Mumbai Court February 2008 Judgments

Zade Manisha Gunderaoji and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)MhLj788

P.V. Kakade, J.1. Heard.2. Rule. Rule is made returnable by consent.3. This petition is preferred by fifty students of Respondent No. 6 Late Santaramji Rabbewar D.Ed. College, Basmat, Dist. Hingoli, seeking direction to the respondents - competent authorities to issue and accept the examination forms and fees of the petitioners for first year D.Ed, course and permit them to appear for examination, which was scheduled to be held from 23rd October, 2007, in the light of the facts and circumstances, urged before us.4. At this juncture, we may note that though the petition was filed just prior to scheduled examination, and was circulated before us on 19-10-2007, we thought it fit not to issue any interim relief without hearing the respondents and when it was apparent that last minute preparation to hold examinations under the orders of the Court would not be proper nor possible. We may further note that we are of the considered view that the petition need not be disposed of with direction ...

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)10STR467

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.SVS/143/NGP-C/2007 dated 14-3-2007 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Nagpur vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the entire Order-in-Original confirming the demand of duty and imposing penalty on the appellants, ordering recovery of interest under Section 14(sic)(Rule 14) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.2. The issue in this appeal is regarding availment of Cenvat credit on the input service (security agency) utilized by the appellants for residential colony which is adjacent to the factory. It is the contention of the Revenue that the security services utilized by the appellant would not fall under the category of input service for residential colony used directly or indirectly in the manufacture of final products. The adjudicating authority upheld the charges alleged in the show cause notice and confirmed the demand. The appellants aggrieved by such order preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (App...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Madhuri Travels

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is listed along with condonation of delay in filing the appeal.3. The application for condonation of delay specifically states that there is a delay of twenty days in filing the appeal. At the same time on perusal of the authorization, I find that the authorization does not have any date, there is only blank column, hence, it is not possible for me to come to conclusion whether the delay is only for twenty days or otherwise. Despite this, the application for condonation of delay is allowed. As the issue involved in this case is in a very narrow compass, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal.4. Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty imposed under the provisions of Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. It is the submission of the Ld. JDR that the Provisions of Section 76 have no mandate for reduction of any penalty. He reads the Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 and su...

Nilesh R. Mandra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR789; 2008(5)BomCR352; [2008(119)FLR52]; (2008)IIILLJ219Bom; 2008(3)MhLj808

Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in removing the petitioner from service.2. The petitioner served as a Booking Clerk for issuing daily tickets with respondent No. 1. A departmental enquiry came to be held against the petitioner with respect to certain manipulations in the records and overcharging a decoy passenger by Rs. 25/- whilst he served as a Booking Clerk and issued the ticket to the passenger. The Inquiry Officer recommended the punishment of removal from service upon one of the two charges being proved against the petitioner. That was the charge in respect of the overcharging of the decoy passenger by Rs. 25/-. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the recommendation and removed the petitioner from service. Appeal therefrom failed on 19.6.2002. A further order was passed in revision by the Revisional Authority on 10.10.2002. An Original Application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which, by its order dated 1...

Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation Through Commissioner Vs. Shri Pr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR269; 2008(3)BomCR720; 2008(3)MhLj686

J.H. Bhatia, J.1. This application is preferred by the Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation the original defendant, seeking to challenge the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division Kalyan below Exhibit 30 holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent is not barred by Section 149 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act (In brief 'M.R.T.P.Act') and the plaint is not liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. To state in brief, it is the case of the plaintiff/respondent that he is resident of Kalyan city and has also some property within the limits of Municipal Corporation. The defendant/Corporation is the local authority and is also planning authority for the corporation area under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and under the M.R.T.P. Act. It is contended that this Corporation was constituted on 1-10-1983. Even before that there was development plan prepared in the year 1980 for Kalyan, which is withi...

Capt. Harcharanjit Singh Thind by His Constituted Attorney, Mr. Porus ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR330; 2008(6)BomCR771; 2008(3)MhLj587

N.A. Britto, J. 1. Admit. By consent, heard forthwith. 2. This appeal is directed against order dated 9/11/2006 by which the application for temporary injunction, filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed. 3. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose of the present appeal. 4. The appellant is the plaintiff in C.S. No. 47/2006 and shall be referred to as plaintiff, hereinafter. The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 (defendant, for short) were divorced by a decree dated 20/06/1998. The plaintiff executed a power of attorney in favour of the defendant on 13/09/2005, but revoked the same by a notice published on 12/10/2005, and again revalidated the same by another notice dated 10/12/2005. 5. The said power of attorney, had amongst others, the following clauses:9. To negotiate, agree to sell, dispose off or transfer by way of exchange, lease (whether permanent, for long or short period) the entire property or any part thereof, at such terms which my said lawful general attorney at her so...

Sanjay Sadashiv Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Depa ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)MhLj262

A.H. Joshi, J.1. On 20th February, 2008, the present petition was listed for admission-hearing, when, on hearing the petitioner's Advocate and learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, this Court had passed interim order with liberty to the respondents to apply. Accordingly, respondent No. 4 has appeared and filed application for vacation of interim order. 2. Parties agree that question involved pertains to interpretation of rules and effect of certain judgments, and, therefore, the petition can be taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission-hearing itself. Hence Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent. FACTS3. The subject-matter of this petition pertains to elections to the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Malkapur. The election programme was published. The petitioner and the respondent No. 4 were amongst the contesting candidates from the Seva Sahakari Sanstha category within the class Agriculturists. 4. Petitioner's nomination paper has been rejected...

Union of India (Uoi) Through Textile Commissioner Vs. Bhagwati Cottons ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR63; IV(2008)BC73; 2008(5)BomCR909; 2008(2)CTLJ180(Bom)

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Suit, filed on 8th April 1999, against the Defendants, is for recovery of sum of Rs. 3,46,07,726/-(Rupees Three Crores Forty-six Lakhs Seven Thousand Seven Hundred & Twenty-six) with further interest on the principal sum of Rs. 2,10,25,350/-(Rupees Two Crores Ten Lakhs Twenty-five Thousand Three Hundred Fifty) at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of filing of the Suit until payment/realisation thereof. The Suit is already decreed ex-parte against the Defendant No. 1. It now proceeds against Defendant No. 2 only. 2. The Plaintiffs assert that the Office of the Textile Commissioner in the Ministry of Textiles of India used to release quota of raw cotton and cotton wastes for exports from time to time as per the then prevailing exim policy. As per the quota released, the Textile Commissioner issues Memorandum in the beginning of each cotton year specifying the terms and conditions for export of raw cotton and cotton wastes. That the Defendant No. 1 and GPB...

Ratnadeep Builders Vs. Baburao Tukaram Mangale

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)MhLj696

N.A. Britto, J.1. Admit. By consent heard forthwith.2. This appeal is directed against Order dated 25-10-2007 of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Ponda by which the defence of the appellant (hereinafter referred to as defendant) has been struck out in the light of the provision of Rule 11, Order 39, Civil Procedure Code which reads as follows:11. Procedure on parties defying orders of Court, and committing breach of undertaking to the Court - (1) Where the Court orders any party to a suit or proceeding to do or not to do a thing during the pendency of the suit or proceeding, or where any party to a suit or proceeding gives any undertaking to the Court to do or to refrain from doing a thing during the pendency of the suit or proceeding, and such party commits any default in respect of or contravenes such order or commits a breach of such undertaking, the Court may dismiss the suit or proceeding, if the default or contravention or breach is committed by the plaintiff or the ap...

Mohd. HussaIn S/O Shaikh Abdul Rahman Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR754; 2008(6)BomCR238; 2008(3)MhLj138

1. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the order of respondent No. 2-Scrutiny Committee dated 17/27th April, 2007, invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to 'Momin'. The petitioner, who had contested the election of Municipal Corporation, Mumbai, had submitted certain certificates which came to be referred for verification to the respondent No. 2-Scrutiny Committee. Respondent No. 2-Scrutiny Committee, for the reasons, which are to be found in the impugned order, has invalidated the tribe claim of the petitioner.2. Mr. S. B. Talekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has urged before us that the documents submitted by the petitioner are enlisted in the order of the Scrutiny Committee in the chart, which forms part of the judgment of the Scrutiny Committee and the respondent-Scrutiny Committee has misappreciated the documents at serial Nos. 11,12,13, 14,18 and 20. ...