 11, 2005 in a complaint filed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ('MRTU & PULP Act' for short). 2. By the impugned order dated March 30, 1998, the Industrial Court allowed the complaint (ULP) No. 741 of 1990 filed by the three complainants under the MRTU & PULP Act. By the said order, the Industrial Court held that the petitioner No. 1 is guilty of unfair labour practices covered under Item 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 and directed the petitioners to pay to the original complainants salary and other benefits for the period from June 1, 1990. By order dated March 11, 2005 passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 26 of 2000 in complaint (ULP) No. 741 of 1990 the Industrial Court quantified the amount payable...

Contract Laghu Udyog Kamgar Union Vs. Shri S.N. Saundankar, Presiding ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR325; [2007(113)FLR795]; (2007)ILLJ1065Bom

D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. This proceeding arises out of an award of the Industrial Tribunal rendered on 19th March, 2002 on a reference to adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. On 31st March, 1998, the Central Government referred the following question for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:Whether the action of the management of Unit Trust of India, Mumbai in not regularising their 52 canteen workers (as per the list enclosed) engaged by them at their four premises, i.e. Head Office at Marine Lines, Vashi Branch, Andheri Branch and World Trade Centre, Colaba, Mumbai is legal and justified If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled 3. The dispute, as the terms of reference would show, relates to the services of canteen workmen engaged by canteen contractors at four premises of the Unit Trust of India in the City of Mumbai. 4. Some time in the year 1994, the Contract Laghu Udyog Kamgar Un...

Pratibha Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Goa and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)MhLj737

1. Rule returnable forthwith.By consent of parties, petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.Mr. Kantak, learned Advocate General appearing with Ms. L. Dharwadkar, AGA waives service on behalf of the respondents.2. Heard learned Counsel for the rival parties.3. The petitioners, by this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is challenging the tender invitation dated 28th July, 2006 which stipulates that the tenderer should be a contractor registered in appropriate class and category of Goa PWD/WRD and CPWD (hereinafter called as 'registered contractor' for the sake of brevity) and by implication excludes the contractors who are not registered (hereinafter called as 'unregistered contractor').4. The challenge set up and canvassed during the course of oral submissions is that there is no power in the State Government to make rule like one published in the Official Gazette in Notification dated 12th August, 2004 known as Rules of Enlistment of Contractor...

Zilla Parishad and anr. Vs. Punarjanma Rewinders and Electricals

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)MhLj661

Vasanti A. Naik, J.1. Admit. The appeal is being heard and finally disposed at the stage of admission.2. By this appeal, the appellant Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad challenges the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad on 3-2-2006 below Exhs. 27 and 28 in Special Civil Suit No. 372 of 2004 striking out the defence of the appellant Zilla Parishad under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By this appeal, the appellants have also challenged the order passed below Exh. 30 on 4-7-2006 rejecting the application filed by the appellants for setting aside the order dated 3-2-2006 by which the Court had directed that the defence of the appellants be struck off. A few facts giving rise to the controversy in question are stated as under:The respondent Contractor filed Special Civil Suit No. 372 of 2004 for recovery of amount of Rs. 25,10,401/- against the appellant Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. The Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad resisted the claim of the...

P.V. Constructions Vs. K.J. Augusty

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR609; 2007CriLJ154

Britto N.A., J.1. This is complainant's appeal by special leave, against the acquittal of the accused, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. The parties hereto are being referred to in their names as they appear in the cause title of the complaint.3. The complainant is the proprietor of M/s. P.V. Constructions and the accused is the proprietor of M/s. Ayswarya Constructions.4. The case of the complainant was that the complainant was undertaking execution of civil works directly or under other contractors and the complainant executed some works for the accused who is also a Civil Contractor towards which the accused owed to the complainant an amount of Rs. 84,775/-. As per the complainant, through the intervention of mutual friends namely, (1) Mr. Balagopalan, Contractor, (2) Shri Caetano Colaco, Contractor, (3) Shri Luis, Contractor and (4) Joaquim Lobo, Junior Engineer in the Office of the Works Division XIII, P.W.D., Mapusa, it was agreed between the accused an...

Dinesh Palyekar Vs. State of Goa

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ106

N.A. Britto, J.1. This appeal is by the accused, who has been convicted and sentenced under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, ('Act' for short), for having been found in illegal possession of 505 gms of charas.2. The accused was charged and tried under the said Section on the allegation that he was found in possession of the said charas near Primary Health Centre, Candolim, on 22-12-2001 between 20.00 hours to 23.45 hours. The case of the accused was that he was falsely implicated. The prosecution examined eight witnesses to support the charge. The learned Special Judge, upon consideration of the evidence led by the prosecution, noted that there were some discrepancies in the evidence of the Investigating Officer/P. W. 4 and also in the evidence of Police Inspector Shri Paes /P.W. 7 but they were such as not to create any doubt and that from the evidence produced, the prosecution had established that the accused was found in illegal poss...