Mumbai Court October 2007 Judgments

Niraj Kumar Singh Vs. Union Bank of India and the Disciplinary Authori ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR512; 2008(2)BomCR237; [2008(116)FLR1191]; 2008(2)MhLj61

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides.2. Vide Order dated 28th February 2007, the petitioner was dismissed from service with immediate effect on the basis of the inquiry into the article of charges conveyed to him on 26th April 2006. Aggrieved therefrom the petitioner preferred an appeal, which came to be dismissed by order dated 4th June 2007. The appellate authority, while dismissing the appeal recorded the following findings:The circumstantial evidence indicate that the appellant had prepared the ground for this fraud by first changing the linked account number from 15 digits to 16 digits making the account of Shri Sher Bahadur Thapa in the off line mode, then viewing his PIN, fraudulently withdrew the amount of Rs. 15,000 is very strong with no rebuttal from the defence side. The card of Shri Thapa which was given to dispatch clerk on 14th December 2005, and was also entered in the dispatch register on t...

Executive Engineer, Med. Proj. Dvn. and anr. Vs. Member, Industrial Co ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)BomCR798; 2008(1)MhLj697

A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.By these two writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged common judgment and order dated 21-1-2002, passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Nagpur and confirmed in Revision on 14-1-2004 by the Industrial Court, Nagpur.2. The respondent No.2 in both these writ petitions filed complaints i.e. Complaint (ULP) Nos. 30/1990 and 31/1990 in the Labour Court at Nagpur, alleging therein that they were appointed initially on 14-7-1985. They worked under the petitioners until they were orally terminated w.e.f. 27-10-1989. According to them no seniority list was published as required by Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 before the termination nor the procedure required by Section 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was followed and on the contrary juniors to them were retained in the employment. According to them the work was available even at the time of termination of their...

Chandrakant Kantilal Shah and anr. Vs. S.K. Lal and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008]306ITR225(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. This petition is filed to challenge the order dated February 25, 1993, passed by the appropriate authority under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short).2. By an agreement dated September 18, 1986, the petitioners had agreed to purchase flat No. 1 situated on the ground floor of a building known as 'Rekha' at Ridge Road, Bombay-400 006 ('the flat in question' for short) for a consideration of Rs. 10,51,000. The carpet area of the said flat was 925 square feet and the built up area of the said flat was 1014 square feet. The petitioners paid a sum of Rs. 2,51,000, by way of earnest money and agreed to pay the balance consideration in instalments as more particularly set out in the agreement.3. On September 26, 1986, the petitioners filed a statement in Form No. 37EE along with transfer form with the competent authority constituted under Chapter XX-A of the Act.4. During the pendency of the said proceedings, Chapter XX-C was introduced to the...

Manubhai Sakarchand Shah and anr. Vs. S.K. Lal and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008]303ITR66(Bom)

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioners entered into an agreement for sale of Flat No. 1 on the 12th floor of a building known as Enterprise Apartment, Forjett Hill Road, Tardeo with one Pramod S. Shah and A.S. Shah on September 17, 1986, for aggregate consideration of Rs. 12,98,000. From the averments it is seen that initially a sum of Rs. 25,000 was paid and before October 1, 1986, a further sum of Rs. 2,25,000 was also paid to the transferor. The petitioners filed an application in Form No. 37EE with the competent authority. The competent authority issued notice under Section 269D(1) asking the parties to show cause as to why the order of acquisition not be passed. The competent authority also issued a notice of initiation of acquisition proceedings. The fair market value was fixed at Rs. 1,600 per sq. ft. The competent authority cited two sale instances, one of a flat situated at Gold Coin Building at Tardeo and the other flat situated in a building known as Wallace Apartment at Sleater...

Tirupati Pipe and Allied Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)(124)ECC138

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal No.NSK/APL/AKD/255/2006 dated 24/11/2006.2. The issue involved in this case is in a very narrow compass. The issue involved in this case is whether the appellant is eligible for interest on the refund on the amount, which was due to him as a consequential relief by way of order of the Tribunal. The appellant filed a refund claim on 23/06/97 disputing the amount which has been paid by him on the insistence of the Central Excise Officers. The issue was finally settled in favour of the appellants by the order of the Tribunal dated 23/08/2005. Lower authorities allowed the refund claim of Rs. 5,91,888/- but did not grant any interest of the said amount.The appellant filed appeal against the said order for rejection of interest. The Commissioner (Appeal) was also held against the appellant.3. The Ld. Advocate submits that the issue squarely covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case Jayanta Glass.Ltd., v. C...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. National Guard

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)14STT278

1. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has set aside the penalty imposed upon the respondent herein, on three grounds: (1) that in spite of collecting service tax from customers, the respondent did not pay the same to the Government. (2) that respondent failed to get registered with the service tax authorities, and 2. I have heard both sides and find that the adjudicating authority has accepted the submissions of the respondents that they had not collected the service tax over and above the amount received from their clients.Therefore the charge of collection of tax from clients but non-payment of the same; to the Government cannot be sustained.3. However, as regards non-registration and non-filing of the ST-3 return, in the face of the admission by the respondent of failure to get registered and failure in filing the above mentioned return, Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in setting aside the penalty in its entirety. He should have held that ...

Diastar Jewellery Ltd. and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(123)ECC325

1. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.07.1997 Customs officer and Security official posted at the warehouse gates of Seepz intercepted one maruti car for routine check and found one maroon coloured leather pouch lying open on the seat besides driver i.e. Shri Pravin Kumar Jain. The pouch was found containing three small paper packets containing cut and polished diamonds totally weighing 65.79 cts. valued at Rs. 1,59,986/-.2. Statement of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain, Managing Director of M/s Diaster Jewellery Ltd. was recorded, in which he stated that the pouch belonged to him and it was revealed to contain cut and polished diamonds. The diamonds belonged to the stock of the company of which Shri Jain was Managing Director. Stock taking of the total stock of.M/s Diaster Jewellery showed a deficit which accounted for the seized diamonds recovered from Shri Pravin Kumar Jain. The diamonds had been imported duty free in terms of Notification No. 177/94-Cus dated 21.10.1994 as per condi...

Sanjay Baliram Dhamal Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR142; 2008(1)BomCR655; 2008(2)MhLj580

D.G. Karnik, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent, called for hearing.2. By these writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the common judgment and order dated 5th May 2006 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the MAT') in Original Application No. 1061 of 2004 along with other applications. Before the MAT, the petitioners had sought a declaration that the computation of vacancies by the respondent No. 1 of 300 posts for Police Sub-Inspectors (for short 'the PSI') to be filled by Limited Departmental Examination - 1992 was illegal and wrong and further declaration that there existed additional vacancies to the extent of 1571 posts. They further sought a direction to the respondent No. 1 fill up the said vacancies to the extent of 1571 posts of PSI by appointing the petitioners and others who were not recommended for appointment to the posts of PSI by limited departmental examination by the respondent No. 2 -the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (for s...

Shri Sakerwala Zuzar Mohsinbhai Vs. the Principal Secretary (Appeals a ...

Court: Mumbai

Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The Petitioner has applied for issuance of the writ of Habeas Corpus challenging his detention order No. PSA 1106/CR11/SPL3(A), dated 21st August 2006 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) and for declaration that it be quashed and set aside.2. The Petitioner came to be arrested upon the charge of smuggling goods being Titan wrist watches and computer memory cards on 3.1.2006 when he was intercepted at the Arrival Baggage Hall at Sahar Airport. It is the case of the Petitioner that he went through the red channel. It is also his case that he never made the declaration that he was carrying any dutiable goods. It is the case of the Respondents, and it is a part of the statement of the Petitioner recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and further statements recorded under the said section, that the Petitioner declared that he was carrying 200 watches and 300 computer memory ca...

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, a Body Corporate Constitu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR517; 2008(1)ARBLR155(Bom); 2008(1)BomCR366

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. This appeal arises from the order dated 10th June, 1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in Arbitration Petition No. 30 of 1995. The said petition was filed under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, hereinafter called as 'the said Act', for setting aside the award dated 1st January, 1993 declared by the learned Arbitrator. The challenge to the award was confined and restricted to the Claim No. 2 therein. The said challenge being rejected by the impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred.2. The facts in brief are that the appellants invited tenders in respect of the construction of multi storeyed warehouse at Sewree, Mumbai. The respondents' tender in respect of the said construction for a sum of Rs. 7,10,21,050.65 ps. was accepted by the appellants under their letter dated 1st September, 1987. The respondents commenced the work of the construction site on 9th September, 1987. In terms of the tender contract, the respondents were requir...