Mumbai Court February 2007 Judgments

Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and t ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)BomCR574; (2007)208CTR(Bom)257; [2007]290ITR377(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the Writ Petition taken up for final hearing.2. This petition is filed to challenge the notice dated 26th October, 2005 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') and also the order dated 28th July, 2006 passed by the Assessing Officer rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner for reopening of the assessment for AY 1999-2000.3. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of three wheelers and components thereof. On 30th March, 1998, the petitioner entered into an agreement with Greaves Limited for purchase of Baramati Unit on 'as is where is basis' as a going concern free from all encumbrances with effect from and including the Transfer Date (31st March, 1998) for a total consideration of Rs. 23,70,00,000/-plus goodwill amounting to Rs. 4,30,00,000/-.4. For the year ended 31st March, 1999 relevant to AY 1999-2000, the assessee filed its r...

Manesh Rajkumar Kanhed Vs. Ramesh Bhagwansa Walale

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2007Bom86; 2007(3)ALLMR84

ORDERP.V. Kakade, J.1. Heard both the sides.2. Rule, made returnable forthwith.3. This revision petition is filed against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Hingoli dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and order passed by the C.J.S.D., Hingoli decreeing the suit for recovery of the amount and directing the petitioner - defendant to pay the amount of Rs. 95,625/- to the plaintiff along with future interest @ 15% per annum from the date of suit till the realization of the decretal amount.4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that he is challenging only the direction to pay future interest @ 15% per annum. According to him, it is contrary to the provisions of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure.5. The factual matrix involved in the dispute shows that the plaintiff and the defendant are relatives of each other. The defendant wanted to take agency and servicing center of Bajaj M-80 at Hingoli. Hence he needed the amount. Being...

Chandrakant S/O Balkrishnarao Phatale Vs. District Judge and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR239; 2007(4)MhLj84

P.R. Borkar, J.1. This is a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by an employee of Judicial Department working in Nanded District whose application dated 5-9-2000 for withdrawal of notice for voluntary retirement with effect from 5-11-2000 was rejected by the learned District Judge, Nanded by the order dated 30-10-2000.2. It is no more disputed that the petitioner was working on a ministerial staff of newly established Court at Loha as Assistant Superintendent. On 17-7-2000 the petitioner after rendering 21 years service gave notice for voluntary retirement under Rule 66(1) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 [hereinafter referred to as, 'the M.C.S. (Pension) Rules'] intending to retire with effect from 5-11-2000. The learned District Judge, Nanded accepted the notice on 20-7-2000 and directed submission of pension papers. Thereafter the petitioner gave an application for permission to withdraw his notice for voluntary retirement vi...

Databhau S/O Annasaheb Pathrikar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(2)ALLMR789; 2007(3)BomCR667; 2007(3)MhLj76

R.M. Borde, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.2. The petitioner by filing this petition has assailed the order passed by the Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad (respondent No. 3) granting recognition for appointment as a leader of opposition in favour of respondent No. 4 in exercise of powers under Section 19(1)(AA) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred as the 'Act'.).3. The petitioner is elected member of Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. The elections to the Municipal Corporation were held on 10-4-2005. It is stated that one Shri Tarvindersingh Dhillan was declared as a leader of opposition by the Mayor of Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. According to the petitioner, recognition in favour of Shri Dhillan as a leader of opposition was contrary to the established procedure as, at the relevant time, the petitioner was nomi...

Mega Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2007Bom156; 2007(2)ALLMR547; 2007(4)BomCR732; 2008(1)CTLJ120(Bom)

1. Since all these petitions raise a common question, all these petitions are being decided by this common order. These petitions have been filed by the petitioners questioning the terms of the notice inviting tender, dated 22-1-2007 and in particular Clause 3 and Clause 6. In order to appreciate the submissions which are advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, it would be useful to reproduce Clause No. 3 and 6 of the aforesaid tender notice:3. Money Earnest Money : Unless the earnest money of Rs. 2,00,18,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Eighteen Lakh only) through pay order or DD of Nationalized Bank or Scheduled Bank in favour of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation is paid, the tender form will not be issued.6. ELIGIBILITY : The bidder/s shall have experience of minimum one year of collection of octroi of 50 per cent of amount of the estimated offer of realization, and the bidders shall have executed the tender for one full year. The certificate to this eff...

Standard Greases Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(123)ECC54

1. Heard both sides. The Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise. Mumbai has upheld the order-in-original and rejected appeal filed by the appellants. Hence this appeal. The appellants are manufacturing 'castrol AP-2 grease, among other lubricating greases, and were clearing them in various pack sized e.g. 180 kg., 25 kg., 20 kg., 5 kg., 3 kg., 2 kg., 1 kg., and 1/2 kg. on payment of appropriate excise duty to the various depots of M/s Castrol India Ltd. as per their dispatch instructions. The appellants' products were covered by the Notification No. 20/99 CE (NT) dated 28.2.1999 and accordingly the provisions of Standards of Weights and Measurements Act, 1976 were made applicable to all such packs which were intended to be sold in the retail trade.2. Under mistaken belief that the Castrol AP-2 grease packed in 180 kg.and 25 kg. were not sold in retail trade by Castrol India Ltd., were cleared under Section 4 of Central Excise Act while other packs were cleared under Section 4A of the A...

Kedia Business Centre Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(213)ELT579Tri(Mum.)bai

2. As seen from the application filed for restoration of the appeal, there appears to be sufficient ground which prevented the appellant or his counsel in appearing before the Tribunal on the date of hearing.The applicant also filed an application well in advance before the date of hearing praying to file written arguments in the matter. The tribunal has proceeded on the assumption that the written submissions filed earlier would be sufficient enough to deal with the merits of the case, as such it disposed off the matter in absence of the advocate for the applicant. The applicant shows bonafide efforts and diligence to go ahead vith the matter if an opportunity is given. I have considered the same. The appeal is restored to its original number and posted to 26.2.2007. No further notice. Application is allowed....

State of Maharashtra Vs. Annaji Ganesh Kulkarni

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR775; 2007(4)MhLj853

A.S. Oka, J.1. Submissions of the learned Advocates for the parties were heard on the last date. The challenge in the First Appeal is to the Judgment and Award dated 16th January, 1987 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sangli in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1894). A notification under Section 4 of the said Act of 1894 was issued on 1st January, 1979. The Award was made on 30th April, 1982 under Section 11 of the said Act of 1894. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the learned trial Judge granted enhancement in market value by holding that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 7200/- per hectare. The learned Judge also granted statutory benefits under the said Act of 1894 in favour of the respondent.2. The learned A.G.P. submitted that a notice under Section 9(2) of the said Act of 1894 was duly served to the respondent-claimant but he did not file any claim. Her submission is that in view o...

Reliance Consultancy Services Ltd. Vs. Metro Palutan Investment and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR639; 2007(5)BomCR475

Karnik D.G., J.1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by the plaintiff seeking exemption, under Order 22, Rule 4(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the C.P.C.), from substituting or bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 4 and also for an amendment of the plaint to change the name of the plaintiff.2. As regards the prayer for amendment of name the plaintiff has pleaded that the name of the plaintiff company was changed subsequent to the filing of the suit. A copy of the fresh certificate of incorporation issued by the Deputy Registrar of the Companies showing the amendment in the name is annexed to the Chamber Summons. In the circumstances I see no reason for not allowing the amendment of the plaint to change the name of the plaintiff.3. As regards the prayer for exemption from bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 4, it may be noted that the defendant No. 4 died prior to 2nd September 2005. On two occasio...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Girdhar Metal Inds. Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri Uma Shankar, ld. SDR appearing for the Revenue in support of the appeal filed against Commissioner (Appeals) order submits that the respondents imported consignment of Aluminium scrap and instead of using the same in their factory situated at Bhor, diverted the same to Dadra Nagar Haveli. However, Modvat credit of duty of Rs. 4,68,566/-, paid on the said goods was availed by the respondents at their Bhor unit on the strength of the bill of entries. Proceedings were initiated against them, which culminated into an order passed by Dy. Commissioner upholding the charges leveled against the assessee and rejecting their claim to Cenvat credit. He also imposed penalty of identical amount on the assessee. However the said order of Dy. Commissioner was set aside by Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal by the Revenue.2. After going through the impugned orders and after appreciating the submissions made by both the sides, I find that the Revenue's entire case is based upon t...