Mumbai Court September 2006 Judgments

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Rajkumar Agarwal

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)MhLj765

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties.2. This petition is preferred against order passed by the II Addl. District Judge, Jalgaon whereby the petitioner's application (Exh. 71) for amendment of plaint in suit bearing Special Civil Suit No. 373 of 1997 came to be rejected with costs of Rs. 100/-.3. The petitioner filed suit for recovery of damages and compensation to the tune of Rs. 95,56,9727- against the respondent for breach of contract. Admittedly, the respondent/defendant agreed to transport a transformer from Burhanpur to Deepnagar Grid Sub Station, Bhusawal. The transformer was mounted on a trailer bearing No. MWU-1990 by the respondent on 25th October, 1994. The trailer had moved up to a distance of about 500 metres from the Sub Station of Burhanpur. Allegedly, due to negligence and sheer carelessness of respondent/defendant, the transformer slipped from the trailer and got heavily damaged. The defendant had execute...

Ramchandra Govindrao Gaidhani Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2007(113)FLR804]; (2007)ILLJ958Bom

V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. In this Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai dated December 14, 1998, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application No. 413/1997 preferred by the petitioner.2. The petitioner was dismissed by an order dated October 15, 1990 consequent to disciplinary proceedings. Against the said order, he had filed an appeal and the Departmental Appellate Authority rejected the said appeal. The petitioner, therefore, approached the Tribunal in the above mentioned Original Application. The Tribunal after considering the enquiry proceedings, the findings of the enquiry officer and the rival contentions of the parties held that the order of dismissal did not suffer from any infirmity and the petitioner was rightly awarded the punishment of dismissal.3. The petitioner was in the employment of Railway from 1956 as a Driver 'A' grade in Bhusawal...

Welspun Gujarat Stahl Rohren Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)8STT165

1. We have heard both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs. 24,56,779/-(Rupees twenty four lakhs fifty six thousand seven hundred seventy nine only) paid on outward transportation of finished goods from the place of removal during the period from 1-5-2005 to 30-9-2005 and Rs. 1,41,19,062/- (Rupees one crore forty one lakhs nineteen thousand sixty two only) chargeable on export commission paid by the applicants (who are the manufacturers of mild steel submerged arc welded pipes) to their marketing agents in Cyprus and Iran, during the period from 9-7-2004 to 15-6-2005 and penalties of Rs. 5 lakhs (Five lakhs only) under Rule 15(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, of an amount equal to Service Tax paid to marketing agents under Section 78, Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) under Section 77 and Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred only) per day under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. As regards the first demand we note that Rs. 13,48,063/- (Rupees thi...

Sagarika Acoustronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appellants herein have assailed an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Mumbai - II, who had confirmed the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Belapur-III Division, confirming the demand to the tune of Rs. 2,22,549/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.3. The appellants are manufacturers of pre-recorded audio cassettes / compact discs. Audio Cassettes were exempted from excise duty vide Finance Act, 1998. The appellants were issued a Show-Cause-Notice dated 15.10.1998 proposing to recover central excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,20,549/- under Rule 57I of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944, interest at the appropriate rate under the provision of Rule 57I(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11AA of Central Excise Act, 1944.4. A Show-Cause-Notice was issued on the ground that as per provisions of Mod...

Jaiprakash R. Jalan Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, vide which he has imposed personal penalties of Rs. 2 lakhs on Shri Jaiprakash R. Jalan and of Rs. 20 lakhs on Shri S.V.Sethia, under the provisions of Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules.2. After going through the impugned order, it is seen that the main person is M/s. Anu Textiles Mills Pvt. Ltd., against whom duties stands confirmed on the allegations and findings of clandestine removal of man made processed fabrics. The said appellant is not before us.3. After hearing both sides, we find that the penalties stands imposed on the first appellant Shri Jaiprakash R. Jalan on the ground that he is the purchaser of the fabrics, who has purchased the same from M/s.Anu Textiles Mills Pvt. Ltd., under commercial invoices without receiving the Central Excise invoices. The appellants had explained before the adjudicating authority that the goods...

Wall Street Finance Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(209)ELT427Tri(Mum.)bai

1. As per facts on records, which are relevant for the purposes of disposing of the present appeal, the appellant is a Full Fledged Money Changer (hereinafter referred to as FFMC). For the said purpose, they have a proper licence issued by the Reserve Bank of India from the year 1991-92, in terms of the provisions of Section 7 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973. The said licence stands renewed by the RBI from time to time. In terms of the said licence, the appellant is permitted to stock and sell VISA Brand Travellers' Cheque (hereinafter referred to TC's) of Arab Financial Services. They have the proper permission from RBI to sell said brand TCs to other FFMCs in India.2. For the above purpose, they entered into an agreement with M/s. Time Travel & Cargo (hereinafter referred to as TTC), on 21/03/97, appointing them as their sub agent for stocking and selling TCs of VISA brand. The said M/s. TTC is duly licensed to operate as FFMC by RBI. In terms of the said agreement...

Trilokchand Verma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(2)SLJ77CAT

1. This is an application against the non-selection of the applicant to the post of Assistant Engineer (Regular) against 70% quota in Civil Engineering Department. The applicant is aggrieved by non-inclusion of his name in the panel dated 10.9.2004 for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer.2. The facts of the case as have been brought out from the O.A. may be summarised as follows. The applicant was original appointed as Inspector of Works Grade-Ill in the Western Railway after having been selected by Railway Recruitment Board. He is Diploma Holder in Civil Engineering. The applicant was promoted as Inspector of Works Grade-II and thereafter to the post of Inspector of Works Grade-I. At present he is working as Chief Inspector of works 7 Senior Section Engineer in the scale of pay of Rs. 7450-11,500 on regular basis. The applicant belongs to SC and as such all the benefits of reservation are available to him in the promotional posts. The post of Chief Inspector of Works is now d...

Abdul Latif Yusuf Shaikh Vs. Digambad Mahadeo Bohate

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)ALLMR525; 2007(2)BomCR193

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard the learned advocate Mr. Patil for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Khandeparkar for the respondent. Petitioner is the tenant and Respondent is the landlord/owner of the residential property. The respondent/owner filed proceedings for eviction of the petitioner/tenant on the ground of bonafide need. The petitioner's case is that he purchased the suit house consisting of four tenements and started eviction proceedings against all the tenants because he requires the premises for his bonafide need and occupation. So far as his case against the present petitioner/tenant is concerned, the trial Court i.e. the Civil Judge Junior Division, Kudal dismissed the suit by the judgment and order dated 22nd March 1984. The respondent/plaintiff had filed an appeal to the Additional District Judge, Sindhudurg at Sawantwadi. The said appeal was allowed and the suit of the respondent/plaintiff was decreed. It is against this judgment and decree of the Additional Distric...

Chalisgaon Education Society and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR212; 2007(3)BomCR311; 2006(6)MhLj696

R.M. Borde, J.1. The petitioner is assailing the order dated 14th December, 2000, passed by Education Officer (Secondary), Nasik at Exhibit-O. The petitioner No. 1 is the public trust, registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act and is an educational institution. The petitioner No. 2 is working as Head Master of Anandibai Bankat Boys High School, Chalisgaon. The respondent No. 2 is Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, who has passed the impugned order, whereas the respondent No. 3 is Assistant Head Master of the school, who was directed to act as the Incharge Head Master by the respondent No. 2 Education Officer. The petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Assistant Teacher by an order dated 12th June, 1973 whereas the respondent No. 3 Vijayalaxmi Patil came to be appointed on 22nd July, 1983 as Assistant Teacher. It is contended that respondent No. 3 is, from amongst a reserved category and belongs to Rajput Bhamta caste.2. It is contended that in pursuant to the directions issued i...

William Rosario Fernandes Vs. Cabral and Co. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(1)ALLMR193; III(2007)BC732; 2006(6)BomCR576

Britto N.A., J.1. This is complainant's appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, ('Act' for short), by Order dated 31-3-2005 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Margao.2. The undisputed facts are as follows:There were two agreements between the complainant and the Accused who is the proprietor of a concern known as M/s. Cabral and Company. The first agreement was dated 30-12-1999 and was styled as an Agreement of Sale. This agreement was entered into between M/s. William's Beach Retreat Private Ltd., of which the complainant is the Managing Director on one hand, and the accused and his wife on the other hand. By the said agreement, the accused and his wife agreed to purchase a hotel complex known as William Resorts for a sum of Rs. 3,30,00,000/-, out of which Rs. 25,00,000/- were paid and the balance of Rs. 57,67,873/- was payable and was to be paid as indicated in Para 4 of the agreement by the end of January, 2001. A...