Mumbai Court August 2007 Judgments

Department of Telecommunication Vs. Deelip S/O Hari Mogle

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008ACJ1541; [2008(116)FLR275]; 2007(6)MhLj596

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. This appeal arises out of order passed by the Workmens' Compensation Commissioner whereby, compensation was awarded to respondent on account of the disability suffered by him while in the appellant's employment.2. The respondent was working as a lineman with the appellant. On May 16, 1999, while he was performing duty at telephone pole, he fell down due to faulty telephone wire connection. He sustained injuries on both the legs, chest and back side. He was treated as indoor patient for about one month at the Government Hospital, Nanded. He was required to take further treatment at Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad. He was unable to do his work and, therefore, was relieved from job. He pleaded with the department for payment of compensation. A part of his medical expenditure was reimbursed. However, his demand for compensation was not favourably considered. Hence, he filed application before the Compensation Commissioner - Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nanded. The learned C...

ZarIn Nozer Desai Vs. M.S. Rawat and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008(116)FLR316]; (2008)ILLJ957Bom; 2007(6)MhLj769

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petition has been filed against the award of the IV Labour Court, Mumbai in Reference (IDA) No. 144 of 1991. The Labour Court has declared that the petitioner had illegally terminated the services of the respondent workman w.e.f. 14-10-1989. It has further held that the workman was not entitled to the relief of reinstatement as he had crossed the age of superannuation i.e., 60 years, during the pendency of the Reference and has therefore granted back wages.2. The petitioner had employed the workman as a time keeper. A memo was issued to him according to the petitioner on 9-10-1989 for failure to maintain the Provident Fund records and ESI records as required. On 13-10-1989, the workman sought increments from the partner of the petitioner as he was in dire financial straits. It is contended by the petitioner that the workman stopped reporting for work from 14-10-1989. On 23-12-1989, the workman approached the petitioner with a letter requesting to be taken in se...

Ms. Ruchi Mehta and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Bom)107; [2007]294ITR614(Bom)

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.The petitioners have approached this Court to impugn the order dt. 27th June, 2007 in respect of the property identified at serial No. 2 of the said order. The order is purported to have been made by respondent No. 3 in the purported exercise of his powers under Section 281 of the IT Act, 1961.2. One M/s Simplex Enterprises had booked and was allotted shop No. 4 admeasuring 2403 sq. ft. (with 1,437 sq. ft. of Mezzanine floor) in Virwani Plaza at Pune in June, 1988. The defaulter paid the earnest money for procuring the said allotment. On 23rd Jan., 1997 an ITCP-1 was served for recovery of the outstanding demand. In June, 1997 the defaulter paid the balance money to the builder and obtained the possession of the said shop. In July, 1998 the petitioner purchased rights, title and interest of the defaulter in the said shop. Sale deed was executed between the builders and the petitioners for sale of the said shop in November, 1998 with the defendan...

Gangubai Laxman Bansode and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)ALLMR310; 2008(3)BomCR802; 2008(1)MhLj619

S.B. Deshmukh, J.1. This petition takes an exception to the order passed by the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner in Appeal No. CR/55/2006, dated 14-9-2006.2. The facts necessary for consideration of this writ petition, may be summarised as follows:(A) The elections of Gram Panchayat Asarkheda, Tq. Badnapur, District Jalna took place on 23-10-2005. Nominations were to be filled in on 8- 10-2005. The date of nominations is important. In the said elections, seven members were declared elected, including the petitioners.(B) Respondent No. 7 - Dagduba Sakharam Hiwale - addressed a communication to the learned Collector, Jalna dated 22-11-2005. By this communication, declaration was sought that the petitioners election is illegal and further relief of quashing and setting aside the election was sought.(C) Learned Additional Collector, Jalna by communication dated 30-11-2005 informed respondent No. 7 that his request cannot be acceded to. He was advised to file appropriate proceedin...

Supro Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These stay petitions have been filed by M/s Supro Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Shri Subhash Bhardwaj, Director of M/s Supro Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Shri Goldie Bhardwaj, Director of M/s Supro Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Shri B.B.Pushkarna, Proprietor of M/s Ashish Electronics & Shri Ashish B.Pushkarna, Proprietor of M/s D.P. Impex against the Order-in-Original No. 61/2007/CAC/CC(I)/AKP/VB dated 23.4.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai-I. The Commissioner, vide the impugned order, held as under: (i) The goods covered by the 12 Bills of Entry are to be clubbed together and assessed as complete second hand photocopiers in knocked down condition classifiable under heading 9009.11 of the Customs Tariff. (ii) The values shown in the 12 invoices are rejected and the correct value based on the 5 correct invoices, totaling Rs. 86,47,916/-, are taken to reflect the correct transaction value. (iii) The photocopier machines in CKD form having revised assessable value of Rs. 86,47,916/- a...

John Deere Equipment Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)9STR107

1. The two stay petitions have been filed by M/s. Deere & Co., Illinois 61265, USA (hereinafter in short referred to as DEERE) and M/s. John Deere Equipment Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter in short referred to M/s.JDEPL) against the order-in-original No. 29/CEX/STC/COMMR/2006 dated 16/03/2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune - III Commissionerate. a. Confirmed the service tax amounting to Rs. 1,25,261/- for period 01/11/2000 to 30/09/2001 and; Rs. 16,49,000/- for period 01/04/2001 to 31/03/2003 under the category of 'consulting engineer' in respect of M/s. DEERE b. Confirmed the service tax amounting to Rs. 11,44,000/- for period 01/04/2003 to 31/03/2004 under the category of 'consulting engineer' in respect of M/s. JDEPL; c. DEERE and JDEPL shall pay the interest under Section 75 of the Act at the rates as applicable from time to time; d. Imposed penalty on M/s. DEERE and M/s. JDEPL @ Rs. 100/- per day from the date it is payable till the date it is paid, under Section ...

Akar Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. This is an application for condonation of delay of 26 days in filing the appeal. The sole Proprietor of the appellant's firm viz. Mrs. Jyoti V. Kardak seems to have been suffering from hypertension during the relevant time and as such she could not process the appeal papers and file them in time. Hence the delay. Having considered the application and the annexed Doctor Certificate, which convince me that the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal and the delay is to be condoned. Hence the delay is condoned and the application is allowed. The appeal is to be listed in its turn....

Purshottam S. Talreja and Vs. Coover Phiroze Bharucha and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(5)ALLMR873; 2007(6)BomCR223; (2007)109BOMLR1922; 2008(2)MhLj173

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this Appeal, the original Plaintiffs challenge the judgment and decree dated 8-9-2000 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing Suit No. 1399 of 1981. That civil suit was filed by the present Appellants seeking a decree of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 23-1-1979 in relation to the suit property. According to averments in the plaint, the Plaintiffs are the builders by profession carrying on business at Bombay. Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 are the owners of large piece of land situated at Lonavala, Taluka: Maval, District : Pune. According to the Plaintiffs, Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 executed power of attorney in favour of Defendant No. 1 authorising him to enter into agreement to sell the property. In exercise of the power conferred by the power of attorney executed by Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 and also on his behalf, according to the Plaintiffs, Defendant No. 1 signed the agreement of sale dated 23-1-1979. By that agreement, the Defendants agreed to...

Yezdi Hirji Malegam, a Chartered Accountant and a Partner of S.B. Bimm ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)109BOMLR1900; (2007)213CTR(Bom)161; [2008]299ITR329(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. At the instance of the applicant-assessee, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai has forwarded the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that credit for the tax deducted at source from the dividends was to be given to the firm and not to the partners?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, if the credit for the entire tax was not to be given to the partners, if there was any tax deducted at source remaining unabsorbed after meeting the tax liability of the firm, whether such tax should be apportioned among the partners and credit for such tax should be given to them in their individual assessments?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot entertain an appeal with regard to the quantum/...

Bhaskar Industries Limited Through Its Director Shri Vijay Son of Soha ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(1)BomCR353; 2008(1)CTLJ194(Bom)

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. As the pleadings are complete, petition is heard finally.2. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are Limited Companies, while the petitioner No. 2 is an individual.3. The petitioner No. 1 purchased the tender document on 21st April, 2007.4. Petitioners claim that they formed the consortium on 30th April, 2007.5. Admittedly, the tender, subject matter, is only a second exercise as far as the respondent is concerned after the experience at Bhiwandi, and naturally, first exercise for the petitioners as well.6. The parties are concurring on the fact that there was a pre-bid meeting between the competitors and officers of the respondent.7. After said pre-bid meeting, the respondent altered the profile of tender document and entered a new clause titled '5.3.9'. The said Clause 5.3.9 reads as follows:5.3.9 A bid must be submitted by a Bidding Company in its individual capacity only. Bids cannot be submitted through special purpose vehicle. Bids...