Mumbai Court February 2008 Judgments

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Pauls Engineering Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)13STJ262CESTAT(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order-in-appeal No.PII/BKS/45/07 dated 29/03/2007 vide which the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order-in-original which sanctioned the refund of the respondents, but credited to the same to the Consumer Welfare Fund.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents were manufactures of engineering goods and utilized the services of Goods Transport Operators and had to pay the Service Tax for the period 16/11/97 to 01/06/98 as service receiver after the retrospective amendment were made. While paying such service tax, the respondents did not realize that they were eligible for the benefit of the Notification No. 43/97-CE dated 05/11/97, which, exempted a SSI unit, registered with DIC from payment of Service Tax on receipt of services of GTO and filed refund claim. The adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund claim and credited the same to the Consumer Welfare Fund under the provisions of Section 12C of the Centr...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. V.M. Salgaonkar and Bros. Pvt 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.Goa/Cex/MP/101/ST/2007 dated 12/09/2007.3. The revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules 6(3) and 6(5). It is the submission of the Ld. SDR that the respondent in this case has not maintained separate records for utilization of the credit taken and the services received by them for exempted and for the non-exempted categories. He submits that the provisions of Rule 6(3)(c) will be applicable and the respondent is entitled to utilize only 20% of the amount of credit that is available to him as a credit. The authorised representative of the respondent on the other hand submits that the provisions as appreciated by the Commissioner (Appeals), is correct and submits that the order interprets the law as is in the Rule books. It is his submission that the credit of Service Tax paid on the services a...

Mrs. Hemlata Milind Bacchav @ Kum. Hemlata Nivrutti Kakad Vs. State of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR234; 2008(3)BomCR63; (2008)IIILLJ292Bom; 2008(3)MhLj739

Roshan Dalvi, J.1. The Petitioner belongs to Maratha caste by birth. She is married to a person belonging to Mahadev Koli, Scheduled Tribe. The Petitioner claims to belong to Mahadev Koli, Scheduled Tribe by virtue of her marriage to her husband.2. The only question for determination in this Writ Petition is whether she can claim the advantages and benefits granted to Mahadev Kolis by virtue of her marriage.3. The Petitioner has relied upon a couple certificate which does not grant the benefits claimed by her. She has also relied upon the Government Resolutions (G.Rs) dated 19th October 1959 and 16th May 1966 encouraging inter-caste marriages under which she would be eligible to all concessions granted to that Scheduled Tribe.4. The Petitioner was appointed Junior Assistant by Respondent No. 3 on 29th December 2003 under the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribe. She submitted documents for issue of Caste Certificate showing that she belonged to Scheduled Tribe which was not by birth but ...

Dr. Jaysing Baburao Ghugare Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR293

1. By this petition the Petitioner challenges the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 588 of 1991. By that order the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner who was holding the post of Joint Director of Agricultural, State of Maharashtra challenged the order passed by the State of Maharashtra imposing punishment of compulsory retirement on him for the misconduct which he was found to have committed. The Petitioner was working as in-charge Director of Horticulture between 1-7-1981 to 20-7-1982. Thereafter, he was appointed as Director of Horticulture, Maharashtra State. He was working as Director of Horticulture between February, 1982 and December, 1982. It was found that during this period certain action of the Petitioner amounted to misconduct. Therefore, the Government ordered departmental enquiry to be held against him. That order was made on 28-2-1986. A charge sheet le...

Narayan Sukhtankar, Carrying on Business in the Name of Suman Art Prin ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008(118)FLR608]; 2008(4)MhLj64

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Writ Petition takes exception to the Judgment and Order (Award) passed by the Presiding Officer, 12th Labour Court, Mumbai dated 23rd March 2004 in Reference (IDA) No. 460 of 1995. The Respondent No. 1 raised industrial dispute which was referred under Section 10(1) and Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication.2. According to the Respondent No. 1, he was in the employment of the Petitioner firm M/s. Suman Art Prints since 1985 and by oral intimation, was dismissed from service with effect from 2nd June 1994. According to him, he was entitled for reinstatement in service with full back wages and continuity of service with effect from 2nd June 1994. 3. The principal stand taken on behalf of the Petitioner was that the Respondent No. 1 was not employed by the Petitioner, for which reason, there was no question of illegal termination of the Respondent No. 1 as alleged. 4. The Court below examined the issue as to whether the Respondent N...

Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Vs. Unity Infraprojec ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ARBLR313(Bom); 2008(5)BomCR196

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. On 20th July 2003, the Petitioner invited tenders for the construction of 1648 tenements for the rehabilitation of project affected households at Kanjur Marg. This was a World Bank Project. The work was to be carried out in two phases. Phase I envisaged the completion of 384 tenements. Phase II involved the completion of the balance. The area where residential premises were to be constructed was densely populated and was congested with dwelling units of an informal nature. The two phase programme of work was to be in accordance with the availability of vacant space for the construction of buildings. The contractor was to initially complete three or four buildings and upon the shifting of project affected families in the space which would be vacated, other buildings were to be constructed. The contractor was on notice that he would have to coordinate the work in such a manner as would avoid any hindrance in progress of the work 'for which he would not be paid any ...

Sarla Performance Fibers Ltd. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(129)ECC126; 2008(155)LC126(Bombay); 2009[16]STR392

The petitioners are the appellants before the CESTAT. The appellants had applied for waiver of pre-deposit being consignor and not consignee. That application was disposed of by order dated 16th July, 2007. The petitioners were called upon to deposit the amount of Rs. 1,20,00,000/-. For the reasons set out in para.3 of the order the application for modification was rejected. While so holding the Tribunal noted that the Tribunal has by and large taken a view that such cases warrant for unconditional stay of waiver of pre-deposit. The Tribunal found that the petitioners contention was that the A.O. had been taking inconsistent stand. However, this was not advanced by the appellants before them. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Baron International Ltd., where this Court took a view that modification can be sought only on grounds arising out of the change in circumstances which was not so in the present case. The application was rejected.2. The case of the petitioners is t...

Mrs. Shabnum Syed Ahmed Kalanter Zadeh Vs. the State of Maharashtra Th ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)110BOMLR720

S.A. Bobde, J.1. The petitioner is the sister-in-law of the detenu, one Syed Mohammad Kalanter Zadeh, who has been detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the 'COFEPOSA Act'). The detenu is a resident of India, but is a National of Iran. The petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 2.6.2007 issued by the respondent No. 2, the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Security), Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and Detaining Authority, directing his detention with a view to preventing him in future from smuggling of goods. The order of detention was served on the detenu along with the grounds of detention.2. The order of detention is based on several antecedents of the detenu which suggest that action had been taken in the past against him for illegal importing or smuggling of saffron. Having regard, however, to the controversy raised in the petition, it is sufficient to refer to the ...

R.R. Tripathi and Gaurang Dinesh Damani Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) T ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(2)ALLMR591; 2008(4)BomCR688

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitioners, who claim to be public spirited persons and have taken up various issues of public importance in public interest, have filed this public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the grant of extension of service to (i) Dr. P.S. Pasricha, Director General of Police, Maharashtra State (Respondent No. 6), and (ii) Shri D.N. Jadhav, Commissioner of Police, Mumbai (respondent No. 7) on the ground that it is contrary to the service Rules. The service profile of these officers, particularly of respondent No. 6, against whom incriminating documents have been found and an Inquiry Committee was constituted, do not deserve extension in such a high public office. Besides this, they have further prayed that respondent No. 3 be directed to comply with the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh v. Union of India : (2006)8SCC1 , and set up a Police Establishment Bo...

Smt. Trupti Tukaram Matkar Alias Shetkar, Widow of Shri Tukaram Uttam ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR816; (2008)110BOMLR653; 2008(2)MhLj809

N.A. Britto, J.1. Admit. By consent heard forthwith. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 19-8-2006 of the learned M.A.C.T., Mapusa, dismissing the Claim Petition filed by the Appellants herein. 3. The parties hereto shall be referred to as the Claimants and Respondents, respectively. The Claimant No. 1 is the widow and Claimant No. 2 is the brother of deceased driver of bus No. GA-01 v. 5535. 4. The accident took place on 6-6-2003 at about 2 p.m. while deceased was driving the said bus. It was the case of the Claimants that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the road roller by Respondent No. 1 owned by Respondent No. 2 and insured with Respondent No. 3. As per the said Claimant the said roller was used in the process of levelling and tarring of the road. 5. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not contest the petition but Respondent No. 3 filed a written statement, inter alia, pleading that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent ...