Mumbai Court November 2007 Judgments

The Bombay Dyeing and Mfg Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)(125)ECC153

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. BR/111/M-IV dt.18.7.2005.2. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. The issue involved in this case is regarding the confirmation of the demand of duty involved in the capital goods lost during the fire accident in the factory premises of the appellant. The adjudicating authority issued show cause notice to the appellant on 19.8.2002 based upon the audit objection that the appellant is ineligible to avail modvat credit on the capital goods and inputs like oil, spare parts, capital goods etc. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original, on an appeal in the first round of litigation, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to re-consider the issue on merits. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in denovo proceedings has come to the following conclusion: I have carefully gone through the memorandum of appeal, the relevant provi...

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Equator Property Managers P. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.AT/853/M-II/2006 dt. 23-2-07.Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records.The contention of the Ld. SDR in this case is that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalties imposed on the respondent to Rs. 15,000/-under all the Sections i.e. Section 76,11 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. It is his submission that in this case the respondent had clearly violated the provisions regarding the non-filing of the returns and not depositing the Service Tax correct (sic) (collected) from the Customers. He submits that the violation of the laws made by the respondent does not warrant any reduction in penalties. Ld. Advocate defends the order on the ground that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the provisions of Section 80 and reduced penalties imposed on the respondent. It is seen from the records that the respondent in this case admitted the tax liability and accordingly discharged the same...

Avinash Sitaram Garware Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR2579

Ranjana Desai, J.1. The appellant (for the sake of brevity, 'the accused') was tried in the court of Special Judge, Thane in Special Case No. 13 of 1999 for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the said Act'). By the impugned judgment and order dated 14/5/1996 the learned Special Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the said Act and sentenced him to suffer RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/, in default, to suffer further RI for three months. The accused was also convicted for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the said Act and sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/, in default, to suffer RI for further three months. Substantive sentences for both the offences were ordered to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the accused has preferred this appeal.2. It would b...

Sahakar Maharshi Shankarrao Mohite Patil, Nagari GramIn Sahakari Paths ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR102; III(2008)BC570; 2008(1)BomCR97; 2008(1)MhLj837

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure prays for setting aside the order of issuance of process passed by the learned JMFC, Madha on 9/7/2004 in S.T.C. No. 417 of 2004 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act for short) and duly confirmed by the learned Ist Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur by dismissing Criminal Revision Application No. 187 of 2004, as per his Judgment and Order dated 20/6/2005. In short, the petitioner -Credit Co-operative Society prays for quashing of the proceedings in S.T.C. No. 417 of 2004 filed under Section 138 of the Act in respect of the dishonour of cheque bearing No. 249385 and in the sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-drawn in favour of the complainant allegedly by the petitioner No. 1 -Credit Society which is registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The petition was admitted and by way of interim relief the trial...

Cedric D'Silva Vs. Union of India (UOi) through the Under Secretary to ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR70; (2007)109BOMLR2397; [2008(116)FLR247]; (2008)ILLJ483Bom

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The petitioner was working as a Senior Commander with Respondent No. 4. By communication of 18th January, 2006the services of the petitioner came to be terminated. The Petitioner thereafter initiated proceedings in conciliation before Respondent No. 3. The petitioner and Respondent No. 4, appeared before respondent No. 3 and stated their respective case. Respondent No. 3 thereafter submitted a failure report. The Appropriate Government considering the failure report of 28th February, 2005 was pleased to communicate its decision as under:Capt. Cedric D'silva, Sr. Commander, Jet Airways not being a workman in terms of Section 2(s) of the ID Act, in view of the duties assigned to him, no ID subsists.The petitioner being aggrieved preferred a Writ Petition before this Court which came to be disposed of by order dated 22nd January, 2006. This Court considering the material on record and the judgments cited, held that the decision of the Appropriate Government in rejecting...

Dr. Nayna D/O Dnyanoba Pawar (Patil) Vs. Dr. Vimal W/O Nandkishor Mund ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR256; 2008(3)MhLj156

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. By this petition, petitioner challenges election of Respondent No. 1 as Member of Legislative Assembly, State of Maharashtra, from 201 Kaij Constituency, on ground of illegal and improper rejection of her nomination by Respondent No. 2 and seeks declaration that election of the Respondent No. 1 as Member of Legislative Assembly, declared on 16th September, 2004, is null and void, and liable to be set aside.2. The petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer Class-II at S.R.T.R. Medical College, Ambajogai, as per appointment letter dated 04-11-1991. Initially, her appointment was on probation and temporary. She was appointed on permanent basis through process of Maharashtra Public Service Commission in 1995. In or about September, 2003, she was transferred to Rural Hospital, Parali (Vaijanath). She was working as such when elections for Member of Legislative Assembly from 201 Kaij Constituency were declared. She hails from and is a voter from Kaij Constituency. She ...

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, a Company Incorporated Under ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR736; 2008(1)ARBLR166(Bom); 2008(1)BomCR89; (2007)109BOMLR2440; 2008(2)MhLj542

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this appeal challenging the dismissal of arbitration petition by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the petitioner had challenged the award passed by the learned Arbitrator granting compensation on different head to the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Contractor').2. Admitted facts are that, the petitioner had invited tenders for construction of sewage water reclamation plant at the petitioner's refinery at Mahul, Mumbai by tender enquiry dated 20th March, 1991. Tender submitted by the contractor was accepted as per the letter of intent dated 27/2/1992. Parties entered into an agreement for execution of the said contract. Under the agreed terms, the contract value was Rs. 5,74,25,000/-. The work was to be completed within 18 months from the letter of intent. Admittedly, within the specified period of 18 months, work was not fully executed and on request made by the contractor, time was extended twice. Work wa...

Kalpana Kutty, Proprietor of K. Film Kompanie Vs. the State of Maharas ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR2342; LC2007(3)483

V.K. Tahilramani, J.1. The petitioner is a proprietor of a firm which undertakes executive production of advertising and cinematography films. The petitioner entered into a contract with one Mercurio Cinematografics. The petitioner was to organise production of a 60 seconds film to be used for promotion of Asian Games 2006 to be held in Doha Qatar. The petitioner was to organise for the shooting of the said 60 seconds film to be filmed in India. The petitioner produced the said Indian Part of the film. As monies were not paid as agreed and as demanded by the petitioner, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 51 of the Copyright Act against the accused with Antop Hill Police Station. The case of the petitioner is that though the offence committed under Section 51 of the Copyright Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term of upto three years and fine and hence a cognizable offence, yet the FIR was not registered. Hence the present Petition.2. In this Petition, following ques...

Cipla Ltd. Vs. Anant Ganpat Patil and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR526; 2008(1)BomCR78; (2008)IILLJ377Bom; 2008(1)MhLj477

Nishita Mhatre, J.1.Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.2. This petition challenges the order of the Industrial Court which has held that the petitioners have indulged in an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Industrial Court has directed the petitioners to extend the benefits of the settlement dated 14.5.2004 to the respondent workmen (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'workmen') with retrospective effect and to pay simple interest @ 15% per annum on the arrears. The petitioners have also been directed to pay costs of Rs. 5000/- to the workmen.3. The issue involved in the present petition is whether an individual workman can be denied benefits available under a settlement signed between the employer and a recognised union under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act if he does not submit an undertaking/declaration to the employer as stipulated under the settlement...

Shivaji Dattatray Pahinkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

ORDERV.C. Daga, J.1. Heard Mr A. P. Mundargi,Senior learned Counsel for the applicant and Special Prosecutor Ms Pai for the respondent. 2. Perused application and the material available on record. FACTUAL BACKDROP:3. The factual backdrop giving rise to the present application, in nutshell, is as under:4. The applicant is the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies having his office at Malhotra House, Mumbai. Prior to his joining as Divisional Joint Registrar on 4.1.2007 there was one Revision Application No. 709 of 2006 pending before the then Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies filed by the complainant Shri. Bharat Shetty on 24.11.2006. It is not relevant to mention as to what reliefs are claimed by Shri Shetty in his Revision Application No. 709 of 2006 for the purposes of deciding this application. 5. On 24.11.2006, the then Divisional Joint Registrar, Shri Sheshrao Sangle was pleased to grant stay in the said revision application. After, the then, Divisi...