Mumbai Court March 2008 Judgments

Anthony De Costa Antonio D. De Costa and anr. Vs. Director, Director o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR138; 2008(3)BomCR289

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard. By the present petition, the petitioners are challenging the order passed by the authority rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for joining them as party to the proceedings. The proceedings which are initiated before the lower Appellate Authority under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act related to the grievance of the respondent that regarding his complaint about the alleged blockage of access/pathway by the petitioners, the cognizance was not being taken by the Village Panchayat of Saligaon nor any action has been taken in relation to the alleged blockage of access/pathway done by the petitioners. Considering the same, the lower Appellate Authority directed the Panchayat to take cognizance of the said complaint and take appropriate action in that regard.2. It is the contention on behalf of the petitioner before disposing of the said appeal under Section 73 of Goa Panchayat Raj Act it was necessary for the respondent to join the petitioners as part...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Willingdon Sports Club

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Bom)345; [2008]302ITR279(Bom)

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal on the following substantial questions of law:(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that the entrance fees received by the assessee is capital receipt not chargeable to tax as the principle of mutuality applies?(b) Whether commuted value of subscription for the life members has to be taxed or treated as capital receipts in the light of the decision of the hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. W.I.A.A. Club Ltd. : [1982]136ITR569(Bom) ?(c) Whether the hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment orders for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94 are not erroneous and not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue so as to call for invocation of jurisdiction under Section 263 at the hands of the Commissioner of Income-tax?2. A few facts may be set out:3. The relevant assessment year is 1992-93. The respondent is governed by its rules and bye...

Suhas Anant Kulkarni Vs. Spcies and Oil Seeds Exchange and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)IIILLJ113Bom

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Both these petitions arise from the judgment and order dated June 9, 1992 passed by the Labour Court at Sangli and modified by the Industrial Court. The Labour Court had allowed the complaint and directed to pay full back wages since the date of termination i.e. February 19, 1985 till the complainant renewed his sanad as an advocate on March 28, 1986 and half wages till the date of the order i.e. June 9, 1992, whereas the Industrial Court granted reinstatement with continuity of service. Both the Company and the employee are aggrieved by the order passed by the Industrial Court on February 15, 1996, thereby partly allowing Revision Application (ULP) No. 57/92 and dismissing the Revision Application (ULP) No. 72/92.2. The first petition has been filed by the employee, whereas the second petition has been filed by the Company. While admitting the Company's petition, this Court had directed the Company as per its order dated August 19, 1997 to deposit an amount of Rs...

Rajesh Gandhi and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide the impugned order the Commissioner of Customs has held that Titanium Dioxide valued at nearly Rs. 47.5 lakhs imported by M/s.Bhagwanji G. Trivedi is liable to confiscation under the provisions of Section 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 (goods were not physically available for confiscation), confirmed duty demand of Rs. 44,35,996/- payable on the goods on the ground of violation of the provisions of Notification No. 203/92 under which they were imported duty free, for the purpose of utilization in the manufacture of export products but were instead diverted to the local market, and adjusted deposit of Rs. 18.80 lakhs against the confirmed demand and directed payment of balance duty by the importer, together with interest, and imposed penalties inter alia upon Shri Bhagwanji Trivedi. He has imposed a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs each upon M/s. H.R. Trading Co. and M/s. Consumer Plastic Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 20 lakhs on Shri Anil Parikh of M/s. H.R. Trading Co., and Rs. 5 lakh...

Jaglal S/O Premlal Jayaswal and anr. Vs. Waman S/O Shyamraoji Dhobale ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR335; 2008(6)BomCR684; 2008(4)MhLj467

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The original defendants have challenged the concurrent judgments and decrees whereby the suit of the respondents plaintiffs to restrain the appellants from entering the Field Survey No. 35/2 or 35/1-A, from going over the Dhura to reach their Field Survey No. 35/1 of village Temburkheda, came to be decreed with a declaration that the defendants have no such rights.2. The appeal has been admitted for final hearing on 14-3-1992 by raising a question as to whether the Civil Court, in a already instituted suit, can go into the correctness of the decision of Tahasildar under Section 143(3) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, which was based on the needs of the cultivators, and whether a fresh suit under Section 143(4) of the said Code was necessary, after the decision of the Tahasildar?3. The respondents - plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1 of 1982 on 28-12-1981 for declaration and injunction as mentioned above. The said suit, upon its transfer to the Court of ...

Vidyut Metallics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra Rajya Rashtriya Kamgar Sang ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2009)IILLJ387Bom; 2008(6)MhLj212

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Plaintiff carries on the business of manufacturing razor blades and employs about 1,260 employees in its factories situated in the Mumbai and Thane regions. Some of the employees of the Plaintiff are stated to be members of the Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha while others are employees of the Vidyut Metallics Employees Union (VMEU) which was formed in 2001. There is a third trade union by the name of Maharashtra Rajya Kamgar Sabha which is stated to claim a representation of about 18 employees. The Maharashtra Rajya Kamgar Sabha is the First Defendant to these proceedings.2. The case of the Plaintiff is that the First Defendant has indulged in violent activities including cases of alleged assault on the workmen. Some time in the year 2004, the Plaintiff instituted a complaint of unfair labour practices under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 in which an interim order was passed by the Industrial Court at Than...

National Education and Social Trust Through Its Secretary Vs. State of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR787; 2008(4)MhLj778

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This Petition is directed against the Judgement and order dated 2-12-1998 rendered by the School Tribunal at Pune thereby allowing Appeal No. 64/1995 and by the said order the Respondent No. 1 Teacher was directed to be reinstated in service and to pay the full salary from the date of termination i.e. 30-4-1995 till the date of reinstatement. The Petition was admitted by this Court on 23-3-1999 and the undertaking of the petitioner management to the effect that the Respondent Teacher would be reinstated in service w.e.f. 1-4-1999 and on that condition stay was granted to the order of backwages. There is no dispute that the Respondent Teacher has been reinstated w.e.f. 1-4-1999 and he continues to be in service as of now. Therefore, the only issue that requires consideration is whether the School Tribunal was justified in directing the payment of full salary w.e.f. 30-4-1995 till the date of reinstatement i.e. 1-4-1999.2. The Respondent Teacher possesses the qualif...

Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and the Head Master, Janata Vidyalaya Vs. Shr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(5)ALLMR151; 2008(3)BomCR577; (2008)IIILLJ822Bom; 2008(4)MhLj891

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This Petition is directed against the Judgement and order dated 20-8-1998 rendered by the School Tribunal at Kolhapur thereby allowing Appeal No. 35/1997. The Respondent was ordered to be reinstated in service with Janata Vidyalaya as a Lab. Attendant and to pay him full backwages including allowances w.e.f. 26-11-1994 till he would be actually reinstated. While admitting this Petition by the order dated 15-2-1999 the impugned order was stayed to the extent of payment of backwages on the condition that the Respondent No. 1-appellant would be reinstated in service within two weeks. Mr. Pakale, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that he has been accordingly reinstated from 24-2-1999 and he is in service at present. Hence, the only issue that is required to be considered is the payment of backwages.2. The appellant was appointed in the post of Peon by the present Petitioners w.e.f. 1-12-1977 and he came to be promoted to the post of Laboratory Attendant w.e...

Gharda Chemicals Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)BomCR617; (2008)14VST413(Bom)

R.S. Mohite, J.1. Rule, By consent of the parties rule made returnable forthwith and parties are heard.2. This writ petition filed by M/s. Gharda Chemicals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner'.) seeks a writ of mandamus or a direction directing the Commissioner of Sales Tax (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondent') to grant interest to the petitioner under Section 44A of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.3. The brief relevant facts of the case are as follows.a) By an assessment order dated 31.3.1997 the Asset. Commissioner of Sales Tax (Adam) (M-85), Arranger granted refund of RPS. 79,00,000/- to the petitioner in respect of the period 1.4.1993 to 31.3.1994 This order was set aside by a sue moot revision order by the Revisions authority by his order dated 16.1.1998. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order in revision, preferred appeal being Appeal No. 18/1998 before the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal and by his judgment and order dated 13.6.2003, the Tribunal allowed ...

The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Gharda Chemicals Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)14VST418(Bom)

R.S. Mohite, J.1. This is an application preferred by the Commissioner of Sales Tax (hereinafter referred to as the 'applicant') against Gharda Chemicals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent'). The applicant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15.10.2005 passed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal in Reference Application No. 131 of 2003. By the impugned judgment and order the Tribunal rejected the applicant's request for referring the questions as framed by the applicant in his reference application for answer by this Court.2. The brief facts of the case are as under.a) The respondent filed its return before the Sales Tax authorities for the period from 1.4.1993 to 31.3.1994. The return filed for the aforesaid period was a Nil return and there was no claim for refund in the return as filed.b) The return came to be assessed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sale Tax ( Adm) (M-85) Ratnagiri. Below the assessment order, the date of making of the assessment order was ...