Mumbai Court September 2006 Judgments

State of Goa and anr. Vs. Francisco A. Cunha and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR444; 2006(6)BomCR540

Kakade P.V., J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the State against the judgment and order passed by Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, whereby enhanced compensation came to be awarded at the rate of Rs. 30/- per square metre, besides statutory benefits under the said Act.2. I heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the record.3. By notification under Section 4 of the Act published in the Official Gazette dated 2/11/1989, land of the claimants/respondents was acquired for construction of sump, pump house and M.B.R. at Cuelim, Cortalim Village for additional area. The Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 13/- per square metre. Not satisfied with this rate of compensation, the claimant filed objection on the quantum of compensation and claimed enhancement which was the subject matter of this reference.4. After hearing both the parties and relying on the available evidence...

Vandana J. Kasliwal Vs. Jitendra N. Kasliwal

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2007Bom115; 2007(1)ALLMR757; II(2007)DMC227

P.R. Borkar, J.1. This is an appeal, preferred by a wife, whose marriage with the respondent was annulled by the decree passed on 31-3-2004, by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, in Petition No. 73 of 2003.2. Brief facts leading to the decision may be stated as follows.It is no more disputed that marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 5-1-2003 at Aurangabad. The marriage was performed as per the custom in the Digambar Sect of Jainism. The respondent/husband was a graduate and doing service as an accountant. The respondent/husband filed petition for annulment of marriage with averments that as per the custom in the community, the bride wears Parda at the time of marriage. The behaviour of the appellant bride was not normal. However, it was staled that she was sleepless and, therefore, the abnormal behaviour might be a temporary phase.3. It is averred that at the time of MuhDekhi ceremony, the bridegroom is supposed to offer some gifts in the f...

Bhalaria Metal Craft Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicant in this case is engaged in the manufacture of Stainless Steel Utensils, Kitchenware and Cutlery articles, etc., and availing SSI exemption. They were exporting the products through their sister concern M/s. Bhalaria Steel Corporation and through some merchant-exporters. The goods were cleared to Bhalaria Steel Corporation, and to other merchant-exporter against 14B or Form H of Sales Tax Department which were to be accepted as proof of export as per simplified export procedure prescribed by the Board, under para 4.1.2 of Part III of Chapter 7 of Central Excise Mannual. Subsequently on representation from the exempted units to allow a similar facility to them in respect of the raw materials cleared by them to be used in the manufacture of export products, Board vide its Circular dated 25-7-2002 clarified that the facility of simplified procedure was available in respect of only those exempted units, which undertake exports themselves or through merchant-exporters direc...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sahayadri S.S.K. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(113)ECC436

2. Shri. Pramod Kumar, ld. JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that this is a case involving in refund of credit. He submits that the point of unjust enrichment is attracted in all refund cases as per the latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. CCE . Therefore, his submission is that the respondents are required to prove that they have not passed on the incidence of duty to their customers or buyers. Till then they will not be entitled for the refund of the credit.3. The ld. Counsel for the respondents drew my attention to Section 149 of the Finance Act 203 and heavily relied on the provision as contained in Sub sections (1), (4) and (5) of Section 149 of the Finance Act, 2003. The relevant provisions are reproduced as under: (1) notwithstanding contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority, any action taken or anything done or purported to have been taken or done under the said sub rules...

Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The point involved in the case is whether the appellants are entitled for the refund of duty when the consignment was cleared under bond for export purposes, were destroyed in fire in the warehouse.2. The Id. Counsel relied on the decision in the case of Sangeeta Printers & Exporters v. CCE, Allahabad . The relevant extract from the said Order are reproduced as under: Clearances for home consumption means and implies removal of the goods for marketing or consumption or utilization whereas clearance under bond always means and implies a mere transfer of goods from one place or premises to another without payment of duty for specified purposes only. Further clearance of goods for home consumption also means removal of the goods cut of customs/excise control and therefore, the owner or processor is free to deal with them as he pleases, whereas the goods removed under bond remain under overall Customs/Excise control and the persons concerned are obliged to follow ...

Vision Organics Ltd. and ors. Vs. Bank of Baroda

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: 2(2007)BC1

1. This combined appeal has been filed in respect of the common order dated 1st March, 2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Ahmedabad disposing of three applications, one filed by the respondent Bank and two applications filed by the appellants. Normally the appellants ought to have filed three separate appeals against the common order which has disposed of three separate applications. Another anomaly in this appeal is that this appeal is filed by the three appellants i.e. the company and two directors who are also the guarantors through a common Advocate. Yet the appellant No. 2 argued the appeal in person and the Advocate for the appellants argued the matter on behalf of the appellant Nos. 1 and 3 stating that the appellant No. 2 had separated from the other two appellants who are none other than the borrower company of which he was a director and also the guarantor and the appellant No. 3 who is the wife of appellant No. 2. This seems to have been done probably with a view...

Afl Private Ltd. (Previously Known as Airfreight Ltd.) Vs. S.J. Rajapp ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR704; [2007(112)FLR609]

D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. The Industrial Court upheld in revision an order passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the workman together with backwages quantified at 75%. The employer has challenged the order in Writ Petition 1103 of 2004 while the workman is before the Court in Writ Petition 3168 of 2004 in so far as a component of backwages was denied to him. For convenience of reference, the parties will be referred to as the employer and the workman. 2. The workman in the present case joined the services of the employer as a loader on 9th March, 1987. It was alleged that on 16th October, 1990, the workman together with another workman by the name of Vincent led a mob of loaders at 3.00 in the afternoon to the office of the Area Manager and entered the office when the official was in a meeting with three other officials viz. Phiroz Batliwala, Poonawala and M. Menon. It was alleged that on entering the office, the workman together with the coworker, Vincent, demanded that ...

Tata Motors Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 98,85,351/- and penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs (in Application E/Stay-2170/2006 in appeal E/2191/2006) and duty of Rs. 19,65,211/- (in Application E/Stay-2275/2006 in appeal E/2293/2006) we find that it is possible to decide the appeals themselves at this stage and hence proceed to do so with the consent of both sides after granting waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.2. The appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles and parts thereof falling under Chapter 87 of the First Schedule to the CETA 1985. 21 Show cause notices demanding excise duty for the period 01/07/1989 to 31/08/1994 were issued to the appellants on the ground of: (a) non-admissibility to the benefit of Notification 217/86-CE dated 2/04/1986 in respect of forklift trucks manufactured and used captively in the manufacture of their final products; and (b) Non availability of modvat credit in respec...

Embee Clearing and Shipping Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These are cross appeals filed by both the parties against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 24-3-2003. We find it convenient to dispose of both the appeals by a consolidated order. "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 35,77,500 claimed by the assessee to have been paid on behalf of their client without appreciating that these payments are nothing but illegal payments made in the form of bribes to employees and therefore not allowable as deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition by way of disallowance of Rs. 35,77,500 mentioned in Ground No. 1, claimed by the assessee as reimbursement of expenses paid on behalf of their client without appreciating that these payments made in the form of bribes to employees and, therefore...

Ravindra S/O Bhaskar Lumpataki Vs. the Chairman, Panchayat Samiti,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR595; 2006(6)MhLj747

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner was Sarpanch of Puntamba-Rastapur Group Gram Panchayat. A meeting was summoned on 28.9.2005 in order to discuss various subjects including subject pertaining to verification of a purported resignation tendered by the petitioner. The subject was discussed and by majority it was resolved that the resignation was tendered, in fact, by the petitioner. The Resolution No. 7 passed in the said meeting was disputed by the petitioner. According to him, the resignation letter in question was not tendered by him, it was not in his hand and it was not voluntarily given by him. He further alleged that his signature was taken on such resignation letter when he was inducted in office as a Sarpanch by members of his group which was the then prevailing practice. He alleged that a fraud was played on him and that the signed resignation letter was misused while he was absent from the ...