Mumbai Court April 2008 Judgments

Kisanveer Satara Ssk Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses which were being cleared by them on payment of duty. The appellant were having a distillery plant and part of the molasses were being cleared to this distillery plant on the basis of comparable price of some other units which was disputed by the department and consequently demanded duty amounting Rs. 29,68,106/- for the period January 1995 to September 1996. In the earlier round of proceedings, the matter has gone up to the Commissioner (Appeals) and it was remanded to the original adjudicating authority who confirmed the demand of Rs. 11,77,971/-.Thereafter the matter again reached up to the Tribunal and the demand was finally reduced to Rs. 8,53,079/- for the period January 1995 to April 1995. During the intervening period the appellants have paid an Amount of Rs. 11,77,791/- along with interest of Rs. 6,46,899/-. As a consequence of the Tribunal's order the appellants have filed a refund claim for an amount of R...

Rpg Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal has been filed by M/s RPG Enterprises Ltd. Mumbai against the Order-in-Appeal dated 29.9.2005 by which the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai, Zone I, confirmed the Order-in-Original dated 23.2.05 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Division K III, Mumbai IV. The Deputy Commissioner, vide his order dated 23.2.05, confirmed the demand notice issued to the appellants amounting to Rs. 4,89,65,321/- under Section 73(1)(a) of the Finance Act, 1994: Me imposed a penalty of Rs. 500/- under Section 75A of the said Act for failure to obtain registration under Service Tax; Me also levied interest @ 18% p.a. from 16.10.98 to 16.8.01, @24% upto 16.8.02 and 15% p.a. w.e.f. 17.8.02 for the period by which the credit of the said Service Tax is delayed as provided under Section 75 of the Act ibid; The appellants were also directed to pay in addition to paying Service Tax. and interest as above, a penalty of Rs. 200/- for every day during which such failur...

Chate Coaching Classes Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Managing Director, Shri M ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)BomCR562; 2008(4)MhLj840

A.H. Joshi, J.1. The Writ Petition is listed on board for hearing on Civil Application No. 2043 of 2008.2. On 6th December, 2005, this Court had ordered Rule returnable early and stayed coercive recovery for a further period of eight weeks. This Court had also ordered some deposit lateron. Parties, therefore, agree for final hearing of this petition. Hence the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing.3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. S.G. Hindaria, Advocate for petitioner and Mr. S.S. Jajoo, Advocate holding for Mr. J.T. Gilda, Advocate for respondents.4. The Office of the District Court had raised objections to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground of:[a] valuation of appeal involving a claim Rs. 4,78,394-00, which renders it beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of District Court, and[b] two separate appeals ought to have been filed.5. The learned Joint District Judge, Amravati, accepted the objection and directed return of appeals by Order dated 4th January, 2005.6. This order is c...

Associated Breweries and Distilleries and anr. Vs. Shiv Smruti Investm ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008(3)ALLMR793; 2008(5)BomCR926; 2008(4)MhLj800

ORDERD.B. Bhosale, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.This chamber summons is taken out by the plaintiffs seeking amendment of the plaint under Section 21(5) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. By way of an amendment the plaintiffs intend to insert the following prayer in the plaint and make the other consequential amendments of paragraph 19 and 23 thereof:(i) Order and decree the defendants No. 1 and 2 jointly and/or severally to pay to the plaintiffs and/or the 2nd plaintiff an amount of Rs. 9,00,00,000/- as per particulars of Claim annexed at Exhibit 'UU' to the Plaint along with interest thereon @ 18% per annum till payment and/or realization.2. So far as other proposed prayers, as seen in the schedule of amendment, being prayer Clause (ii) and (iii) are concerned, the learned senior Counsel for the plaintiffs, on instructions, prayed for withdrawal of these prayers from the schedule. These two prayers are accordingly allowed to be withdrawn. Mr. Thakkar, learned senior Couns...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajkaur Ranjitsingh Bhatti and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006ACJ2710; 2008(6)ALLMR283; 2008(6)BomCR360; 2008(4)MhLj645

A.S. Oka, J.1. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties were heard on 18th March, 2008. As the Admission Board was very heavy, after concluding the hearing, the Judgment was reserved and the Appeal is kept today for dictation of the Judgment.2. The appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has taken an exception to the Judgment and Award dated 4th October, 1999 passed by the Ex-Officio Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigad-Alibag. The first and Second respondents are the original claimants who filed a claim petition invoking Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1988').3. According to the first and second respondents, the accident occurred on 30th July, 1992. According to the case of the first and second respondents, deceased Ranjit Singh Bhatti was employed as a driver with M/s Total Carriers P. Ltd. The said employer (respondent No. 3 herein) was the owner of the heavy goods vehicle No. MH-06 7121. At the...

Vidyut Metallics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dineshchandra Tiwari

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2008(117)FLR987]; (2008)IIILLJ159Bom

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, by consent of counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent waives service. By consent of counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The respondent was engaged as an employee and was working as a Helper in the Excise Department. It is alleged by the employer that on August 11, 2005, based on a statement made by one of the employees of the Company involving a theft of the company's property, an investigation was carried out by the police and a search at the residence of the respondent revealed a substantial amount of material belonging to the company. On this allegation, the respondent was suspended and a charge sheet was issued on August 24, 2005. A disciplinary enquiry was initiated on an allegation of misconduct. The respondent was acquitted from a Criminal case which was registered against him by an order of the Judicial Magistrate. The Enquiry Officer held the respondent guilty of the charges th...

Evans Fraser (India) Limited Vs. Trig Detectives Private Limited

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2009]148CompCas613(Bom)

Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. M/s. Trig Detectives Private Limited, hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-company', a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', filed a petition for winding up under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Act. ,The respondent-company gave its offer on March 16, 2000 to M/s. Evans Fraser and Co. (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-company')/ for supply of security services. This offer was accepted by the appellant-company on April 13, 2000 and security guards and supervisors were provided by the respondent-company to the appellant-company with effect from April, 2000. The bills were raised from time to time. During the period, when the bills were raised, some payments were also made. However, the entire dues of the respondent-company were not cleared. On this premise, the respondent-company through its advocates served a statutory notice dated February 3, 2006, under Section 43...

Aba @ Dinkar Girdhar Koli Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008CriLJ2516

V.R. Kingaonkar, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to Judgment dated 27th August, 1996, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner, in Sessions Case No. 23 of 1996, whereby appellant, named above, has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 376 of the I.P. Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five (5) years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three (3) months.2. Briefly stated, background facts giving rise to the prosecution are as follows:The residential houses of prosecutrix (PW Shashikala) and the appellant are situated in proximity of each other. The appellant called her in one room at his house. He committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and threatened her not to tell the incident to anyone in the vicinity. He threatened her that she would be done to death if she would disclose such incident to anyone else including her parents. The prosecutrix was later on called by the appellant to his hous...

Ramesh Govind Thakur Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2008CriLJ2169

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The Appellant herein was charged for the offence of murder of Hiravati @ Hiru Shankar Narkar by assaulting her with sickle and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge was framed on 11th March, 2005. The learned Sessions Judge after examining the witnesses by his judgment dated 15th July, 2005 convicted the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. It is this against this order that the Appellant is in Appeal before this Court.2. On behalf of the Appellant his learned Advocate submits that there are no eye witnesses and the prosecution case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution it is submitted before the Sessions Court relied on the following incriminating circumstances:-Motive; Last seen; Seizure of blood stained underwear; Recovery of blood stained clothes belonging to V and of a blood stained sickle; Extra judi...

Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. Through Mine Manager Vs. Commissioner for W ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009ACJ446; 2008(3)BomCR269; [2008(118)FLR101]; 2008(3)MhLj693

C.L. Pangarkar, J.1. This is an appeal by non applicant in a Workmen's Compensation case. Respondent No. 2 who is the applicant in the original application was working as a truck driver w.e.f. 01.07.1979. He was working in the Mine run by the appellant. While the respondent was on duty from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. he met with an accident. It is alleged that heap of stones collapsed and hit him injuring his both legs. The respondent was admitted in the Medical College Hospital from 18.04.1986 to 19.06.1986. He was operated twice. He was unable to walk without the aid of crutches. He was unable therefore to do the job of a driver. The salary of the respondent was Rs. 935/-P.M. It is alleged that appellant did not pay any amount to the respondent.2. Appellant resisted the application by filing Written Statement. It does not dispute that the respondent met with an accident. He suffered injuries. It is also not disputed that he was admitted in the Medical College Hospital. Medical College had issu...