Mumbai Court April 2007 Judgments

Pritam Singh Sandhu S/O. Jiwan Singh Sandhu Vs. Samta Sahkari Bank Ltd ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR55; 2007(4)MhLj515

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with consent of parties.2. Petitioner, who is depositor of respondent No. 1 Bank, wants his entire deposits with the respondent No. 1 bank to be refunded or at least interest to be paid regularly. His claim for refund is based on his health problem and education of his son/grand children. He has placed on record a medical certificate and assessment of expenditure which is at page 9 which is dated 27.08.2006 certified by Dr. Sanjay Jain, M.D. (Medicine). 3. It has come on record that the Respondent No. 2 has already allowed respondent No. 1 to permit the petitioner to withdraw a sum of Rs. One Lac in total. 4. We find from guidelines framed by Reserve Bank of India that withdrawal can be allowed in certain special circumstances, copy whereof is placed on record by respondent No. 2 at Annexure-B, which are quoted below for ready reference:3. Several representations have been received from various quarters to have a system to handle...

Anil Laxman Jawade Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)MhLj25

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the respective parties.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the instant case on earlier occasions though the petitioner did not surrender on due date and, at times, was required to be arrested by the police and brought him back to the prison, that by itself, cannot be a ground for denying grant of furlough or parole leave to the petitioner in future. It is contended that, in the instant case, the petitioner has applied for grant of furlough leave. However, the Competent Authority has rejected the request of the petitioner vide order dated 5-2-2007 in view of the provisions of Rule 4(10) of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that substantive punishment has already been awarded by the Competent Authority to the petitioner for late surrender. Therefore, the Competent Authority cannot take away his leg...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vinodkumar Maheshwari

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2007]292ITR160(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. All these applications filed by the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 relating to the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 were admitted on the questions of law set out in the respective applications.2. The respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') were partners of M/s. Nav Bharat Press, Nagpur. On dissolution of the said firm amounts credited to the capital accounts in the respective assessment year were claimed by the assessee as capital in nature. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee by holding that the receipts were revenue receipts and taxable under Section 176(3A) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment orders were passed and penalties were levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.3. On appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the penalty by holding that there was no concealment of income. Against the said order, the Revenue filed appeals before the Income-tax Appel...

Saindranath S/O Jagannath Jawanjal Vs. Pratibha Shikshan Sanstha, Thro ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR281; 2007(3)BomCR527; 2007(3)MhLJ753

V.C. Daga, J.1. This Reference has been made on account of conflict of views expressed by the Division Benches of this Court regarding the powers of the School Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'/'MEPS ACT' for short).Conflict of Views:2. In Writ Petition filed by the Children's Education Uplift Society against Shri Narayan H. Sukhaja bearing W.P.No.463 of 1983, decided on 12.8.1987 (unreported), the Division Bench has taken the view, that it is open for the School Management to lead evidence before the School Tribunal to prove misconduct of the employee, in the following words:5. However, the Tribunal has erred in setting aside the order of termination of the services and granting reinstatement only on that ground. Once the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the constitution of the committee was improper, the correct course was either to order a fresh ...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. G.K. Chemo Pharma (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC354

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against order-in-appeal dt.20.3.2003 which set aside the order-in-original.2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite notice but filed a cross objection to the Revenue's appeal. Since the matter is of 2003 I take up the appeal for disposal in the absence of the respondent.4. It is the submission of the Ld. JDR that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the fact that the respondents had not produced any documents in support of their refund claim so as to indicate that the said amount has not been passed on to the purchasers of the goods. He submits that the documents were produced for the first time before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and hence the same should not have been considered by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) while allowing the appeal of the respondent. He submits that in the absence of any evidence before the adjudicating authority, the same could not be considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) and Ld. Commissione...

Bharti Tele-ventures Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax amounting to Rs. 78,27,798/- demanded by the Commissioner alongwith penalty of Rs. 25,26,701/-. The denand is for the period from July, 2002 to March, 2006. The issue involved viz., whether, service tax is payable on the value of SIM cards for the period July, 2002 to March, 2006 and whether service tax at the enhanced rate is liable to be paid in respect of vouchers and cards post paid, when there is a change in the rate of service tax during the period when the cards are sold and tax paid by the applicants and the date of actual rendering of service.2. As regards the first issue, we find that the same is, prima facie, covered by the Tribunal's decision vide Order Nos.A/188-190/WZB/2007/C-I, dated 1-3-2007 [2007 (7) S.T.R. 440 (Tribunal)], wherein it has been held that once the sale tax is paid on SIM cards, service tax is not liable to be paid on the same. Since in the present case, sales tax has been paid on the SIM...

Shri Vilas V. Sanghai Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)MhLj855

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Both petitions involve identical questions of fact and law and were heard together. They are being disposed off by this common judgment. 2. Writ Petition No. 359 of 2003 invokes jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. It is directed against an order dated 7.5.2002 passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 2002 by Special Judge Mumbai in Complaint ACB/BMU Criminal No. 29 of 2000 and the Sanction Order dated 6.12.2002 passed by the Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order), Mumbai.3. The Petitioner in the first petition is a Senior Inspector of Police and at the time of the filing of the petition was attached to Thane Railway Police Station. He joined the Maharashtra police in 1975 as Police Sub-Inspector. Thereafter, his services were made over to Bombay police in 1977 on the same post. It is the case of the petitioner, that, he had a successful career o...

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Nagpur Division, Through ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR53; 2007(5)BomCR774

A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation challenges the judgment and order dated 15.9.1994 in Complaint ULPA No. 1003/1989, passed by the Second Labour Court, Nagpur as well as the order dated 9.3.2005 in Revision (ULPN) No. 523/1994, passed by the Industrial Court only in relation to direction by the Courts below to make payment of full back wages to the respondent. 3. FACTS : The respondent who was working as a conductor with petitioner . Corporation was chargesheeted for misconducts under items 12 (b), 27 and 35-B of Schedule 'A' to the Discipline and Appeal Procedure. In the domestic enquiry it was held that charges were proved against him and consequently he was dismissed from service on 31.8.1989. The respondent challenged his dismissal from service by filing Complaint (ULPN) No. 1003/1989 before the Labour Court at Nagpur. The Labour Court initially...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nagesh Devidas Kulkarni

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)210CTR(Bom)471; [2007]291ITR407(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. These are a group of 66 appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 out of which 40 appeals are on board for admission and the remaining 26 appeals are taken for admission by consent of parties. Since the common issue is involved in all these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. In our opinion, orders passed by the Tribunal in all these appeals give rise to a substantial question of law and accordingly we admit all these appeals on the following common question of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the ex gratia payment received by the assessees on voluntary retirement is compensation received on termination of employment and, hence, the assessees are entitled to exemption under Section 10(10C) as well as relief under Section 89(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?3. By consent of counsel on both sides, all these appeals ar...

National Education Society, Through It Secretary Vijay S/O Shriram Bho ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(3)ALLMR553; 2007(3)BomCR521

A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. In W.P. Nos. 722 of 2006 and 6162 of 2006 the learned Single Judge of this Court found that two Division Benches of this Court have taken divergent views as to whether the Head Master of a school is a Chief Executive Officer (C.E.O.) as defined in Rule 2(c) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short M.E.P.S. Rules) for the purposes of holding disciplinary enquiry against the Head Master. In the wake of divergent views, learned Single Judge by order dated 31.8.2006 held that since there were conflicting decisions of this Court on the issue, it was necessary to have the legal position settled by a larger Bench. Accordingly, the papers were placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice who was pleased to constitute the Full bench and that is how the Reference is now required to be heard and decided by this Full Bench. 2. The questions which arise for our consideration and which are required to be answered by this Full Benc...