Mumbai Court September 2006 Judgments

Bhaskar Bhila Bhalkar and ors. Vs. Dhule Zilla Parishad and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)MhLj715

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and finally heard with consent of both the parties.2. Originally in all twenty-five (25) petitioners filed the present petition assailing the judgment of the Industrial Tribunal, Dhule in Complaint (ULP) No. 144 of 2004. Out of them, the petitioners No. 12 to 22, 24 and 25 withdrew the petition since they were absorbed and regularized in newly formed Nandurbar District, protecting their promotions in Class III cadre. The petitioners No. 1 to 11 and 23 are the only aggrieved persons now and the petition is pressed into service only to their extent. They were Class IV employees working on establishment of Dhule Zilla Parishad before they were temporarily promoted in class III cadre on 18th March, 1997. All of them are promotees and were given promotions in keeping the relevant recruitment rules. Rule 5 of Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967, provides for appointment to the class III posts by...

Dairy Manager, Government Milk Scheme Vs. Chunnilal Baburao Sarangpure ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR757; [2007(112)FLR612]

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. The petitioner employer has challenged in this Writ Petition orders passed by the respondent No. 2 Labour Court, Bhandara in proceedings under Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act. The proceedings were instituted by the respondent No. 1 with a grievance that though he was appointed and working as Laboratory Assistant, he was wrongly shown as Laboratory Attendant and he was paid salary in lower pay sale. He worked out the difference at Rs. 54,742.55, for the period from 21.8.1990 and 31.12.1982 and that difference has been allowed by the Labour Court. This Court has while issuing Rule in the matter, directed the petitioner-employer to deposit 50% of the amount and has granted stay to the remaining part. The petitioner has accordingly deposited the said amount of Rs. 27,372/- with the Labour Court, Bhandara. This Court had also permitted the respondent No. 1 to withdraw that amount upon furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Labour Court.2. The respo...

Surendra Wamanrao Nistane Vs. New GramIn Shikshan Sanstha and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR532; 2006(6)BomCR771

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. In this Writ Petition, challenge is to the judgment of School Tribunal dated 4.4.1996 by which the School Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner, holding that as present respondent No. 2 was senior to him, the respondent No. 2 was rightly promoted as Head Master. The promotion has been given on 10.7.1992. It is admitted position that the respondent No. 2 was possessing the necessary qualification on 10.7.1992.2. Advocate Kothale, for petitioner contends that the petitioner was also qualified on 10.7.1992, if the petitioner is accepted to have joined the services on 1.7.1987. He contends that the Management has deliberately shown that petitioner has joined the services on 1.8.1987 and therefore, he does not possess the qualification as required by Rule 3(1)(b) of the M.E.P.S Rules, 1981. He has, invited attention to the seniority list in which the date of joining of petitioner is shown as 1.7.1987, and it is further mentioned that, he has passed hi...

Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs. Rajesh Pralhad Khobragade

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR587

Gavai B.R., J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. Ms. Ujwala Nandeshwar, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent.2. By way of present petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 25th August, 2004 in Regular Civil Suit No. 42 of 2003 thereby rejecting the application of the present petitioners for permission to file Written Statement.3. The respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and injunction challenging the bill issued by the defendants in the said suit. The petitioners-defendants were under an impression that the written statement was already filed on 29th April, 2003 when the matter was kept for filing of Written Statement. It is further submitted that subsequently though the written statement was ready, it was not filed and, therefore, the application for permission to file written statement came to be filed by the petitioners-defendants. The said application came to be rejected vide order dat...

Manjulabai Tulshiram Shende and ors. Vs. Bapurao Bhaduji Chaudhary and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR625

Joshi A.H., J.1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally.Learned Advocate Mr. Siras waives service for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.Service to respondent No. 3, who is a sister of the plaintiffs, is dispensed with.2. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for partition and 1/7th share. According to petitioners, after defendants appeared, they have disclosed that the suit property was alienated by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to a third person, for a valuable consideration of Rs. 13,00,000/-. Therefore, according to plaintiffs, it became necessary to amend the plaint.3. It was obvious that upon amendment, the suit would not continue to be within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge [Junior Division], and would become liable to be transferred to Civil Judge [Senior Division], as the amendment would be of such nature that it would result in taking away jurisdiction of the Court before whom the suit was pending.4. In order to mitigate this situation, the plaintiffs filed an application mentioning...

Haffkine Bio-pharmaceuticals Corporation Ltd. Vs. Madhav Shriram Sant ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR594; [2007(112)FLR218]; (2007)2LLJ269Bom

D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. This Petition is directed against an order passed by the Labour Court on an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The first respondent joined Haffkine Institute as a Laboratory Technician on November 1, 1958. He was promoted there after as a Junior Scientific Officer. The First Respondent retired from service on March 31, 1992. On the date of his retirement, the first respondent held the post of Deputy Production Manager. At the time of his retirement, the first respondent was paid his retiral dues which inter alia consisted of gratuity in the amount of Rs. 56,270/- including an amount of Rs. 6,270/-which was transferred by the Government of Maharashtra to the petitioner when the petitioner was set up in the year 1975 as a corporate body in pursuance to a decision of the State Government. The proceedings in the present case arose out of an application filed by the first respondent before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) c...

Kulkarni Power Tools Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC394

2. The issue relates to classification of Drill Stand GD-70 and GD-80.Ld. Counsel for the appellant interalia submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that in view of Section Note No. 2A of Section XVI which interalia states that parts which are goods included in the heading of the chapter 84 or 85 in all cases to be classified in the respective heading. He submitted that the impugned product Drill Stand is not part of the Drilling machine in as much as Hand Drilling Machine. He also submitted that Drill stand is not cleared alongwith each hand drill machine and it is purely optional appliance which is purchased by a customer, when he desires so. Further he submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) while passing the impugned order has ignored that as per Section Note 5 of Section XVI of CETA, 1985 expression 'Machine' interalia means equipments, apparatus, appliance cited in heading chapter 84 or 85. It is submitted that as per S.B. Sarkar words and phrases of Central Excise...

Commissioner, Central Excise Vs. Chetna Cement Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC439

2. In the instant case, the respondents have availed Cenvat Credit on capital goods and at the same time also claimed depreciation under the provisions of Section 32 of Income-tax Act.On being pointed out, on the scrutiny of the records, the respondents have reversed the amount of Rs. 3,56,417/- vide RG-23C Part-II on 13.5.2001. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee for recovery of the same under the erstwhile Rule 57AC(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (presently provided in Rule 4(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002) and rendered themselves for recovery under the provisions of erstwhile Rule 57U of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (presently provided in Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002) read with Section 11A of the Act. On adjudication of the show cause notice by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Jalgaon has appropriated the demand of Rs. 3,56,717/- against the payments made by the assessee under Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules and also imposed penalty of ...

U.S. Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC366

1. These appeals emerge from an order of the Id. Commissioner.Appellant in appeal C/193/05, M/s. Rio Tinto India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the importer') and appellant in appeal C/152/05 is M/s. US Enterprises, the Custom House Agent (hereinafter referred to as 'CHA'). The importers are engaged in a project Central India Coal Company for coal exploration in areas located in the North West of Chandrapur, near Nagpur. For the purpose of technical evaluation of the project, the importer had engaged Groundsearth Australia Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Ground-search') to perform a feasibility study and for that purpose, they were to provide equipment to Groundsearch. They entered into an equipment rental contract for the required geophysical equipment with Century Geophysical Corporation, a company in USA and sought to import such equipments to India on a temporary basis. They engaged the CHA to do the Customs clearance work.2. It appears that some discussion with the...

Raymond Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides on the application for waiver of pro-deposit of duty of Rs. 12,24,151/- and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh covering the period October, 1994 to March, 1995 and April, 1995 to May, 1995, we find that it is possible to dispose of the appeal itself at this stage and hence proceed to do so with the consent of both sides after granting the prayer for stay.2. The issue relates to availment of modvat credit on fuel. We find that against the confirmation of duty demand by the Joint Commissioner on the ground that the fuel on which credit was taken was used in the manufacture of steam which is unconditionally exempt from payment of duty, the assessees preferred an appeal along with an application for waiver of pre-deposit before the Commissioner (Appeals). Vide the stay order dated 16/05/2006 the Commissioner (Appeals) directed pre-deposit of 50% of the duty demanded and 50% of the penalty imposed. The assessees applied for modification of this order On the basis of Tribunal...