Mumbai Court October 2010 Judgments

Anil S/O Narsingrao Khule, Aged About 34 Years, Vs. Assistant Commissi ...

Court: Mumbai Nagpur

1. This Court has issued Notice for final disposal and accordingly I have heard Shri M.V. Mohokar, learned Counsel for Petitioner and Shri Fulzele, learned A.G.P. for respondent. Matter is heard finally by issuing Rule, making it returnable forthwith, by consent of parties.2. Challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order of Labour Court, Akola dated 14.01.2000 dismissing ULPA Complaint No. 295/1995 filed by the present petitioner and the subsequent judgment dated 02.01.2010 passed by the Industrial Court, Akola dismissing the ULP Revision No.11/2000 preferred under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act.3. Shri M.V. Mohokar, learned Counsel for petitioner has contended that after the petitioner entered the service, the terms and conditions of the appointment order became irrelevant and Service Rules were determinative. No show cause notice or any opportunity was given to the petitioner and for not disclosing the p...

The Board of Management of the Bombay Properties of the Indian Institu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2011Bom53

1. This petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 15th February, 2010 passed by the Central Information Commissioner (for short "the CIC") holding that the petitioner is a public authority as defined under Section 2(h)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short "the Act") and directing the petitioner to provide the complete information to the present respondent No.3 before 5th March, 2010. This petition was filed on 4th March, 2010 and appeared before the Court for the first time on 17th March, 2010 and the Court had not granted stay to the impugned order. 2. The petitioner is the Board of Management of the Mumbai properties of the Indian Institute of Science at Bangalore (for short "the Institute") and the said Institute is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India and is also a deemed University and financed by the Government of India. Late Shri Jamsetjee Nusserwanjee Tata had...

Cipla Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-iii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

P.G. Chacko This application seeks waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of CENVAT credits totalling to over Rs.2.68 crores and penalty amounting to over Rs.1.96 crores. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeal itself has to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, we take up the appeal. 2. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner denied CENVAT credit on certain capital goods and on certain input services for the period from April 2004 to December 2007. The said capital goods were installed in the Research and Development wing of the appellant. The said input services were used in or in relation to the construction of the RandD wing. The learned Commissioner found that the RandD wing was not a part of the registered factory premises and, therefore, he took the view that the appellant was not entitled to CENVAT credit on the capital goods installed in the RandD wing or on th...

Promoters and Builders Association of Pune,and ors. Vs. the State of M ...

Court: Mumbai

1) By this common judgment we propose to dispose of the above four writ petitions, since the issues raised in all these petitions are overlapping.2) Insofar as the Writ Petition No. 785 of 2008 is concerned, the same is filed by the Promoters and Builders Association of Pune. The said association is a duly registered association/ trust under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. By this petition, the association is espousing the cause of its members, who have received notices from the Respondents demanding payment of royalty and penalty on the ground that they had carried out excavation for the purpose of laying foundation of the building without lawful authority. The said notice cum demand has been issued to the respective members purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Revenue Code" for the sake of brevity). According to the members of the Petitioner/ Association, ...

Schering Corporation, a Corporation Organized and Existing Under the L ...

Court: Mumbai

1. This appeal takes exception to the order dated 14th July, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing Notice of Motion No.3459 of 2004. That Notice of Motion was taken out by the Appellants seeking certain interim reliefs in Suit no.3419 of 2004. The civil suit was filed by the present Appellants seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining the PVR 3 app548/07 Defendants-Respondents from infringing the Plaintiffs registered trade mark NETROMYCIN and from passing off the defendants goods by using the trade mark NETMICIN. The Appellants had also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the Respondents-Defendants from using label, copy of which was filed with the Plaint, on the ground that by using that label the Defendants were passing off their goods as and for goods of the Appellants. The Appellants had also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the Respondents from infringing the copyright of the Appellants in the literary work of the package ins...

Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited, Vs. Sangli Miraj Kupwad Munici ...

Court: Mumbai

1. The petitioner-Company is, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture and sale of aerated beverages marketed under different brands. The products of the company are distributed from its plant at Roha, District Ratnagiri through its chain distributors to places like Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad.2. Respondent 1 is the Sangli Miraj Kupwad Municipal Corporation (for short, "the Corporation") constituted under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (for short, "the BPMC Act"). Respondents 2 and 3 are the officers of respondent 1. Respondent 3 is the Octroi Superintendent, who has issued the impugned Bill dated 17/2/2010 demanding Octroi from the petitioners amounting to Rs.8,22,986/-.3. The petitioners' challenge to the bill must be stated. According to the petitioners, their products are distributed and sold in returnable and reusable glass bottles. Glass bottles are stored in plastic crates. Glass bottles and crates are owned by the petitioners. They are never sold to any distri...

M/S. S.K. Sharma Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per : P.G. Chacko After examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeal itself should be summarily disposed of. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, we take up the appeal. 2. Aggrieved by Order-In-Original dated 2.5.2008 passed by the Addl.Commissioner, the appellant filed an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals) on 15.9.2008. The Order-In-Original had been received by the party on 14.6.2008. Under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, the appeal should have been presented within three months from the date of receipt of the Order-In-Original. The authorized representative of the appellant submits that 13th and 14th Sept.,2008 were holidays being Saturday and Sunday for the department and that the appeal was filed on 15.9.2008 (Monday). We have heard the ld.SDR also. Considering the relevant provisions of General Clauses Act, we find that the appeal was filed within 3 months from the date of receipt of the Order-In-Original. The ld.Commission...

Formokem (India) Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs(Export), Mumb ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per : P.G.Chacko This application seeks waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of an amount of penalty imposed on the appellant. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant received a copy of the Commissioner’s order alongwith demand notice dated 15.12.08 from Tax Recovery Cell of the New Custom House, Mumbai. Reckoned from the date of receipt of the Commissioner’s order, furnished by the ld.counsel, the appeal is within the period of limitation prescribed under the relevant provision of the Customs Act. 2. This appeal is against the Commissioner’s order which was passed in adjudication of a show-cause notice dated 29.1.99. It appears from the Commissioner s order that similar show-cause notices were issued to a large number of other parties similarly situated. All those notices were issued to dema...

M/S Jitsun Plastics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumba ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per : P.G.Chacko After examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeal itself should be summarily disposed of. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, we take up the appeal. 2. In adjudication of a show-cause notice, the original authority had confirmed a demand of Rs. 19,46,507/- as Basic Excise duty and Rs. 38,527/- as Educational Cess against the assessee and imposed equal amount of penalty on them. The original authority had also demanded interest on duty under Sec.11AB of the Central Excise Act. Aggrieved by this decision of the Joint Commissioner, the party preferred an appeal to the Commissioner(Appeals) and also filed therein an application for waiver of pre-deposit. The appellate authority directed the appellant to pre-deposit 25% of the duty amount for the purpose of Sec.35F of the Central Excise Act. This amount was not deposited by the appellant though an extension of time was granted by the appellate authority. Consequently, the ap...

Keshavrao Champatrao Khope, Aged About 57 Years, Vs. Election Returnin ...

Court: Mumbai Nagpur

1. The matter is finally heard by issuing Rule, making it returnable forthwith by consent of Shri R.L. Khapre, learned Counsel for Petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 12 and Shri Bobde, learned Counsel for respondent no.11. As only legal question needs to be decided, narration of facts separately is not necessary.2. Petitioner, a defeated candidate is challenging the judgment dated 09.12.2009 passed by the District Judge, Akola (Division at Washim) in Election Petition No.11/2008, dismissing it. Said Election Petition is under Section 27 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads, Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961.3. Shri Khapre, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has contended that the prayer made by the petitioner for recount on 02.12.2006 was accepted and recount could not be completed as in relation to votes cast at 2 polling centres i.e. Kajleshwar 5 and Kajleshwar 6, electronic voting machine (EVM) showed memory error. The Returning Officer has overlooked this aspect and...