Mumbai Court August 2006 Judgments

Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Vs. Ilac Limited and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR284; [2006(111)FLR1009]

Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution arise out of an order passed by the Industrial Court on 30th April, 1986 by which two complaints of unfair labour practices under Items 1, 2, 5 and 6 of Schedule II and Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 came to be dismissed.2. The first respondent was engaged in the manufacture of PVC material. Some time prior to 1983, the management closed down its factories purportedly on the ground of adverse import conditions. The Government refused to grant permission for closure under Chapter VB of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A lay off commenced on 23rd May, 1985 which admittedly was never lifted or withdrawn at any stage. On 29th May, 1985 the company sought permission of the Commissioner of Labour under Section 25-M of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to lay off the workmen with effect from 23rd May, 1985 on the gro...

Komalsingh Sonusingh Pardeshi and anr. Vs. State of Maharastra and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)MhLj658

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard.2. The Petitioners seeks writ of mandamus for direction to the respondents to reserve only 5% tenements for allotment to the Government nominees in Scheme No. 248 of the Petitioners and further declaration quashing the reservation for Government nominees over and above 5%, in view of the decision of the Apex Court delivered in the matter of Shantistar Builders v. Narayun Khimalal Totame and Ors. reported in : AIR1990SC630 .3. The petitioner No. 1 was the owner of the properties bearing various survey numbers situate at Lohegaon, Haveli, Pune. On return being filed under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') in respect of the properties held by him, he was declared to be the excess holder under Section 8(4) of the said Act in respect of 2390.12 sq. metres of land. In accordance with the Government Resolution dated 27-8-1986 the petitioner No. 1 applied for exemption of the said prope...

Shivshankar Singh Ramjitsingh Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ151

V.G. Palshikar, Actg. C.J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed in Sessions Case No. 100 of 1998, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan, convicting the appellant to suffer imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant above named has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also rulings canvassed before us at the time of hearing of this appeal.2. With the assistance of the learned Advocate for the appellant and the Additional Public Prosecutor, we have scrutinised the record and re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. The prosecution case as disclosed by re-appreciation of evidence, stated briefly, is as under.3. The victims were two women directly related to the accused, one being his wife and second being his daughter. Both the wife arid the child were killed in cold blood by the accused whose moral and social responsibility was to protect and provide for them throughout their life.4. Th...

Cce Vs. Savita Polymers Limited

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(114)ECC102

2. At this stage of admission of this appeal, merits of the case have also been considered. This appeal involves an amount of Rs. 24,189/-levied towards interest. Normally the discretion is not being exercised in admitting the appeal filed by either side, when the amount is involved below Rs. 50,000/-. In this appeal fled by the Revenue a short intrinsic question of law is involved as such after admitting the appeal, the point involved in it is considered.3. The Revenue is in appeal aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), Mumbai who has set aside the order in original levying interest amount of Rs 24,189/- and penalty of Rs. 8,000/- allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.4. The case of the department is that the assessee had availed cenvat credit on inputs/capital goods and cleared the said inputs/capital goods as such and had not paid the duty at the time of removal as required under the provisions of Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 but debited t...

Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC253

1. The impugned order denies credit of Service Tax paid on Mobile Phones which have been provided by the appellants to their employees to carry out business transactions. Shri J.C. Patel, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants states that under the Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002 it was stipulated under Sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 that Service Tax credit on the service provided in relation to telephone connection shall be allowed only in respect of such telephone connections which are installed in the premises from where the out put service is provided. The learned Advocate also states that in the context of the said Sub-rule 3(6), the Circular No. 59/8/2003, dated 20-6-2003 was issued clarifying that Mobile Phones are not covered for availing credit of Service Tax. Mr. J.C. Patel further states that under the present Rules viz. Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, there is no such restriction on Mobile Phones and the definition of input service under the new Rules covers Mobile Phones. He als...

Sita Dyeing P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(111)ECC638

1. Appellant are absent. Heard the Ld. Dr. and considered the material the appellants are the assessee who are engaged in processing of MMF on job work basis. They were declaring the valuation of the grey fabric supplied by various merchants and filing declaration jointly signed under notification No. 27/92-CE (NT) dated 9.10.92. The demand has been discharged of such undertaking as per the valuation formula laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Ujagar Prints and others. The present dispute relates to non-declaration of prices for each lot/ batch of such fabrics supplied by one M/s. Rajesh Silk Mills & under valued duty recovers, denial of deemed Modvat Credit and mandatorily penalty along with charge of interest, in this appeal.2. The appellants are contesting the charge of non-filing of the declaration and submit that said undertaking was sent by the merchant manufacturer to the Range Superintendent and entire case made out of under valuation is required to be set a...

Permanent Magnets Ltd. Vs. the Workmen Employed and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR72; (2007)ILLJ984Bom

D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. This petition is directed against an Award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 13th November 2002 in a reference to adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The State Government referred an industrial dispute relating to the demand for permanency of 43 casual workmen for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal. During the pendency of the Reference, some of the workmen covered by the reference resigned from service whereas certain others informed the Industrial Tribunal that they did not wish to pursue with their claim any further. As a result, the reference survived in relation to eighteen workmen. By its award, the Tribunal directed the Petitioner to grant permanency to those 18 workmen with effect from the date of the reference, namely, 29th October 1993 and to pay them wages and extend other facilities that are available to the permanent workmen of the establishment. The award of the Industrial Tribunal was stayed during the penden...

Sudhakar Baburao Mali (Through Jail) Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

V.G. Palshikar, Acg. C.J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13th July, 2001 passed by the Ist Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Nasik in Sessions Case No. 174 of 2000, convicting the appellant-accused under Sections 302 and 498A of IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life,, the appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.2. With the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor we have perused the record, scrutinised the same and reappreciated the entire evidence on record. The prosecution case as disclosed by such scrutiny and reappreciation stated briefly is that the accused was married to the victim and according to the prosecution on 9th July 2000 he came to his wife, asked her to accompany him for a movie and during the intervals of that movie, came back to home along with his wife, bet her, poured kerosene on her and put her on fire. Thereafter the accus...

Devchand Constructions Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Mormugao a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)MhLj644

V.C. Daga, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith.Mr. Nadkarni waives service for the respondent No. 1.Mr. Sawaikar waives service for respondent No. 2.2. This petition is directed against the order dated 23rd January, 2006 passed on Exh. 20 in Special Civil Suit No. 22/2003/A by the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Vasco-da-gama, Goa, whereby an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('C.P.C.' for short) was allowed and impleadment of respondent No. 21 defendant No. 2 was permitted by the trial Court. The parties herein are referred to in the same capacity as they were before the trial Court for the sake of clarity.Facts:3. The factual matrix reveals that the petitioner/original plaintiff filed suit against defendant No. 1 for recovery of Rs. 1,11,73,756/- being the amount of the final bill due and recoverable from defendant No. 1 in terms of tender conditions pursuant to the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 dated 19th March, 1999. The tender an...

Dattatraya Shivaji Thorwat and ors. Vs. Smt. Clothildes Souza Wd/O Cae ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR219; 2006(5)MhLj750

ORDERV.C. Daga, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 4th November, 2005 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 85/2005/III by the Third Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao below Exh.4 rejecting the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Sections 94 and 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('C.P.C.' for short) refusing to grant interim injunction as prayed by the plaintiffs (appellants herein) pending disposal of the suit.2. The parties herein are referred in their original capacity as they were before the trial Court.Factual Matrix ;3. The plaintiffs are claiming to be in possession of the suit property even since the sale in their favour vide registered sale-deed dated 22nd July, 1982. They contend that they have unassessable right; title and interest in the suit property; namely, the property admeasuring 1,786 sq.mtrs., surveyed in the City Survey Office of Margao under Chalta No. 5 of P.T. Sheet No. 57 ('suit property' for s...