Mumbai Court April 2007 Judgments

Krishna Couriers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)(223)ELT92Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. There is a delay of eight months in filing this appeal. The reason assigned is that the order copy received by the employee was not placed before the assessee and the employee has left the services. The assessee sworn to the effect that he received the copy of the order just one week before filing this appeal, hence the delay. The delay has been satisfactorily explained and the circumstances were beyond the control of the assessee. Hence the delay is condoned. List the stay application in its turn....

FountaIn Head Developers Vs. Mrs. Maria Arcangela Sequeira (Since Dece ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2007Bom149; 2007(3)ALLMR304; 2007(2)ARBLR362(Bom); 2007(3)BomCR393; 2008(1)CTC7

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. In view of a divergence of the views in two judgments of learned Single Judges of this Court, the first being in Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. v. Sharad Shetkari Soot Girni Niyamit : 2000(2)BomCR878 and the second in Omni Bus Industrial Development Corporation of Daman, Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli Ltd. v. M.N. Dhanani (Arbitration Appeal No. 1 of 2000) decided on 17th December, 2002, a reference was made to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice by another learned Single Judge in the appeal under Arbitration Act No. 3 of 2004 (New Arbitration Appeal No. 14 of 2005) by the order dated 23rd March, 2004 alongwith a request to refer the matter to a larger bench. This Full Bench has been, accordingly, constituted by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.2. In Omni Bus Industrial Development Corporation, the learned Judge while dealing with the definition of 'Court', under Section 2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the 'Act of 1996'), has taken a view that the...

Mr. T.R. Mehra Vs. the Union of India (Uoi),

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)BomCR814; (2007)109BOMLR859; 2007(118)ECC249; 2007LC249(Bombay); 2007(217)ELT17(Bom)

F.I. Rebello, J.1. These Petitions were specially assigned to this Bench by order dated 11th December, 2006 and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. A show cause notice came to be issued to L.D. Textile Industries Ltd., the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 813 of 2001 alleging serious violation of conditions imposed under an advance licence obtained by them from the Government in or around 1984. After giving an opportunity, the Additional Chief Controller of Imports and Exports passed an order dated 14th November, 1986 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause 8(1) of the Imports (Control) Order 1985 adverse to L.D. Textile Industries Ltd. The relevant portion of the order is paragraph 10, which reads as under:10. From the foregoing facts and on the basis of evidence collected during the inspection of the unit, and thereafter, the charges against the licensee firm as indicated in the show cause notice have been amply proved. It is further clear that the firm has no rebut...

Vivek Raghunath Pandit Vs. Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Adult

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR293; 2007(5)BomCR803; 2007(4)MhLj808

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Applicant / Original Respondent.2. This Application is taken out by the applicant / original respondent, which is in the form of objections to the maintainability of this petition, in the form in which it is presented to this Court. Many contentions are raised by the counsel for the Applicant / Original Respondent. However, Mr. Aney, Senior Counsel, restricted himself to paragraph 4 of this Application, wherein he has raised objection under Section 82 of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'said Act'). However, he also drew my attention to the prayer Clause (d) of the petition and provisions of Section 98 of the Act, and contended that since all those who contested election at the relevant time i.e. two persons named in paragraph 4 of his Application, viz. Mr. Sukhdev Jairam Khairnar and Ms. Jayashree Uday Samant, have not been joined in this election petition, the petition is liable to be dismissed...

Mr. Ronny Colaco Vs. Communidade of Mormugao, Through Its Attorney, Mr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR661; 2007(5)BomCR843

S.A. Bobde, J. 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to set aside the Order dated 29.01.2007 passed by the respondent No. 4 the Administrative Tribunal in Communidade Appeal No. 21/06 to the extent that the Tribunal did not declare the petitioner as elected to the post of Attorney of the said Communidade after setting aside the election of the elected candidate for the triennium 2007-2010. The Tribunal has directed that a General Body of the Communidade be convened for conducting a fresh election of Attorney within 45 days of the receipt of the Order. The relevant facts are these:The petitioner and the respondent No. 3 contested the elections for the post of Attorney of the Communidade of Mormugao in the elections held on 3.12.2006. There were no other candidates. Upon the election of the third respondent, the petitioner challenged his election on the ground that the respondent No. 3 was ineligible for being...

Export-inspection Council of India, a Statutory Body Constituted Under ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)BomCR275; [2007(114)FLR1075]; 2007(4)MhLj635

V.M. Kanade, J.1. All these four petitions can be disposed of by passing a common order since the petitioners in all these petitions are challenging the Award passed by CGIT-I dated 17th October, 2003. The petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 2181/2004 and 2189/2004 is challenging the direction given by the Tribunal directing them to absorb the respondents in both these petitions with effect from 3.2.99 with backwages. The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 2981 and 2982 of 2005 are challenging the order to the extent that the benefits of regularisation are not granted to them from the date of their initial appointment. Under these circumstances, all these petitions are being disposed of by a commons judgment.2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner Export Inspection Council of India is referred to as 'employer' and the respondents are referred to as 'workmen'.3. Export Inspection Council of India is a statutory body constituted under the provisions of Export (Quality Control & Inspec...

Bhaskar Goma Bhole and ors. Vs. Eknath Bhika Chaudhary and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR186; 2008(1)MhLj607

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. This appeal and cross objection arise out of Judgment and Decree rendered by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Amalner, in Special Civil Suit No. 43 of 1989. The suit was for specific performance of agreement of sale or, alternatively, for refund of earnest amount along with damages. The trial Court rejected the main relief for specific performance but granted refund of Rs. 16,000/-i.e. the earnest amount along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of agreement till realisation of the entire amount.2. Subject-matter of the dispute is Southern portion comprising of 2 hectares and 2- Ares area out of land bearing Gut No. 1613, admeasuring 4 hectares 66 Ares.3. The suit land is within Municipal limits of the township of Chopda, a taluka place, and is undisputedly useful for non-agricultural purpose. It could be used for plotting so as to convert its use for residential purpose.4. The plaintiffs case before the trial Court was that they and original defendant No. 2 - ...

Cipla Employees Union and ors. Vs. Cipla Limited and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)BomCR505

Kanade V.M., J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1.2. By this petition, petitioners are seeking following reliefs.(a) That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and proceedings leading to impugned award dated 18.8.2004 in Complaint (IT) No. 4 of 1999 in Reference (IT) No. 43 of 1999 and after considering legality, validity and justifiability of the impugned award to set aside the same (at marked Ex. 'K')(b) For cost of the petition.(c) For such other and further reliefs or directions as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.3. In this petition, petitioner No. 2 made an application that his name be deleted from the array of petitioners and, therefore, by order dated 13/9/2005, his name was removed from the array of parties. The Petition, therefore, is contested by t...

Jethalal K. Morbia Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109TTJ(Mum.)1

1. The assessee has filed an application seeking permission to raise a question of law for the first time, and this application is duly supported by the affidavit dt. 17th Oct., 2006. In the said application, the assessee has, in support of its first ground of appeal to the effect that "the CIT(A) erred in coming to the conclusion that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 by the AO were valid in law", raised the following question: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings under Section 147 initiated on the basis of a notice under Section 148 issued by the AO during the pendency of rectification proceedings under Section 154, were valid in law, more particularly, when the notice under Section 148 was issued for the same reasons as for which the notice under Section 154 was issued? 2. Shri Pai, learned Counsel for the assessee, contends that it is answer to this question, that he has posed for us, which will decide whether or not the appellant deserv...

Unilever Plc Vs. Jt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal, filed by the assessee, is directed against the order dated 26-2-2001 passed by the Commissioner, in exercise of his revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The assessment year involved is 1996-97 and the original assessment was framed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has invoked his jurisdiction under Section 263 on the ground (a) that the assessing officer has not examined whether or not the assessee has claimed any deductions under Sections 28 to 44AC and Section 57 of the Act, which are forbidden by the virtue of Section 115A; and (b) that the assessing officer has not examined correctness of assessee's claim that the interest income is offered for taxation in terms of the provisions of articles 11 and 12 of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. No findings, however, are given about any error in the order of the assessing officer.3. The backdrop of this revision ord...