Mumbai Court January 2008 Judgments

Devidayal Rolling Mills Vs. Engineering Workers Union and Ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR344; 2008(2)BomCR9; (2008)110BOMLR317; [2008(119)FLR129]; (2009)ILLJ36Bom; 2008(4)MhLj607

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. All these three petitions treated to be under Article 227 of the Constitution raise a common challenge and that is the judgment and order dated 10/4/1996 rendered by the learned Member of the Industrial Court at Mumbai whereby Complaint (ULP) No. 587 of 1992 came to be dismissed as infructuous and Complaint (ULP) No. 1111 of 1992 was partly allowed holding that the employer -company had committed unfair labour practices under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') by declaring illegal the lock-out from 21/4/1992. Consequently the company was directed to pay the lock-out wages to the 41 workmen concerned in the complaint from 21/4/1992 to 3/2/1993. The amount deposited towards the lock out wages was directed to be adjusted against the arrears. The first two petitions have been filed by the employer - company whereas the third petition has been filed by the complainant - Union.2. Some of the relevant and undisputed facts lea...

HEM's Apparels Vs. Rashtriya Banijya Bank and Ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR342; 2008(2)BomCR557; 2008(3)MhLj503

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. None appears for the Respondents-original plaintiffs-Bank though served. Affidavit of service dated 12th June, 2006 has already been filed. It clearly indicates that proceedings have been duly served on the Respondents-plaintiffs and they have been informed that the Appeal will come up for final hearing on 12th June, 2006 or any day thereafter. Inspite of the same, no-one is appearing on behalf of the original Plaintiffs.2. By this Appeal, the Appellant is challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 7th March, 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has by a cryptic order granted a decree as prayed on the ground that no written statement is filed and accordingly under Order VIII, Rule 5 read with Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, a decree has been passed in terms of prayers (a) and (b). From the judgement and decree, we find that even the original documents have not been tendered and no eviden...

Smt. Prabhavati Jagannath Thakar (Since Deceased Through Her Heirs and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR749; 2008(2)BomCR616; (2008)110BOMLR504; 2008(4)MhLj504

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This petition seeks a direction against respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to take necessary steps to acquire lands bearing Survey Nos. 3 and 4 situate at village Kopare and land bearing Survey No.19 of Village Shivane under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners have also prayed in the alternative that if the lands have been acquired already, then the compensation should be paid to the petitioners at the rates prevailing today. The petitioners have also prayed that in the event the respondent No.6 does not require the lands for the purpose for which they were requisitioned initially, the lands should be derequisitioned and handed over to the petitioners. 2. The aforesaid lands were owned by the original petitioner's husband Dr. Jagannath Thakar. He died on 14.11.1986. The petition was filed in 1997 by the original petitioner. She expired during the pendency of this writ petition and the heirs of Dr. Jagannath Thakar and the original petitioner have ...

Shanta Shankar Jangam Vs. Zilla Parishad and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR614; 2008(2)BomCR611

Desai Ranjana, J.1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 28/11/2005 issued by respondent 2 Child Development Project Officer terminating her services as Anganwadi Madatnis (Assistant).2. According to the petitioner, she was appointed to the post of Anganwadi Assistant at Anganwadi, Taluka Mahabaleshwar, District Satara on 29/6/2001. Appointment order is not annexed to the petition. It is annexed to the affidavit of Mr. G.V. Bairagi, Child Development Project Officer, Mahabaleshwar. It shows that the petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basis and her services could be terminated without any notice.3. Termination letter dated 28/11/2005 states that the petitioner's services were terminated because according to the letter dated 24/11/2005 received from the Chief Executive Officer, Satara Zilla Parishad - respondent 1 herein, her conduct was immoral. The petitioner was, however, not served with a copy ...

Puranchandra J. Rao Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Bom)100; [2009]138ITR208(Bom)

1. Petitioner has moved this Court seeking to challenge the order dt. 9th June, 2006 passed by the Settlement Commission under Section 245D(1) of the IT Act and the order dt. 2nd Aug., 2006 under Section 142(2A) of the IT Act.2. Insofar as the order of the Settlement Commission is concerned, learned Counsel submits that the application was rejected on two counts. Firstly that there was no complexity of investigation and secondly there was no full and true disclosure.3. Insofar as 2nd order dt. 2nd Aug., 2006, it is submitted that the special audit has been ordered considering the complexity of accounts. This was done without giving a hearing to the petitioner as required by law. Apart from that it is submitted that once the authority had come to the conclusion that a special audit is required on complexity of account, the natural corollary is that this will include expression complexity of investigation, consequently order of the Settlement Commission is liable to be set aside. Our att...

Suresh Govinda Nagdeve and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008CriLJ2943

S.R. Dongaonkar, J.1. The appellant No. 1 Suresh and appellant No. 2 Hivraj are taking exception to the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned First Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia, dated 29-3-2006 in Sessions Trial No. 72/2004 by which he has convicted these appellants for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the I.P.C., and appellant No. 2 Hivraj being convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506(II) of the I.P.C. in addition. They were sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer R.I. for 6 months for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) of the I.P.C.2. Brief facts leading to the prosecution of the appellants were that; they are resident of Boda, Tah. Tiroda, District Gondia. Prosecutrix Sangharsha PW-1 is a minor girl aged about 15 years. At the time of incident, her father was serving in Mahindra & Mahindra Automotive concern at Nagpur. She along with her mother PW-3 Sangita, b...

Edc Ltd. Vs. Ccex

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)13STJ155CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is listed for admission as the amount involved in this case is less than threshold limit. On perusal of the appeal, I find that it is a Service Tax matter and 2^nd proviso of Section 35B does not apply to Service Tax matters. Hence, the appeal is admitted.2. Heard both sides. On perusal of the records, I find that at this stage the appeal itself can be disposed of, hence, I take up the appeal for disposal.3. The appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal No.GOA/CEX/SB/42/2007 dated 12.4.2007 for imposition of penalty under Section 76 read with Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) has come to the conclusion that the appellants have not come up with any reasonable grounds to attract the provisions of Section 80, so as to prove the reasonable cause for such failure and hence, upheld the penalty.4. On perusal of the records, I find that the appellants' being State Finance Corporation, were providing loans to the small industrial enterprises an...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Industrial Adhesive Enterprise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. According to the Revenue an error apparent on record arises in Tribunal's Final Order No. A-1253/C.IV/SMB/2007 dated 23.8.07 in setting aside the levy of interest under the provisions of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act and Rule 571(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The ground raised in the application is as under: (a) It is true that going by the language of Section 11AB that has been substituted with effect from 11.5.2001, no interest can be recovered on the duty that has become payable prior to 11.5.2001. But as per the provisions of Section 11AB that existed prior to this date, recovery of interest was very much possible with effect from 28.9.1996 where the short levy or short payment had occurred by reason of fraud, collusion or willful mis-statement etc. The only difference between the provisions of Section 11AB that existed prior to 11.5.2001 and the one introduced with effect from 11.5.2001 is that while the present Section 11AB provides for recovery of interest i...

Cce Vs. Parekh Platinum Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)(129)ECC76

1. This is revenue's appeal. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant have initially filed a refund claim for Rs. 11,25,046/- in respect of duty paid by them as per directions of the department.Appellants were clearing their goods by claiming exemption under Notification No. 4/97 dated 1.3.97 under Sr. No. 163 and 164. However show cause notice was issued to them stating that this exemption was not available to them and accordingly during the investigation they paid an amount of Rs. 10,54,713/- and another amount of Rs. 70,333/- on 11.7.98. The proceedings were ultimately dropped by Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 1.9.99 on appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Respondents therefore filed a refund claim for Rs. 11,25,046/- on 17.9.99 paid by them on the impugned goods and this claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the claim was time barred as duty was not paid under protest as the procedure prescribed under Rule 233...

Pransukhlal and Sons Jewellers Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)116TTJ(Mum.)197

1. All these appeals belonging to same group have been heard together and are being disposed of by the common order for the sake of convenience.2. All these appeals are against the orders of the CIT(A) confirming the additions made by the AO in the block assessment proceedings. In the grounds of appeal, the assessees had challenged the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). It is also stated in the grounds that the block assessment orders are bad in law. However, in the course of assessment proceedings, the assessees in the cases of M/s Pransukhlal & Sons Jewellers and M/s Pransukhlal Brothers have raised the additional ground challenging the validity of proceedings initiated under Section 158BD of IT Act, 1961 (the Act). The additional ground being legal one was admitted by us.3. First we take up the additional ground raised by the assessee in the above two appeals. The brief facts relating to this issue are these. A search and seizure action was carried out under ...