Mumbai Court July 2007 Judgments

Arjun Kisan Bhagat Vs. Nana Laxman Tapkire and Ramdas Rakhmaji Jadhav

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR666; 2007(5)BomCR581

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Both these appeals are being decided together inasmuch as there is sufficient semblance of controversial questions involved in both of them. Though, First Appeal No.804/1989 was originally registered as First Appeal No.2578/1983 at Bombay, prior to establishment of the Bench at Aurangabad, and is renumbered as First Appeal here yet, the same is being treated and decided as Second Appeal in view of law laid down by this Court in Maqbul Ahmed Miya Girav v. Hidayatulla Baldi and Anr. : (1999)94BOMLR419 , followed by a Division Bench in Shivprasad Shankarlal Pardeshi since deceased by heirs Shrikant Shivprasad and Ors. v. Leelabai Badrinayaran Kalwar since deceased by her heirs and Ors. : AIR1998Bom131 . For, the appeal arises from judgment and order rendered by learned Assistant District Judge in an application/appeal Under Section 72(1) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as B.P.T. Act).2. Though, necessary substantial questions of law wer...

Parinda Milind Keer Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., a Public Limited ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR182; (2007)IIILLJ1032Bom

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides.1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and correctness of the letter dated 8th May 2007 whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondents with immediate effect. The termination letter has already taken effect and the petitioner is no more in the employment. 2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner is an Indian inhabitant and had applied to the respondents for the job for the post of typist/clerk in the year 1995. She was called for interview on 8th June 1995 and after interview the petitioner was issued a letter of appointment dated 25th July 1995. The petitioner continued to be in the employment of the respondents and according to her, she worked to the satisfaction of all concerned during the period of her service. However, on 15th February 2007 the respondents ad...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Prashram Jagannath Aute

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2007Bom167; 2007(5)ALLMR711; 2007(5)BomCR847; 2007(5)CTC97; [2008(1)JCR431]; 2007(5)MhLj403

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Law, despite its source, is essentially mutable and has to change with the need of the society to ensure that the legislative intent is achieved. It may not be essential to construe statutory provisions strictly or apply the existing judicial dictums so strictly and mechanically that it overreaches the concept of stare decisis. The law of precedents is an accepted precept of administration of justice. Judicial discipline requires precedents to be followed but without transgressing its own limitations. Precedents are described as 'Authorities to follow in determination in Courts of Justice. Precedents have always been greatly regarded by the Sages of the Law. The precedents of the Courts are said to be the laws of the Courts and the Courts will not reverse a judgment contrary to many precedents' (Law Lexicon - 1997 Edition). To the rule of precedents there are exceptions founding on the doctrine of ratio decidendi, sub-silentio and stare decisis. For a precedent ...

Agriculture Produce Market Committee Vs. District Deputy Registrar, Co ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)MhLj288

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule, Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties.2. The point raised in the petition is that notification dated 18-9-1982 does not authorize District Registrar, Co-operative Societies to exercise powers under Section 40 of MAPM (R) Act, 1963 and Rules 1967.3. However, we find that the issue involved in this petition is very limited and affidavit filed by the Deputy District Registrar Co-operative Societies does not deal with the petition, may be because he has no reply to offer.4. We see from the notification that the powers under section 40 which are delegated read as follows:Section 40.Inspecting and enquiry of Market Committees.5. It is, thus apparent that the respondent No. 1 does not have power to set aside the resolution or restoring the Office of the respondent No. 3.6. In view of this, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (i). The impugned order is set aside. This does not preclude the respondent No. 3 from taking recourse to stat...

Exposure Insurance Services Ltd. Vs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (No. 2)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008]146CompCas60(Bom)

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. This company appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned company judge on March 21, 2007 Exposure Insurance Services Ltd. v. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (No. 1) [2008] 146 Comp Cas 58 (Bom). The appellant-company had filed a winding up petition against the respondent-company on the ground that the respondent-company is unable to pay its debts. The pleaded case of the appellant-company is that it was the holder in due course of two bills of exchange dated December 15, 2002, for an amount of US $ 2,165,000. They were endorsed in favour of the appellant-company on January 28, 2003. The bills of exchange were payable on March 15, 2003. Thus, the appellants invoked the jurisdiction of the company court on the basis of the endorsed bills. The respondents in their defence pleaded that nothing was payable in respect of the two bills of exchange as the supplier had issued two credit notes dated February 27, 2003, to the appellants; that the goods supplied had b...

Weldflux Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(121)ECC39

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.AT/382/M-II/2006 dt/21/6/2006. The appellants are absent despite notice but filed written submission and requested to consider the issue on the basis of the written submission. The written submission is taken on record.2. Heard the ld. JDR, who reiterates the findings of the ld.Commissioner (Appeals).3. Considered the submissions made by the Ld. JDR and perused the records. The issue involved in this case is regarding the denial of modvat credit to the appellant on the duty paid by the supplier of wire rods. It is the contention of the Revenue that the duty ought not to have been paid by the manufacturer of wire rods in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Technoweld, and hence Cenvat credit of such duty is inadmissible.4. It is seen that the issue is now squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the retrospective amendment of the Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules. There is also Board Circula...

Mccoy Architectural Systems Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(121)ECC335

1. After condoning the delay of 10 days in preferring the above appeals, as the applicants have satisfactorily explained the reason for the delay, we take up the stay applications. After hearing both sides on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 57,20,390/- and penalty of equal amount upon the manufacturer and penalties of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- on the directors of the company, we find that it is possible to dispose of the appeals themselves at this stage and hence proceed to do so, after granting the prayer for stay.2. The duty demand arises as a result of classification of goods such as steel structures, aluminium structures etc. under CET sub-heading 7308.90, 7610.90 and 7015.00. The plea raised by the appellants is that the majority of the goods have been held to fall for classification under CET subheading 7308.90, while the correct classification would be under CET subheading 7308.50 for the reason that this entry covers all goods falling under 73...

Paranjape Autocast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(121)ECC157

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. PII/BKS/157/2006 dt. 23.5.2006.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants are manufacturer of shell/core moulds, un-machined Aluminum castings etc. during the course of manufacturing of the same, dross and skimming arise at the factory of the appellant. The said dross and skimming are were non excisable during the relevant period. A show cause notice was issued by the Revenue demanding duty for the period 1.12.2000 to 31.7.2005 on such dross and skimming. The appellant contested the show cause notice only to that part of the duty involved in the period 1.12.2000 to 28.2.2005 and discharged the duty liability for the period 1.3.2005 to 24.7.2005 along with interest also out defence for non-imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for the period 1.3.2005 to 24.7.2005 and appropriated the amount already paid by the appellant along with interest and dropped proceedings for ...

Dy. Cit Vs. Harshad S. Mehta

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The revenue has filed an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Central-V, Mumbai dated 28-2-2003 relating to assessment year 1992-93 against the order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act.The assessee has filed cross-objection against the said appeal filed by the revenue on 19-6-2006.2. The preliminary objection raised by the revenue is against the late filing of the cross-objections by the assessee. The revenue authorities filed the appeal on 9-5-2003 and it is the: claim of the revenue that the assessee was in the knowledge of the pendency of the said appeal from 2004 and as such the assessee has filed the present cross-objections on 19-6-2006 after a long delay.3. The learned AR f or the assessee has elaborately explained that there is no default in filing the present cross-objections, but in the alternative has also prayed for condonation of delay if any in presenting, the said cross-objections before the Tribunal. In order to adjudicate upon the preliminary is...

Asstt. Cit Vs. Ramesh O. Mehra

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The appeal filed by the Department is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the following grounds: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learnedCommissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the additions made by the assessing officerin the block assessment in relation to assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98& 1998-99 on account of perquisite value of interest on interest-free loanreceived by the assessee from his employer disregarding the f act that thetransaction of the assessee's employer having advanced an interest-freeloan to the assessee for purchase of flat was discovered only as a resultof the search conducted in this case.2. The assessee, an individual, was working as Vice-President (Production) with M/s. Pearl Engineering Polymers Ltd. (PEPL), Mumbai since 1-12-1995. He was earlier working with Pearl Polymers Ltd., a company, which promoted PEPL. Search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act was carrie...