Mumbai Court August 2007 Judgments

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)BomCR366; 2008(1)MhLj95

Naresh H. Patil, J.1. These four writ petitions are filed by Union of India and another. These petitions could be categorized in two different sets. In Writ Petition Nos. 4035 of 1993 and 164 of 1994, the petitioners pray for directions to respondent No. 2 Aurangabad Municipal Corporation (for short 'Corporation') not to realise octroi from the petitioners when the goods certified by the competent officer as contemplated under Section 146(2) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short the 'Act of 1949') are brought within the limits of Corporation. In Writ Petition No. 164 of 1994 the petitioners sought direction against the respondent Corporation restraining it from detaining the goods for the purpose of payment of octroi which would be brought within the limits of Corporation as property of Union of India.2. In Writ Petition Nos. 4070 of 1994 and 1330 of 1995 the goods were brought within the limits of respondent Corporation by the petitioners and octroi was ...

Association of Chemists, M.S.E.B. Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Bo ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR71; 2008(3)BomCR369; [2007(115)FLR912]; 2008(1)MhLj124

R.C. Chavan, J.1. These petitions, by Association of Chemists and Federation of Indian Pharmacists, working with respondent Maharashtra State Electricity Board, make out a grievance about injustice caused to them in the matter of pay scales.W.P. No. 584/1989.2. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 584/1989, the Association of Chemists, is aggrieved because the respondent-Board disturbed their parity in pay scales with corresponding posts in engineering cadre, when revised pay scales were brought into force from 1-4-1980. It is not in dispute that prior to 1-4-1978, there was parity in the pay scales of Chargeman Grade-II with Laboratory Assistant, Chargeman Grade-I with Junior Chemist, Deputy Executive Engineer with Senior Chemist and Executive Engineer with Executive Chemist.3. From 1-4-1978 the Assistant Shift Engineers started getting more pay than Junior Chemist and Senior Thermal Engineers were given higher pay scale than Senior Chemist. From 1-4-1980, however, the whole picture c...

Deochand S/O Shankar Bhajankar Vs. Divisional Commissioner and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR83; 2008(1)MhLj567

A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.By the present petition, the petitioner has questioned the validity of the order dated 26-6-2006 made by the Additional Collector, Nagpur, confirmed by the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, in appeal disqualifying the petitioner as a Member of Gram Panchayat Pachkhedi (Gadli), Tahsil Kuhi, District Nagpur.2. Facts:(i) The present petition depicts a sorry state of affairs and the rapid depletion of social values in society. The respondent No. 3 filed a complaint before the Additional Collector, Nagpur, on 4-2-2005 alleging therein that the petitioner has third child which was born on 15-6-2004 and named as Balya Devchand @ Devanand Bhajankar. He, therefore, prayed for disqualification of the petitioner.(ii) The petitioner filed his reply and submitted that his marriage took place with Sunita on 26-6-1996 and Amit and Sumit were the children born out of the wedlock at village Pachkhedi, Tq. Kuh...

Radhabai W/O Laxmanrao Ghate Vs. Dattatraya S/O Raghunath Jog

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR130; 2008(3)MhLj374

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This review application has been filed against the judgment delivered in Civil Revision Application No. 115 of 2006 by this Court. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as decree-holder and judgment-debtor.2. The present applicant in review application is a decree-holder while the non-applicant is a judgment-debtor. Non-applicant-judgment debtor had filed Civil Revision Application No. 115 of 2006 before this Court. The said revision application came to be allowed. The present applicant/decree-holder seeks to review that judgment in view of the fact that decree-holder was not heard. It is contended that the matter was not actually notified in the list for hearing and therefore the decree-holder's counsel could not remain present before the Court and place the proper position of law before the Court.3. The facts may be narrated as follows:Decree-holder Radhabai had instituted Civil Suit No. 955 of 1971. There was a compromise and a compromise decree was passe...

Hemantkumar Surendrakumar JaIn Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2008)BC407

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard Mr. Kadam, the learned Counsel for the petitioner who has filed CC No. 67/Misc./2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC against the respondent No. 2. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate at the first instance had ordered an inquiry under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and on completion of the investigation the Senior Inspector of Police, Dr. D.B. Marg Police Station submitted his report dated 14.11.2002. The subject-matter of the petitioner's complaint was the theft of cheque bearing No. 037378 from the Current Account No. 210320741. It was alleged that the said cheque was blank and was signed by the complainant and it was stolen or by any other illegal means taken possession by the respondent No. 2-accused. The police on inquiry in their report stated that the said cheque was drawn in favour of the respondent No. 2 and it was subsequently dishonoured and the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Nego...

Arvind K. Pandya Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2008)BC476

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. This is an application seeking special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai in C.C. No. 1054/S/2002.2. Cheques bearing Nos. 091480 and 901479 of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 1,07,240/- respectively issued by the accused were dishonoured on account of 'Insufficient funds' in the Bank account of the accused. The complainant had issued the statutory notice and there was no response as alleged by the complainant. Before the Trial Court though the accused did not engage any lawyer, he cross-examined the complainant and brought out the following admissions:(a) The complainant did not mention that the cheques were given by the accused for the goods sold.(b) He did not mention in the complaint the history of the transaction.(c) He only pleaded that the accused issued two cheques for discharge of his debt or liability...

Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. Vs. Ishwarchand Tarachand ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2007(116)FLR76]

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the Award Part-II passed in Reference (IDA) No. 176 of 1991.The 1st respondent was employed with the petitioner from 25.9.1978 as a Miller. It appears that from November 1984 to October, 1985, the 1st respondent remained absent for 75 days on 39 occasions. This absence was besides the days when the 1st respondent did not attend the work because of weekly off, paid holidays and sanctioned leave. The petitioner suspended the 1st respondent for one day by way of punishment for the aforesaid absence. This punishment did not improve matters and from January, 1986 to June, 1986, the 1st respondent remained unauthorizedly absent again for 45 days on 24 different occasions. This absence was besides the days of weekly offs, paid holidays and sanctioned leave. The 1st respondent was suspended for two clays for his unauthorised absence. The 1st respondent, again despite these punishments remained unauthorizedly absent for 83 days on 35 different ...

Rishabh Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(122)ECC392

1. This stay application is directed against the confirmation of demand of Rs. 80,28,546/- and equivalent amount of penalty. Since the issue involved in this case is in a narrow compass, the application for waiver of pre-deposit of the amount is allowed and we take up the appeal itself for disposal.2. The issue involved in this case is regarding the denial of Cenvat Credit to the appellants. The Cenvat Credit is sought to be denied to the appellant on the ground that the appellant had availed Cenvat Credit on the invoices issued by one M/s. J & J Precision Industries have cleared the final products on payment of duty, by availing irregular and illegible Cenvat Credit on the inputs received by them.The current appellant is one of the purchasers of the final product is cleared by M/s. J.&J Precision Industries.3. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. The contention of the appellant is that they had taken reasonable care to verify that the credit ...

international Express Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(122)ECC175

1. Heard both sides. This is an appeal filed by the CHA, M/s International Express Company aggrived by the impugned order dated 2.3.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai. The adjudicating authority originally suspended the CHA licence on 8.12.2006, pending enquiry under the CGALR, 2004 and subsequently confirmed the suspension, after enquiry, concluding that the suspension of the CHA licence was absolutely necessary. Hence the appeal.2. Mr. Sujay N. Kantawala, Ld. Advocate for the appellants argued that firstly, in the case of TASS Clearing Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Hyderabad-II reported in 2007 (80) RLT 224 (CESTAT-Ban.), the CESTAT has inter alia held that even a delay in suspending the CHA licence, after 61 days of detection of the case was set aside as it was not immediate as required under the regulations. He further stated that in the case cited above, the Tribunal had taken into consideration various precedents and the principles and held that suspension ...

Associated Steel Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The appeals are filed by the assessee against the Order-in-Appeal dated 9.10.2002 which confirms the Order-in-Original relating to duty and imposition of penalty.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Hot re-rolled products falling under Chapter 72 of CETA, 1985. With effect from 1.8.97 the goods manufactured by the appellants were chargeable to duty under Section 3-A of the Act based on the annual capacity of production. Prior to 1.8.97 the appellants was availing Modvat facility under Rule 57-A. The factory was taken over by the present management in the year 1992. M/s. Omco Enterprises is the proprietary concern of Mr. Omprakash Girdharilal Mundra who is also a partner in the appellants firm. M/s. Omco Enterprises are the traders in an Iron & Steel Products. M/s. Supreme Steel Industries is another trading firm of Mr. Manmohan O. Mundra who have their godown in M.I.D.C. in the factory of Supreme Plastic Indu...