Mumbai Court August 2006 Judgments

EdwIn Francis Britto Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, a St ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR92

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this Petition, the Petitioner challenges the order passed by the Additional Municipal Commissioner, Western Suburbs of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation dated 8th January, 2004. By that order, the Additional Municipal Commissioner, Respondent No. 2 in this Petition, has held that the Respondent No. 3 is not disqualified to be a Councillor of the Respondent No. 1, the Municipal Corporation because of the provisions of Section 16(1D) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this Petition are as under:That the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1275 of 2003 in this Court. By that Petition, the Petitioner sought direction to the Respondent No. 1 Municipal Corporation to evolve a procedure to enable the aggrieved person to approach the designated competent authority with complaint against councillors who are disqualified to be councillor under Section 16(1D) of the Act. I...

Sunil S/O Ramrao Paraskar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)MhLj690

K.J. Rohee, J.1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.2. By this application under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant seeks to quash the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 10th Court, Nagpur in SCC No. 681/2004 dated 5-12-2005 rejecting the application of the applicant under Section 258, Criminal Procedure Code for stopping the prosecution and the order of the 2nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur confirming the said order in Criminal Revision Application No. 276/2006 on 5-6-2006.3. In order to appreciate the grievance of the applicant it is necessary to see the background of the case in brief :A party was hosted by Police Head Constable to celebrate his promotion. A Khansama was called for cooking food. The said Khansama was subsequently beaten by the policemen who participated in the said party. As a result of the beating the Khansama died. His dead body was ...

Shah Babu Education Society and anr. Vs. Presiding Officer, School Tri ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR199; 2006(6)MhLj547

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this writ petition, petitioner No. 1 -employer and petitioner No. 2- Headmaster/Chief Executive Officer has challenged the judgment dated 4-4-1994 passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No. 75 of 1993-A holding that departmental enquiry conducted by the petitioners against present respondent No. 2 was not in accordance with law and therefore quashing and setting aside the order of termination dated 29-4-1993. The School Tribunal directed the petitioners to reinstate him with continuity and backwages.2. It is an admitted position that though this Court has issued Rule in the matter, no interim relief was given and hence the petitioners reinstated respondent No. 2 in service respondent No. 2, during the pendency of petition, has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31-3-2006.3. I have heard Shri De, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Thakre, learned AGP for respondent No. 1 and Shri Haq, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 in the abov...

Shri Dadarao Shankar Baghav Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ100

1. The appellant accused along with his father Shankar Ramchandra Baghav and another Sou. Girijabai Shankar Baghav were tried on a charge of having committed offence under Sections 302, 498-A r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur. By judgment and order dated 3-11-2001, the trial Court found the appellant accused Dadarao Shankar Baghav guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. He was also granted set off under Section 428 of the Cr. P.C. The appellant accused was acquitted of the charge of having committed offence punishable under Section 498 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code whereas the original accused Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. parents of the appellant accused were acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 498-A r/w Section 34 of the Indian Pe...

Premier Electrodes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. All the appeals are being disposed off by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order of the Commissioner by which he has confirmed demands of duty against M/s. Premier Electrodes Ltd., and has imposed penalties upon the other appellants on the allegations and findings of clandestine removal of their final products. The said findings are based upon the recovery of another duplicate balance sheet from the appellant's possession. It has been seen that while comparing the value of the clearances as reflected in the official balance sheet and unofficial balance sheet, there was huge difference between the same. As such, the said difference has been held to be the clearances without payment of duty, which accordingly stands confirmed by the impugned order.2. Ld. Advocate Shri V.M. Doiphode, appearing for the appellants does not dispute the findings of clandestine removal as arrived at by the adjudicating authority. He however, submits that while arriving at the quantum o...

Arun Packaging Corpn. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC629

1. Vide order dt. 16.2.2006, referral Bench, after taking note of two divergent views in the Tribunal's precedent decision as regards the classification of the printed wrappers for shaving blades, being manufactured by the appellant has referred the issue of classification of the said product to the Larger Bench. It has been noticed in the said referral order that in the appellants own case, Tribunal, vide its order No. 3422/97/WZB dt. 16.7.97, has held that the impugned goods are classifiable under Sub-heading 4823.90. However, in another decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Banglore v. Reliance Printers 2000 (122) E.L.T. 728 (Tribunal), the goods in question have been held to classifiable under Sub-heading 4901.90.2. During the course of hearing our attention has been drawn to various decision of the Tribunal including the decision in the case of Web Impression (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-J 2002 (141) ELT 370 (Tri.-Kolkata) laying...

Shri Mishrimal Jethamal Oswal Vs. the Municipal Council of Lonavala, T ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR715

R.M. Lodha, J.1. This writ petition entitled public interest litigation, crystallises three issues for our consideration and decision:(one) Whether the writ petition is in pro bono publico; (two) Whether the disputed pathway and the old bridge is a public road / public street; and (three) Whether the closure of the said pathway and the old bridge by the respondent No. 4 - Tata Power Company Limited is illegal, unjustified and unauthorised. 2. The controversy arises in the facts and circumstances, which we may notice immediately hereinafter. 3. Mishrimal Jethamal Oswal is the petitioner. He is inhabitant of Lonavala for the last 35 years. He has served as Municipal Engineer with the Lonavala Municipal Council and after his retirement claims to have been actively participating in the activities for improvement of civic facilities in Lonavala. In the Lonavala village, Taluka Maval, District Pune, there is a dam. We shall refer to it as Lonavala dam. Lonavala dam is said to have been built...

Kisan @ Pilaji Gangaram Khatale and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ130; I(2007)DMC330

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. These two petitions challenge the similar orders passed by the trial Courts, framing an alternative charge under Section 306 of IPC in addition to the charge under Section 498-A and 302 r/w 34 of IPC. Insofar as criminal writ petition No. 701 of 2006 is concerned, it appears that the prosecution had also prayed for framing of an alternative charge under Section 304-B along with 306 of IPC. However, the Court framed charge only under Section 306 read with 34 of IPC. The impugned orders in both these matters were passed on the applications filed by the prosecution. Since the question raised in these petitions is common and the facts and circumstances against which it is raised are similar, they are being disposed of by common judgment. 2. The only question that was raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, in both these petitions was that whether the accused could be tried for the offences both under sections 302 and 306 of IPC, which are distinct of...

Mr. Sadhawani S.S. Vs. the Enquiry Officer, Mhada and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR531; 2006(6)MhLj29

V.M. Kanade, J.1. Both these petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment since the issue involved in these petitions is identical. 2. The short question which falls for consideration before this Court is whether the Government has the jurisdiction and the authority to issue directions to the appellate authority while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act (hereinafter referred to as 'MHADA Act'.) 3. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding these petitions are as under:4. Both the petitioners were working with MHADA. Petitioner Mr. S.S. Sadhawani was working as Executive Engineer and petitioner D.I. Mirkar was working as Deputy Engineer. During the year 1996 and before the petitioners took charge of their respective posts, officials from the Accounts Department committed various economic offences on the basis of bogus bills. On 25th September, 1997, a Show Cause Notice was issued to both the petitioners b...

Rafique A. Malik and Aziza Rafique Malik Vs. Chief Commissioner of Inc ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Bom)537; [2006]287ITR489(Bom)

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents and we have looked into it.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1474 of 2006 is the son of the late Smt. Malek Sultan Abdul Tejani. His daughter named Aziza has filed Writ Petition No. 1476 of 2006 whereas Writ Petition No. 1475 of 2006 is filed by Rafique A. Malik as the trustee of the estate of his deceased father. All these three petitions seek to challenge the three orders all dated May 24, 2005, passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) declining to grant waiver of the interest claimed by the Department under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C and 220(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. All these three matters are concerning the assessment year 1996-97 and it is not disputed that there was some delay to the extent of about nine months to one year in filing the return and/or paying the advance tax. Consequently the inte...