Mumbai Court June 2007 Judgments

Farid Abdul Latif Noorani Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR586; 2007(5)BomCR114

Kanade V.M., J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP for the respondents.2. By this petition which is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Competent Authority in respect of two Eating Houses which are run by the petitioner herein, whereby its licence which was granted to the petitioner has been cancelled. The petitioner is also challenging the order passed by the Appellant Authority who by its order dated 17th October, 1995, has confirmed the order passed by the Competent Authority.3. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:The petitioner is carrying on business of selling fruit juices and snacks in two Eating Houses namely 'Haji Ali Juice Centre' and 'Cafe Noorani'. The petitioner was granted Certificate of Registration in respect of Eating House known as 'Haji Ali Juice Centre' which was well known as 'Race-View Juice Corner' in the year 1971 and this...

Subhashchandra Premnarayan Pathak Vs. Divisional Controller

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR605; 2007(5)BomCR411

Chaudhari A.B., J.1. Dissatisfied with the award dated 31.10.1991 passed by the learned Labour Court, Chandrapur in Reference IDA No. 23/1990 answering the reference against the petitioner workman i.e. in negative, the petitioner-employee has preferred the present writ petition in this Court.FACTSThe petitioner, who was working as conductor with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Chandrapur (MSRTC for short), was charge-sheeted for the misconduct of depositing the amount towards four tickets short with the depot and thus committing misappropriation of Rs. 15.15 ps. The charge-sheet was issued by Divisional Traffic Superintendent and a domestic enquiry was conducted against him. Thereafter, on 09.04.1979, a show cause was issued to him by Divisional Traffic Superintendent proposing punishment of dismissal along with the enquiry report. An application dated 24.04.1979 was moved by the MSRTC under Section 33(1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was registered as...

Adinath Limbaji Navale and ors. Vs. Policeman Housing Society and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR737; 2007(6)MhLj781

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. These three appeals and Cross Objection arise out of Judgment rendered by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Beed in suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits. (Special Civil Suit No. 14 of 1973).2. For sake of convenience, the parties may be referred to by their nomenclature in the trial Court. First Appeal No. 748 of 1977 (APP-I) is preferred by original defendant Nos. 1 to 8. First Appeal No. 618 of 1979 (APP-II) is preferred by original defendant Nos. 9 and 10, who are housing societies. First Appeal No. 257 of 1979 (APP-III) was preferred by original plaintiff No. 3 Fatema Begum. She died during pendency of the appeals and nothing significant has remained to be decided in her appeal. Cross-Objection is preferred by original plaintiffs. They impugn a part of the decree regarding refusal of mesne profits. The appellants in APP-I and APP-II seek to impugn Judgment and decree for possession. Deceased appellant in APP-III had impugned rejection of her ...

Mrs. Amarjit Thapar and ors. Vs. S.K. Laul, Chief Engineer and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Bom)185; [2008]298ITR336(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dt. 15th Jan., 1993 (Exh. G) passed by the Appropriate Authority, Bombay under Section 269UD(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) for compulsorily purchase of House No. D-1 (BUA), 1,991 sq.ft. with garage located in Mandar Co-operative Housing Society, Juhu Village, Mumbai ('said property' for short).Facts:2. The relevant facts lie within a narrow compass. The petitioners are the intending purchasers of the said property; who agreed with respondent No. 6 to purchase the said property vide agreement dt. 30th Oct., 1992 for a consideration of Rs. 64 lakhs.3. The petitioners on the very same day filed statement in Form No. 37-1 of the Act with the Appropriate Authority. The said authority issued a show-cause notice dt. 17th Dec, 1992 expressing its intention to exercise option to purchase the said property, however, without furnishing any material or reason in support of its intention to purchase.4. The petitioners, on 23rd D...

Abdul Karim Siddiqui (Dead) Azhar Iqbal Abdul Karim Siddiqui Vs. Mahar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR(SC)583; 2008(1)BomCR876

Chaudhari A.B., J.1. By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 20th January 1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Amravati Bench, Amravati in Complaint (ULP) No. 62 of 1988 dismissing the complaint filed by father of present petitioner viz. Abdul Karim Siddiqui who eventually expired during the pendency of writ petition and in his place, the present petitioner, who is the beneficiary, has been substituted. The petition is treated as the one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in view of the nature of the order made by the Industrial Court.FACTS2. A complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, the 'MRTU & PULP Act') was filed by Abdul Karim Siddiqui (now dead) complaining breach of Clause 37 of the settlement dated 19.12.1985 by the respondent Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (for short, the 'Corporation'). In the compl...

Maersk India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)8STR627

1. In terms of Order-in-Original No. 12/STC/S.J.SINGH/07 dated 15.01.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Service tax, Mumbai, the appellants are required to pre-deposit Service Tax amounting to Rs. 18,55,51,047/- on the gross receipt for services rendered by them during the period from 01.10.2000 to 14.3.2005 excluding the period from 1.3.2003 to 19.11.2003. The interest at the rate of 13% on the Service Tax alleged to have been evaded has been imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. A penalty of Rs. 1,000/- has been imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. A penalty of Rs. 25/- crores has been imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.2. The appellants have filed an application for stay of the impugned order and waiver of pre-deposit under Section 32 read with Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994.3. Shri Rohan Shah, learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri J.B. Mukhopadyay, learned JDR for the Revenue.4. We have heard both the parties. The appe...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Montage Securities Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)7STR393

1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 25/03/2004. The respondents have also filed a cross objection against the very same order-in-appeal.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are provider of services as "Stock Broker". The respondents got registered and were paying Service Tax on the stock broking activities till June 96.However, suddenly they stopped paying Service Tax on the brokerage activities during the period July 96 to August 97. The revenue issued eight show cause notices' to them for filing the returns for a period July 96 to August 97. The respondents did not file return nor any reply to the show cause notices. The revenue issued a show cause notice dated 21/03/2001 for the recovery of Service Tax from the respondents. The respondent's resisted the show cause notice and contested the recovery on the ground that they were cheated by some people who sold forged and fake shares, hence, they had to close down the activities. Since all th...

United Storage and Tank Terminals Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is directed against the order in appeal dated 15/09/2005, which upheld the order-in-original that rejected the refund claim of the appellants for the period September 99 to 30^th December 2000 on the ground of limitation.2. The relevant facts arise for consideration are the appellants got registered as service provider under the category of clearing and forwarding agent on 06/10/99. Subsequently, it was noticed by the appellants that the services provided by them do not fall under the category of clearing and forwarding agent, but they get covered under the port services, which were brought into the Service Tax net with effect from 16/07/2001. Protracted correspondence was entered between the appellants and the department and the appellants filed two refund claims, one on 17/04/2000 and one on 26/06/2002. The refund claim filed on 26/06/2002 was partly allowed by the adjudicating authority and the said order was upheld by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and the balance r...

Ador Welding Limited and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(120)ECC365

1. These appeals have been filed against the Order-in-Original No.12/KKS/2005-2006 dated 22.12.1999 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III.2. The appellants manufacture welding electrodes, an excisable commodity. The Revenue proceeded against the appellants on the ground that the welding electrodes in fully finished condition and duly accounted for in the daily stock account which had been re-issued for the purpose of repacking, were actually subjected to reprocessing during which the said goods got destroyed. There was also an allegation that the appellants had cleared excess quantity of flux clandestinely without payment of duty. It was alleged that the appellants did not reverse the Modvat/Cenvat credit availed by them on the packing material and the inputs contained in the flux which became waste due to process of defluxing carried out by them on the welding electrodes mentioned in the annexure B to the show cause notice. The following demands were proposed in th...