Mumbai Court June 2007 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Khan Estate Agency Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-2007
Reported in: 2008[9]STR456
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the Respondents waives service. By consent taken up for hearing.By this petition, the Petitioner is challenging the order passed by CESTAT dated 20th November, 2006 whereby the CESTAT has disposed of the Appeal arising out of an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise dated 2nd May, 2006. The impugned order does not contain any reasons whatsoever. Even the learned Counsel for the Respondents is unable to find out any reasoning in the said order. Hence, only on this limited ground, as the said order does not contain any reasoning whatsoever, we are inclined to quash and set aside the order dated 20th November, 2006. Accordingly the impugned order dated 20th November, 2006 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the CESTAT for fresh hearing.2. CESTAT is hereby directed to hear and dispose of the Appeal bearing No. ST/229 of 20061 on its ...
Smt. Bina Manohar Dudani and anr. Vs. Major Charanjitlal Verma (Retd) ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR381; 2007(4)BomCR595; (2007)109BOMLR1431; 2007(4)MhLj224
Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The Appellants are the original Defendants in the above Suit. They were sued upon an unregistered agreement dated 15th April, 1988 executed by them with the Respondents on 15th April, 1988 for purchase of a Flat No.G-30 in Army Welfare Co-operative Society (Organisation), Salunkhe Vihar at Pune for Rs. 3,23,000/ -. The Appellants paid Rs.2,98,000/ -to the Respondents out of the aforesaid consideration. They have been put in possession. They have remained in possession since. 2. The Respondent No. 1 is a retired Army Officer. He was allotted the said premises. The said premises could be transferred only to the persons declared eligible for allotment of such dwelling units. It is the case of the Respondents that the Appellants were not eligible but made representation to the Respondents that they were eligible and consequently made members of the Society pursuant to which they executed agreement for sale in their favour. They later found out that the representations ma...
Sheikh HusaIn S/O Haji Abdul Rahim Patel Deceased Through His Lrs. Abd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR566; 2007(6)BomCR354; 2007(4)MhLj817
A.H. Chaudhari, J.1. By the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 30-11-1990 below Exhs. 1 and 2 in Application No. 2 of 1990 under Section 41-E of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur and confirmed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Nagpur by order dated 23-11-1994 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1991. Facts:2. The respondents filed an application under Section 41-E of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. 1950 before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur praying therein for temporary injunction against the petitioners, restraining them from acting as trustees of Idgah Trust, selling, alienating the Trust property and from collecting rent from the respondents. Further, the respondents made prayer for issuing temporary injunction restraining the petitioners from obstructing approach road to the demised premises held by the respondents. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner gave detailed reasons in paras 2 and 3 of...
Suhani Shivram Dhuri Vs. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Auth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)ALLMR695; 2007(6)BomCR638; 2007(5)MhLj250
Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The appellant-plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Bombay City Civil Court dismissing the plaintiff's Suit, discharging the Court Receiver, who was appointed, pending the Suit and directing the Court Receiver to hand over possession of the suit premises to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board (MHADA), who are the first defendants in that Suit. The compilation of the entire record of the trial Court has been placed before the Court, including the oral and documentary evidence. Hence, this Appeal is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.2. The suit was for protecting the plaintiffs possession in the suit premises which is a room of MHADA bearing Flat No. A-503 in Sat Aasara Co-operative Housing Society, which is constructed by MHADA.3. The plaintiff desires to protect her possession in respect of the suit premises. She must, therefore, essentially show possession of the suit premises. The plaintiff relied on a letter/pa...
Bhartiya Kamgar Sena Vs. Udhe India Ltd. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR899; [2008(116)FLR457]; 2007(6)MhLj185
V.M. Kanade, J.1. Both these Petitions can be disposed of by a common order since the parties to both these Petitions have challenged the common order which is passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 43 of 2002.2. The Industrial Court partly allowed the Reference and directed the appropriate Government to take necessary action under Section 10(1), (2)(a) to (d) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'CLRA Act') within a reasonable period. The Tribunal held that the contract which was entered into between the Contractor and the Company was not sham and bogus but was a genuine contract. However, on the basis of other material on record, it directed the appropriate Government to take necessary action under the aforesaid provisions of the CLRA Act.3. Being aggrieved by the directions given by the Industrial Court to the appropriate Government to take action under the provisions of Section 10(l)(2)(a) to (d) of the CLRA Act, t...
Commissioner Vs. Surjitsing Jeevansing Girniwale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR683; 2008(1)BomCR867
Borde R.M., J.1. The appellant, in this appeal, is calling in question the judgment and order dated 15.02.2007, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2773/2006, whereby the petition filed by present respondent came to be allowed and the order impugned therein dated 29.03.2006, passed by the appellant herein i.e. Commissioner, Nanded Waghala Municipal Corporation, Nanded, disqualifying the present respondent to act as Councillor of the said Corporation, in exercise of powers under Section 10(1D) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short the BPMC Act), is quashed and set aside. The learned Single Judge further held that if any of the parties, including the petitioner and respondent, desires to refer the issue as regards disqualification under Section 12 of the BPMC Act, the observations made in the judgment shall not be construed to be the observations touching merits of the matter.2. Respondent herein is an elected Councillor of the Municipal...
Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2007
Reported in: (2007)(120)ECC487
1. The dispute in the present appeal relates to valuation of goods manufactured by the appellant on job work basis out of the raw materials supplied by M/s TISCO. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant has entered into contract with M/s TISCO for conversion of steel blooms/billets supplied by M/s TISCO into rounds/bars and after such conversion return the same to M/s TISCO. The yield from the raw material to final product was considered as 87% in the case of double rolling and 91% in the case of single rolling. M/s TISCO has allowed the appellant to retain the scrap at their end. The conversion charges ranged from Rs. 4,000/- per MT to Rs. 5,500/- per MT depending upon the nature and quality of the material received from M/s TISCO. In addition to the same the appellants was also receiving documentation charges Rs. 10/- per MT from M/s TISCO.2. During the course of scrutiny it was found that the appellant was paying duty at the price declared by M/s TISCO which was much les...
Gulf Air Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Acc,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2007
Reported in: (2007)(121)ECC330
2. The issue relates to delay in filing Import General Manifests. The Department has alleged that during the period September 2003 to December 05 there were 306 instances where the delay has been caused in filing IGM as such the appellant has been penalized to the tune of Rs. 1,53,000/- under Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1962. This has been confirmed in the order of the lower appellate authority. Hence this appeal.3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that there is absolute no delay in filing IGM. Even as per the chart annexed to the show cause notice except in 23 cases for which the appellants have paid separately and delay is shown in filing IGM and submitted to the Tribunal for its perusal. The ld. Counsel for the appellant also took me through the annexure of the show cause notice to verify whether there is any delay in IGM. At random I have checked it up and verified that almost in all cases the IGM was filed earlier except in 23 cases which is admitted one. The Commissi...
Poonam Trading Company Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2007
Reported in: (2007)(121)ECC270
2. The appellant herein aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai, filed the present appeal. The issue in the present appeal relates to appropriation of sanctioned refund amount against the demand confirmed in some other order on the appellant.3. The Dy. Commissioner of Customs, Gr.I, New Customs House, Mumbai had sanctioned refund of Rs. 3,83,000/- by Order dated 16.11.2005 basing on the Order dated 29.01.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) JNCH, Sheva, Raigad. Even before the amount to be encashed, the same was sought to be appropriated by the Dy. Commissioner letter dated 27.4.06 against the Order-in-Original No. JCAO No.51/VMJ/JCC/2006 dated 27.02.06 under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the said appropriation the appellant has filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), NCH Mumbai who in turn had set aside the impugned order by giving direction to the adjudicating authority to consid...
Narita Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit, Ix/Range 9
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-2007
Reported in: (2008)112ITD248(Mum.)
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.2. The brief facts borne out from the record in this regard are that the assessee-company has filed its return of income for assessment year 1998-99 declaring total income at Nil The assessment was made at the total income of Rs. 4,13,70,580. One of the additions was made for an amount of Rs. 4,22,96,966 which is crucial to the present penalty proceedings. This addition was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by holding that the assessee has departed from the well-accepted method of determining income of business for this year by way of claiming loss on account of valuation of work-in-progress. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal but the addition was confirmed. The assessee was a builder and was following completed project method of accounting.At that relevant point of time assessee was carrying out two...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »