Mumbai Court October 2007 Judgments

Shivling S/O Umrao Jadhav Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the Sec ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR538; 2008(1)BomCR622; (2007)109BOMLR2558; 2008(2)MhLj553

Naresh H. Patil, J.1. These two petitions raise identical challenge, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common judgment and order. 2. Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.3. The issues raised before us are:a) Whether the Collector was empowered under the provision of Sections 14 and 16 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short, 'the Act, 1958') to disqualify a member of Village Panchayat on the ground that the caste certificate was not issued by the competent issuing authority in favour of such member?; and, (b) Whether the Scrutiny Committee under the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (for short, 'the Act 23 of 2001') has jurisdiction to enquire into genuineness of a caste certificate and investigate into the alleg...

MauvIn Godinho and Shri T. Nagarajan Vs. State

Court: Mumbai

N.A. Britto, J.1. These revision petitions arise from the common Order dated 8-12-2006 of the learned Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Panaji, by which charge has been ordered to be framed against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, I.P.C. and Section 13(2) Rule with Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The case against the accused came to be investigated upon a complaint filed by Shri Manohar Parrikar, MLA, Panaji, and it appears that it took different turns depending upon which Government was in power in the State of Goa. 3. The case of the prosecution is that A-1/Godinho and A-2/Nagarajan were the Minister for Power and Chief Electrical Engineer, respectively at the relevant time. The allegation is that A-2/Nagarajan was promoted to act as a Chief Electrical Engineer from 5-2-1996 as he was close to A-1/Godinho, the Minister for Power and in preference to Shri Ghali who was senior to him. At th...

Kopran Ltd. Vs. Ccex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(123)ECC368

2. The appellants are the manufacturer of P or P Medicaments falling under Chapter 30 of the schedule to the CETA, 1985. The issue involved in the instant appeal is regarding the admissibility of the Modvat credit on E1. Analytical balance and PH meter. The Commissioner (Appeals) has disallowed the Modvat credit on the impugned goods on the ground that these are used in the stage prior to the manufacture of the goods and, therefore, these goods cannot be said to be used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final goods.3. I find that the impugned goods were received vide Bill of Entry dated 28.7.94 and credit was taken in Sept. 1994. I, further, find that E1. Analytical balance is used to weigh analytical quantities very precisely. Similarly, PH meter is used to find out the compliance on noncompliance level of the various raw materials. The items are used in the factory in the process of manufacture as quality control checks of inputs, which are an integral part of the manufact...

Shah Originals Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)112CTR(Mum.)754

1. These appeals are filed by the assessee for the asst. yrs. 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. The Department has also filed appeal for the asst. yr. 2001-02. These appeals arise out of the respective orders of the CIT(A) for those years. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, the same have been consolidated and are being disposed of by this order.2. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacture and export of readymade garments. The manufacturing activity of the garments is carried on at the industrial undertaking of the assessee at Malvia Nagar, Jaipur, and the export of the same is done from the head-office at Jogeshwari, Mumbai. The issues under appeal may broadly be divided into two categories viz. those related to allowance of deduction under Section 80HH (sic-Section 80HHC) of the Act and the others in respect of allowance of deduction under Section 80-IB.3. The disallowance under Section 80HHC of the Act may again be su...

The Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR155; 2008(1)BomCR729; (2007)109BOMLR2328; 2007(123)ECC14; 2007(149)LC14(Bombay); 2007(218)ELT336(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. As the issues raised in these group of Customs Appeals and group of Writ Petitions are common, all these cases are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment.2. In all the Customs Appeals filed by the revenue, the challenge is to the order passed by the CESTAT, wherein the Tribunal has set aside the confiscation/export orders passed by the assessing officer in the respective cases and directed the Customs Authorities to allow reprocessing of the confiscated goods and on reprocessing if the said goods meet the standards prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ('1954 Act' for short) to allow clearance for home consumption.3. In all the Writ Petitions, the importers have sought implementation of the orders passed by the CESTAT in their respective cases, except in the case of M/s. Jhunjhunwalla Vanaspati Ltd. (Appellate Side Writ Petition No. 3536 of 2007) wherein the Writ Petition is directly filed in the High Court seeking clearance ...

Mamatadevi W/O Prafullakumar Bhansli Vs. Vijaykumar Mamraj Agrawal

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008CriLJ970; 2007(6)MhLj809

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. Rule. Heard finally with consent of parties.2. These two applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be disposed of by common order, since the questions involved in both the applications are identical and parties are same.3. The facts giving rise to these applications are as under - The applicant is an accused in Criminal cases instituted by the non-applicant/complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is alleged that the applicant/accused had issued two cheques in favour of the non-applicant/complainant. Both cheques came to be dishonoured. Since those cheques were dishonoured, a notice was issued by the non-applicant to the present applicant. The present applicant failed to pay the amount of cheque in spite of the service of notice. Hence, a criminal complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act came to be filed against her. The non-applicant examined himself on oath. The present applicant exam...

Mr. Vishnu Bhat Vs. Narayan R. Bandekar, Managing Director, Rajaram Ba ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008CriLJ3770; 2008(1)MhLj497

N.A. Britto, J.1. This is a Complainant's appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by judgment dated 26/08/2005 of the learned JMFC, Vasco-da-Gama. 2. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the complaint. 3. The Complainant was an employee of accused nos. 2 and 3 whose services were terminated with effect from 16/06/1991. The accused no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the accused) was the Managing Director of accused no. 2, a company, and partner of A3, a firm. Although, three accused were prosecuted in the said complaint case and all were acquitted, by order of this Court dated 19/01/2006 leave to appeal was granted only against the accused- Narayan R. Bandekar, as the the subject cheque of Rs. 30,000/-was issued by him in his personal capacity towards the liability which respondents No. 2 and 3 owed to the Complainant. 4. The termination of the services of the Complainant r...

Omjee Finance Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Amravati Municipal Corporation an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)CTLJ176(Bom); 2008(1)MhLj678

R.C. Chavan, J.1. By Writ Petition No. 4480 of 2007, Omjee Finance Private Limited, a tenderer who had participated unsuccessfully in the tender process, seeks refund of Earnest Money Deposit of Rs. 2,40,00,000/-retained by respondent Amravati Municipal Corporation. Writ Petition No. 4674 of 2007 is filed by one Munna Rathod claiming to be public spirited individual for a direction to the respondent Municipal Corporation to deduct a sum of Rs. 1,13,00,000/- from earnest money deposit of Omjee Finance towards loss caused to the Corporation on account of delay in finalising tender for recovery of octroi.2. Rule. Made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties.These two petitions are fall out of Writ Petition No. 3351 of 2007 filed by M/s Omjee Finance seeking to striking down of a tender condition which made the petitioner ineligible to participate in the tender process. The tender process had commenced by publication of an advertisement on 28-7-2007. The tenders were to be su...

Vitthalrao Chhakorilal Kothare Vs. Thawardas Hasanand Janyani (Dr.) an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR169; 2008(1)MhLj492

A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.By the present petition, the petitioner-tenant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Small Causes Court, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 190/1998, on 20-9-2000 and confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 47/2001 on 14-5-2002.Facts2. Radhabai-original landlady has filed an application for grant of permission to issue quit notice to the petitioner-tenant, which was granted to her. She issued a quit notice to the petitioner/tenant on 2-12-1991 and then filed a suit bearing R.C.S. No. 500/1993 for ejectment. The suit came to be dismissed on 4-5-1995 on the ground that the notice was defective. On 28-6-1995, she issued another quit notice and filed another suit, which came to be numbered as R.C.S. No. 485/1995. That was also dismissed for defective notice. In the meanwhile, Radhabai expired. Her Legal heirs then issued 3rd quit notice on 24-2-1998 and then filed a suit bearing R.C.S. No. ...

Pracheta J. Ladhake (Dr.) Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)MhLj594

R.C. Chavan, J.1. The petitioner, a Lecturer in respondent No. 3 College on the verge of her retirement and stagnating in the entry level scale of pay for Lecturers, seeks grant of higher scales of pay of senior scale and selection grade.2. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in respondent No. 3 College on 1-12-1978. She did not acquire qualification of Doctor of Medicine (MD), but was awarded Ph.D. on 23-3-1992. By Government Resolution dated 27-2-1989, scales of pay of University Teachers were revised and career advancement scales after completion of 8 and 16 years of service were provided. After 8 years, a Teacher in the scale of Rs. 700-1600 was entitled to be placed in the senior scale of Rs. 3,000-5000 and a Lecturer in the senior scale of Rs. 3,000-5,000 was entitled to be placed in the scale of Rs. 3,700-5,700. The petitioner laments that she has been denied the benefits of both these pay scales in spite of her entitlement, while other Teachers have been granted such scale...