Mumbai Court January 2008 Judgments

Mohan S/O Shamrao Mohite Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Muktaina ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008BomCR(Cri)781

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. This appeal arises out of Judgment rendered by Special Judge, Jalgaon, in Special Case No. 5 of 2005. By the impugned Judgment, appellant - Mohan has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (For short 'the N.D.P.S. Act') and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rs. One Lac) in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two and half years.2. The prosecution case is that on 6th July 2005, Police Inspector -Dnyandeo Gaware, who was then attached to Muktainagar Police Station, received a secret information to the effect that one person was waiting for arrival of someone by side of road at village Kurha and there were six bags of ganja by his side. P.I. Mr. Gaware instructed Head Constable Mr. Pachpande, attached to Kurha outpost, to keep vigil on the activities of said person. He gave information to the Dy.Superinten...

Shri S.C. Naik, Assistant Works Manager, India Government Mint and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR764; 2008(3)BomCR201; [2008(117)FLR906]; 2008(3)MhLj292

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. The petition has been filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, dismissing the Original Applications filed by the petitioners, on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to decide whether the petitioners were entitled to payment of overtime wages at the rates prescribed Under Section 59 of the Factories Act.2. The petitioners are employed as Engineers/Melters, Section Grade Engineers/Melters, etc. in the India Government Mint i.e. Respondent No.2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 issued orders reducing the overtime allowance and night shift allowance payable to the Petitioners and other employees. The petitioners therefore preferred Original Application Nos.1352 of 1995, 354 of 1996 and 769 of 1996 claiming that they were entitled to overtime allowance for working between 37 hours and 48 hours in a week as also for working beyond 48 hours in a week. The Central Administrative Tribunal has dismissed the Original Applications by a common judgment dated 14....

Prashant Bansilal Bamb Vs. Shri Nand Lal, State Election Commissioner ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)BomCR119; (2008)110BOMLR690; 2008(3)MhLj346

B.R. Gavai, J.1. The present petition has been filed by the original petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6389/2006, thereby pointing out to the notice of this Court the acts of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, which, according to the petitioner amounts to contempt of court. 2. An order dated 20th June, 2006 prescribing reservation of seats in the electoral divisions of Aurangabad District for Zilla Parishad General Elections, 2007 was issued by the Election Commission for the State of Maharashtra. Writ Petition No. 5386/2006 came to be filed raising a grievance that the reservation of seats for the said elections was not in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis (Manner and Rotation of Reservation of Seats) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said rules' for the same of brevity). The said petition was heard finally by the Division Bench of this CourtThe main grievance of the petitioners in the said petition was that as the said rules we...

Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. Vs. the Asstt. Commissioner of Wealth Tax ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)BomCR694; (2008)215CTR(Bom)405

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Admit. 3. The appellant has pressed this appeal on the following question. Whether a flat in a tenant co-operative housing society which is transferred to the name of an assessee on 17th April, 1993 and which comes to the legal ownership of the assessee only on that date, can be said to be 'belonging' to the assessee as on the valuation date of 31st March, 1993 so as to be liable to wealth tax for the assessment year 1993-944. A few jurisdictional facts. There is no dispute that the society had granted no objection to the previous member to sell the property before 1.4.1993. There is also no dispute that there was an agreement to sell between the appellant and the previous owner and full consideration had been paid before 1.4.1993. There is also no dispute that the resolution was passed by the society admitting the appellant as a member before 1.4.1993. There is a further finding that the appellant themselves included the sai...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Deodhar Electro Design P. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Bom)149; [2008]300ITR103(Bom)

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Notice was served on the respondent that the matter would be finally decided. None present for the respondent.The Revenue has preferred this appeal on the following question:The question is whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in allowing the claim made by the assessee under Section 80HHC to the extent of Rs. 3,45,120?2. In the instant case, the respondent preferred an appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the export profits for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC(1) shall be the profit related to the export of goods manufactured by the respondent computed by allocating over all profits of the business in the ratio of export turnover of the manufactured goods to the total turnover of the manufactured goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) also noted that the working of profit for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC(1...

Kishor N. Lulla Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)BomCR478

Dharmadhikari S.C., J.1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Appellate Authority viz., State of Maharashtra dated 13th June, 2007 confirming notice which has been issued on 31st August, 2004 and a copy of which is annexed as Exh.D to the petition.2. The Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation invoked Section 56 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (M.R.T.P. Act) and stated therein that the Chief Officer of the erstwhile Municipal Council approved the plan for additions and alterations of Shop No. 829 for the purpose of development to the extent of 33.69 sq.mtrs. on 20th January 1972 on each of the floor of ground plus upper floor structure. The report of the Junior Engineer is referred to in the notice and thereafter, it is stated that the petitioner was authorised to use the property to the extent indicated therein. However, the sanctioned development plan came into force with effect from 1st July 197...

Smita International Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)(127)ECC234

1. Vide the impugned order the Commissioner of Customs has suspended the CHA licence granted to the appellants herein on the ground that their activities of subletting their CHA licence which resulted in attempted export of Red Sanders/Sandal Wood Logs mis-declared as Metal Lamp Stands was detrimental to the national interest and that immediate action of suspension was necessary.2. We have heard both sides. We find force in the appellants' submission that statements relied upon against them were recorded under the provisions of Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, which cannot be relied upon in proceedings under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations 2004, in the light of the ratio of the Tribunal's decision in Thakkar Shipping Agency v. CCE, Bombay wherein it has been held that statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962 cannot be used as evidence under CHALR and that recording of evidence and offering the persons for cross examination is mandatory under Cla...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Nippon Denro Ispat Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order-in-appeal No.PKA/761 to 763/M-III & NGP/2001 dated 21/09/2001, vide which allowed the appeal filed by the respondent in respect of the refund claims, which were rejected by order-in-original No. 256 to 258/Div.II/99 dated 05/01/2000.3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the refund claim filed by the appellants subsequent to the modification of the classification list filed by the respondents. The adjudicating authority modified the classification list filed by the respondents and due to such modification the assessee sought refund of their excess differential duty paid by them. The adjudicating authority rejected all the refund claims filed by the respondents. On an appeal filed by the respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order-in-original which rejected refund claim, except the order-in-original No. 256 to 258/Div-II/99 dated 05/1/2000.4. The contention of the Ld. SDR is that the Commissioner (Appeal...

Shri Siddaram Ramchandra Shinde Vs. the Chief Engineer and Member, Ind ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR339; 2008(3)BomCR199; [2008(117)FLR230]; 2008(3)MhLj520

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This Petition impugns the Judgement and order dated 16-1-1996 rendered by the Industrial Court at Pune thereby dismissing Comp(ULP)No. 104/1990 filed by the Petitioner and consequently his prayer for promotion to the post of Assistant Operator and Operator from the date Shri Otari was granted same promotions respectively, was rejected.2. It is not disputed that the Petitioner joined the Respondent Board which is a State Government undertaking, as a junior operator on 9-11-1970 and he was confirmed in the year 1971. Mr. M.M. Otari came to be appointed as a junior operator on 7-7-1972 and he was promoted to the post of Assistant Operator on 10-1-1979. The Petitioner was promoted for the first time to the post of Assistant Operator w.e.f. 5-1-1980 and thereafter he was promoted to the post of operator from 1-1-1984. Six years later he approached the Industrial Court and filed Complaint(ULP) No. 104/1990 under Section 28(1) read with Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of Ma...

Prataprao Narayan Pawar Vs. Ramchandra S/O Dalichand Sancheti (Decease ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR149; 2008(3)BomCR226; 2008(3)MhLj130

R.M. Borde, J.1. This is an appeal by the original defendant No. 4 challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Amalner on 15-4-2006 thereby partly allowing the appeal preferred by the appellants/original plaintiffs.2. Appellant/original defendant No. 4 is purchaser of the suit property from defendant No. 1 deceased Harkchand Sancheti. Regular Civil Suit No. 80/1980 came to be instituted by the plaintiffs seeking partition and possession of the agricultural land gat No. 93 admeasuring 4 H 10 R situated at village Dapore, Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon contending that the said suit property is joint family property of the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 Uttamchand, and they were jointly cultivating the said land. It is contended that said suit claiming partition and separate possession came to be dismissed in default. Miscellaneous Application No. 5/86 for restoration of said suit came to be rejected by trial court on 27-1-1988. Miscellaneous c...