Mumbai Court September 2007 Judgments

Abdul Hassan Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR397; 2007(2)CTLJ496(Bom)

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 11th July, 2007 passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the contract for recovery of entrance fee from vehicle drivers, who enter from three check nakas of Goregaon, Powai and Marol respectively in Aarey Milk Colony has been extended for a period of 3 years with effect from 17th February, 2005 by increasing the contract amount by 5% as also inviting fresh tenders for the said contract.3. The petitioner, who claims to be a reputed contractor and who has undertaken various contracts for management and maintenance, submitted a tender in response to the notice dated 30th December, 2001 inviting tenders issued by the State Government. The tender related to the management of three toll naka points within the Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (East...

Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs. Supreme Industries Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008[12]STR682

ORDER1. This is an Appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 5th April, 2005 whereby the Appeal preferred by the Revenue has been dismissed relying on the decision reported in 2005 (66) RLT 324 in the case of CCE, Mumbai-III v. Metro Steel Rolling Mills and Ors.. At the hearing of this Appeal on behalf of the Appellant learned Counsel also draws our attention to the judgment of this Court in Central Excise Appeal No. 3 of 2004 and other connected Appeals decided on April 23, 2007.2. On the facts here, we find that the Adjudicating Authority was the Additional Commissioner. By order dated 28th April, 2004 the Commissioner directed the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise to apply to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Appeal in fact was preferred by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise. However, it was signed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Khopoli. In other words the Appeal was instituted in the name as directed by the Commissioner, Central Excise. The Appeal...

Savera Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(123)ECC245

1. These two appeals are filed against Order-in-original No.27/CEX/2006 dated 922.5.2006.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant company is a manufacturer of pharmaceutical goods falling under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant purchased input "Fruit Flavour Mix" (FFM) from M/s Quest International India Ltd. Investigation was carried out by the officers of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence on M/s Quest International India Ltd. and they came to the conclusion that the said firm ought not to have paid duty on their product FFM as it contained 44% ethyl alcohol.On a follow up actions, the officers visited the premises of the current appellant and they found that the appellant is mainly manufacturer of medicament i.e. 'Polybion Vitamin B Complex Syrup' by using FFM supplied by M/s Quest International India Ltd. On an assumption that since FFM contains ethyl alcohol, consequently Polybion Vitamin B Complex Syr...

Oriental Containers Ltd. Vs. Joint Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 1998-99. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) at Mumbai 28-2-2003 and arises out of the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing, P.P. Caps, Crowns and Pentane etc. The company has set up two factory units in the backward areas at Khopoli (Raigad District) and Murbad (Thane District). As per the incentive scheme declared by the Government of Maharashtra for industries set up in backward areas (1998 and 1993 Package Scheme of Incentive), the company was entitled to avail the benefit of sales tax deferral from the assessment year 1992-93 onwards for Khopoli Division and from 1995-96 onwards for Murbad Division. Under the said sales tax deferral scheme, the assessee could collect the sales tax from the buyers but need not be paid immediately to the Government, as in the case of other ...

M.M. Nissim and Co. Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2002-03. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) XI at Mumbai dated 24-6-2003. The appeal arises out of the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The first ground raised by the assessee in this appeal reads as follows: The learned Commissioner (Appeals) XI erred in confirming that the Appellant was not entitled to depreciation of Rs. 14,03,100 in respect of premium paid for acquiring office premises amounting to Rs. 1,40,31,000.3. The assessee had acquired office premises during the previous year under appeal, at Barodawala Mansion, Worli. The premises were acquired as tenants. As part of the deal, the assessee had paid the amount of Rs. 1,40,31,000 for acquiring the premises on perpetual lease. The amount was paid by the assessee to the outgoing tenants for vacating the premises earlier held by them. The owners of the property are not liable to...

Global Home Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Jt. Cit, (Appeals)

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These are two appeals filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment years are 1997-98 and 1998-99. The appeals are directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) VI at Mumbai dated 29-11-2001. The appeal arise out of the assessments completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacture of medicines and Lacto Calomine. The assessee had entered into a Non-Compete Agreement with M/s. Duphar Interfran Ltd. (DIL) on 3-7-1996, within the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal. The assessee-company had purchased the brand name of Lacto Calomine from M/s. DIL for the consideration stated in the agreement. Thereby the assessee has become the owner of the brand name with all other attendant rights relating to Lacto Calomine. The Non-compete Agreement entered into by the assessee-company with M/s.DIL was in addition to earlier sale agreement of brand name. As per the Non-Compete Agreement, th...

Jitendra Panchal Vs. the Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008CriLJ974

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. The learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respondents waive service on behalf of the respective respondents. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.2. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 25-4-2007 passed by the Special Judge for the NDPS Court, Mumbai in Remand Application No. 96 of 2007 in NDPS Special Case No. 67 of 2007 while seeking to quash the prosecution in the said special case against the petitioner.3. On 17-10-2002 the officers of the Detroit Field Office of the U.S. Drug Enforcement seized a consignment of 1243 pounds (565.2 Kgs.) of hashish in Newwark, U.S.A. The said hashish was found concealed in a consignment of pickles of the company named Mahesh Food Products of Mumbai (India) and exported to a company called the House of Spice in Newwark, U.S.A. The seizure of contraband goods was effected as a consequence of the joint operation carried out by the DEA of U.S.A., the Narcotic Control B...

Tata Tea Limited (Bombay) Employees' Union Vs. Tata Tea Limited and An ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)ALLMR166; 2007(6)BomCR491; [2007(115)FLR1026]; (2008)ILLJ167Bom; 2008(1)MhLj328

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The award of the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 156 of 1985 has been challenged in this petition. The Reference has been rejected by the Tribunal and the claim of the Petitioners that the clerical staff is entitled to pension has been negated by the Tribunal.2. In 1948 the James Finlay & Co. (the predecessor of the Respondent Company) introduced a pension scheme for its clerical staff in India. The employees in all the branches of this company were granted benefits under the pension scheme and were informed by a circular dated 2.3.1948. The union representing the workers in the James Finlay & Co. raised demands in 1958 for the introduction of a gratuity scheme for all workers, clerical as well as sub staff. As the James Finlay & Co. did not accede to the demand raised, the dispute was referred for adjudication on 15.1.1964. An award was passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 111 of 1963 known as the Bilgrami award. Demand No. 8 pertained...

Waman Bhila Patil and ors. Vs. Jagannath Tarachand Kasliwal Since Dece ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2007(6)MhLj498

Abhay S. Oka, J.1. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties on the following substantial question of law:Whether a suit for possession filed by the respondent-auction purchaser in execution is maintainable in law in view of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?2. With a view to appreciate the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case in brief. The property subject-matter of the dispute is Gat No. 1 admeasuring 6 Hectare 12 Are from village Balwantwadi, Taluka Nandgaon, District Nasik. The suit property was purchased by the deceased original plaintiff in auction in execution of the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 62 of 1969. The sale was effected on 23rd September, 1971. The predecessor of the present appellants filed an Application for setting aside the same. On 16th August, 1973 the sale in favour of the respondent (original plaintiff) was confirmed by the Executing Cou...

Amarsey Damodar Vs. Rashtriya Cotton Kamgar General Union and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)BomCR317; [2007(115)FLR928]; (2008)ILLJ367Bom; 2007(6)MhLj840

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petitions deal with the termination of services of Manohar B. Vibhute and Baban D. Avad (for convenience they will be henceforth referred to as 'the workmen'). (Henceforth, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6190 of 1996 will be referred to as 'the management' and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1286 of 1997 will be referred to as 'the Union'). Vibhute was appointed by the management on 1-4-1984. According to the management, Vibhute was employed as an Upcountry Clerk by them on 1-10-1984 while Avad was appointed as a Peon. The Union has contended that Vibhute was employed as 'Ankdawala' and Avad was employed as 'Number Marker'.2. On 31-5-1986, letters were issued by the management to both the workmen informing them that the management had decided to reduce its local cotton business and consequently their services would stand terminated on 30-6-1986. However, the management offered to accommodate them in its sister concern from 1-7-1986 at the same salary w...