Mumbai Court April 2007 Judgments

Anita Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2007)DMC661

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. Rule, heard finally with consent of parties.These two applications can be conveniently decided together, since they arise out of same order passed by the Judge of the Family Court on an application under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code.2. Application No. 294 of 2006 is filed by wife Anita for enhancement of the maintenance granted and also for an order that it should be granted from the date of application, while the husband has filed Application No. 31 of 2007 for reduction of the maintenance granted.3. A few facts may be stated thus-Anita, the applicant, in Criminal Revision No. 294 of 2006 was married to non-applicant Anand on 28.8.1979. Soon after the marriage, the relations between them got strained. It resulted into filing of divorce petition which came to be decided in the year 1987 and decree for divorce was passed. Thereafter, An application No. 452 of 2001 came to be filed in the Family Court for grant of maintenance. The wife claims maintenance at...

Shrinivas Govind Samant and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)BomCR766

Savant R.M., J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners who are working in the offices of the various courts in District Kolhapur, which are under control and supervision of the District Judge, Kolhapur, are seeking cancellation and/or revocation of the orders of recovery, both dated 12.2.1996, Exhs. 'S' and T' to the petition and the order passed on the representation of the petitioners dated 21.8.1996 and 18.9.1996 at Exhs. V and Y' to the petition. Consequently, the petitioners have prayed for such relief as they would be entitled to if the main reliefs as prayed for by them are granted.2. The factual matrix involved in the above petition is stated thus:The petitioners are working as junior clerks in various court offices in the District of Kolhapur within the control and jurisdiction of the respondent No. 4 i.e. The District Judge, Kolhapur. At the time when the petition was filed, the petitioners Nos. 1,18 and 21 were working in the...

Modern Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)(223)ELT213Tri(Mum.)bai

2. This is an application for rectification of mistake crept in the Final Order No. A/937/WZB/2005/CIII dated 31-3-2005 in appeal No.E/3582/2000-Murn. The applicant submits that the actual duty demand was to be recovered to the tune of Rs. 3,15,000/- and not Rs. 3,47,980/- and there was no discussion about the same in the Tribunal's order. As seen from the grounds of appeal, the applicant has not taken any ground or given any data about quantification of duty amount of Rs. 3,15,000/- instead of Rs. 3,47,980/-. It is stated that after discussing the merits involved in the appeal, the same has been rejected. This goes to show that the duty amount and penalty as confirmed by the order-in-original would stand. The applicant cannot re-agitate about the same at this stage.3. The second ground is that the proprietor, Shri Shaymrao Ramchandra Maskar of M/s. Modern Industries is said to have died on 10-3-2005 after passing the order in the above appeal by this Tribunal. The applicant is legal ...

Dy. Cit Vs. Custom Capsules (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The issues in the appeal filed by the department and those in the memorandum of cross-objections filed by the assessee are inter-linked.We therefore find it convenient to dispose off both of them by a consolidated order.2. In ITA No. 8948/Mum./2004, the department has taken the following ground of appeal: The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in facts and circumstances of the case and in law: (A) in directing the assessing officer to withdraw the depreciation allowed by him following the decision of Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Mahendra Mills Ltd 243 ITR 56 ignoring the fact that the said decision was given while the provision of Clause (vi) to Section 32(2) were in statute books and after the omission of the said clause from 1-4-1988 position of law has substantially changed; (B) in directing the assessing officer to exclude excise duty and sales tax from the total turnover for the working out the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. In support of a...

Nehru Nagar Shivalaya Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. Smt. Vi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR852; 2007(4)BomCR149; 2007(5)MhLj482

V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent.2. The petitioner is a society which is registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The respondent who is the member of the said society is in occupation of tenement No. 208 in Building No. 6 of Nehru Nagar, Kurla (East), Mumbai - 400 024. The said building was constructed by MHADA and the forty tenements in the said building were allotted to the persons who were eligible to occupy the said premises. The tenement viz. room No. 208 was initially allotted to one Umakant Phatarphod and later on, it was transferred in her name. The said Umakant Phatarphod is the uncle of the respondent and after no objection was given by him, the tenement was transferred in the name of the respondent. The petitioner was running the Balwadi in the said premises since 1985 and there was also an application for transfer of Balwadi by the respondent. She had mentioned in the said applicati...

Mohanlal S/O Nandram Choudhari Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007CriLJ4656; 2007(4)MhLj9

ORDERA.P. Lavande, J.1. Heard Mr. V.V. Bhangde, learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr. S.U. Deopujari, learned A.P.P. for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. S.V. Manohar, learned amicus curiae.2. The applicant has filed this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') directly to this Court without approaching the Sessions Court at Nagpur, seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in Crime No. 6/2007 registered at Sadar Police Station alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 417, 411 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Since the issue arises as to whether the application filed by a person apprehending arrest in non-bailable offence directly to the High Court is maintainable and the said issue is of vital importance, it was considered necessary to appoint amicus curiae in the matter and accordingly Advocate S.V. Manohar was appointed amicus curiae.4. Insofar as maintainability of the application is concerned, Mr. Bhangde submitte...

Javed Parvez S/O Abdul Samad Ansari Vs. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Comm ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)BomCR511; 2007(4)MhLj161

R.C. Chavan, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the learned Advocates for the parties.2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent No. 1 - the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee on 15-2-2007 invalidating the petitioner's claim as belonging to Momin (OBC) and the consequential cancellation of his membership of Municipal Council, Yavatmal, on the ground that the Caste Scrutiny Committee had not caused an enquiry by the Vigilance Cell.3. In para 10 of our order dated 23-3-2007, we had made the following observations:However, we would like to know the stand of the Government, whether the Government prefers to have Vigilance Cell being associated with committees for scrutiny of claims of non-tribals as well and if inquiry by Vigilance Cell and its report would be required to be placed before the Committee. For this purpose, we inquired from the learned A.G.P., who thought it necessary to take instructions before making any statem...

Vineet S/O Dnyaneshwar Panchbhaiyye Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR816; 2008(2)BomCR564; 2007(4)MhLj177

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This petition by a graduate of Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, takes exception to the order passed on 17-10-2002 by respondent No. 3 - Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Scheduled Tribe Claims invalidating the petitioner's claim to belong to Halbi (Scheduled Tribe).2. The submissions and contentions of the petitioner in brief are as follows:(a) He belongs to Halbi (Scheduled Tribe) and is a permanent resident of Achalpur, District Amravati.(b) While studying in XIth Standard, he submitted the relevant documents for scrutiny of his caste claim. These documents were duly received by respondent No. 3 on 27-11-2000.(c) The Committee, however, did not give the petitioner any hearing requiring the petitioner to approach this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1585 of 2002 seeking a direction to the Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within a stipulated period. By order dated 3-5-2002, this Court directed the Committee to decide the petition...

Smt. Geeta Shridhar Gadre Shramadham Vs. Brahman Shikshan Mandal Throu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2007(114)FLR278]

R.M. Savant, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who was headmistress of a school run by the Respondent No. 1 Trust has claimed various reliefs; the sum and substance of which is that the petitioner is claiming payment of arrears of salary and other consequential benefits from the date of her suspension i.e. 10.05.2000 till 30.09.2003, i.e. the date of her retirement. The petitioner is also praying for pension on the said basis.2. The factual matrix involved in the present petition is stated thus:The petitioner was appointed as a teacher in the school run by the Respondent No. 1, namely, Maharashtra Vidhayalay on 9th of June, 1969. The petitioner was thereafter promoted as supervisor and assistant headmistress in due course and on 16th July, 1998 the petitioner was promoted as headmistress in the Vartak Nagar Madhyamik Vidhayalay run by the respondent No. 1.3. The petitioner was appointed as Chief Conductor for the S.S.C. examinati...

Jindal Drugs Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009[16]STR114

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By this Petition, the Petitioner is challenging the Order-in-Original dated 3rd April, 2007 passed by Respondent No. 3 rejecting the rebate claims filed by the Petitioner and adjudicating the same.2. The brief facts are, that the Petitioner is a company which manufactures 'Mentha Oil'. The Petitioner claims that it had sent the said Mentha Oil to Tien Yuan India Private Limited after paying the requisite duty. The Tien Yuan India Private Limited manufactures 'Menthol' out of the Mentha Oil and the same is exported. The said Tien Yuan India Private Limited had given disclaimer in favour of the Petitioner to enable the Petitioner to claim back the rebate of the excise duty paid by the said Tien Yuan India Private Limited on each removal of Menthol for export made on behalf of the Petitioner.3. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs have been granting the requisite rebate of the excise duty paid on the goods exported by the Tien Yuan India Private ...