Mumbai Court March 2010 Judgments

Dy. Engineer, Zilla Parishad Constructions, Sub Division Vs. Bapurao N ...

Court: Mumbai

R.C. Chavan, J.1. These petitions by employer are directed against an exparte award/ judgment by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Chandrapur which he refused to set aside by rejecting the petitioner's application for setting aside exparte award.2. The facts, which are material for deciding these petitions, are asThe respondents in Writ Petition Nos. 3997/2001 and 3998/2001 claimed to have joined services of the petitioner as unskilled labourers on 01.07.1988 and 01.02.1989, respectively. They claimed that their record was clean and unblemished and they had completed more than 240 days of continuous service. The respondents were getting wages of Rs. 31.70 per day before their services were terminated on 11.09.1992 without any rhyme or reason and without following prescribed procedure, as also the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also contended that juniors were retained in service and thus, termination was illegal and improper. Since the employer did not ...

Pappu Anant Ghayalkar Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Ranjana Desai, J.1. The appellant, who is original accused 2, was tried along with one Rajesh Balkrishna Pille in the Court of Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge at Pune in Sessions Case No. 158 of 2001, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 506(H) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC'), under Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and under Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. By judgment and order dated 21/5/2002, the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. He was also convicted for offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. He was also ...

Raju @ Doctor Vyankatswami Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

R.Y. Ganoo, J.1. The present appellant, Somnath Subhash Godse, Rufas John Francis, Yogesh Nandu Yadav (Gavali) and Naresh @ Bunty Hari Sasane were tried in Sessions Case No. 95 of 2001 by learned First Adhoc Sessions Judge, Nashik (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Judge) for the offence punishable under Section 120B, 364, r/w. 120-B in the alternative Under Section 364 r/w. Section 34. Under Section 387 r/w. Section 120/B in the alternative Under Sections 387 r/w. 34, Under Section 302 r/w. Section 120B, in the alternative under Section 302 r/w. Section 34, under Section 201 read with Section 120B, in the alternative r/w. Section 34 of IPC.2. The learned trial Judge by his Judgment and Order dated 30.8.2002 convicted the present appellant, Somanath, Rufas and Yogesh for having committed offences punishable under Section 302 r/w. Section 120B, in the alternative r/w. Section 34 of IPC and each of them was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. They were also convicted un...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.N. Exports

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2010]323ITR178(Bom)

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, raises the following question of law:(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by deleting the addition of Rs. 31,68,775 being insurance premium paid by the assessee-firm on a Keyman insurance policy?2. The issue before the court pertains to the assessment year 2004-05.3. By its order dated January 29, 2009, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee, which is a partnership firm, in paying the premium for a Keyman insurance policy obtained by the firm on the life of its partner must be regarded as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the business of the firm. In holding thus, the Tribunal relied upon a circular issued by...

Jaichand S/O Pancham Patil (In Jail) Vs. State of Maharashtra Through ...

Court: Mumbai

A.B. Chaudhari, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.7.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-3, Nagpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 1999, confirming the judgment and order dated 13.8.1999 passed by J.M.F.C. (Court No. 6), Nagpur, in Criminal Case No. 405 of 1998, convicting the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 294 and 323 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him on each count to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days, the present criminal revision application came to be filed by the applicant.2. In support of revision application, Mr. Mirza learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the courts below have ignored the basic ingredients of Section 294 of Indian Penal Code that the prosecution should prove that the abuses or obscene words are uttered in any public place to the annoyance of others. In the instant case, according to him, the evid...

M/S. Cipla Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai.iii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per : P.G.Chacko After examining the records and hearing both sides, I find that, in the first appeal, the issue arising for consideration is whether the appellant was required to reverse CENVAT credit taken on capital goods imported by them when the goods were cleared under bond for export under claim of drawback. The appellant had imported capital goods in two consignments and cleared the same on payment of duties of customs including CVD. CENVAT credit of the CVD was taken by them. Subsequently, these capital goods were cleared under bond for export. In the relevant shipping bills, the appellant claimed drawback of the duty to the extent permitted under Section 74 of the Customs Act. In adjudication of the relevant show-cause notice, the original authority took the view that, as the capital goods were cleared for export shortly after the import, they were not intended to be used for manufacture of excisable goods and therefore the appellant was not entitled to avail CENVAT credit on...

Multi Organics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur and ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per : P.G.Chacko One of these appeals is by the assessee and the other by the Revenue. In the common impugned order, the ld.Commissioner(Appeals) held against the assessee on merits and accordingly denied to them CENVAT credit of service tax paid by their job worker. The assessee s appeal is against this part of the impugned order. The ld.Commissioner (Appeals), however, held the demand to be time-barred and also refrained from imposing any penalty on the assessee under Section 11AC. This part of the order is under challenge in the Revenue’s appeal. 2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I find that, during the material period, the assessee had got certain inputs processed by a job worker and paid duty on the final products manufactured out of the job-worked goods. The job worker paid service tax on the job charges and CENVAT credit thereof was availed by the assessee. In the assessee s appeal, the question is whether such availment of CENVAT credit was permissib...

M/S. Sukrut Exports and Others Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune Ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per : Ashok Jindal These appeals are filed by the appellants against the penalties under Section 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central excise Act, 1944. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants availed Cenvat Credit on capital goods which were not available in their factory premises at the time of visit and were never brought to the factory premises. On pointing out the mistake at the time of visit the appellants reversed the credit along with interest. The appellants were issued show cause notice alleging contravention of Rules 3 and 4 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It was also proposed to recover the same under Section 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules read with proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and further with proposal of appropriating inadmissible duty paid along with the interest and penalties under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11AC of the Act. The lower authorities confirmed the demand along w...

Union of India (Uoi) Through the Commissioner of Customs (P) Vs. Mr. Z ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR2266,2010(176)LC257(Bombay)

K.K. Tated, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 the Petitioner/Revenue challenges the orders passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai (in short CEGAT) dated 17.01.1998 passed in Appeals Nos. 178/1997 and 249/1997 and dated 15.05.1998 passed in reference application.THE FACTS3. The Respondent No. 1 is NRI and the Respondent No. 2 is the Customs Officer. It is the case of the Petitioner/Revenue that the Respondent No. 1 was involved in smuggling foreign currency of US Dollars 40,000 equivalent to Indian Rs. 13,30,000/approximately, sometime on 12.10.1995 in contravention of Sections 111, 113, 114, 118 and other Sections of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 13(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The Respondent No. 2 is an officer of the Customs who prima facie alleged to have he...

Rangrao Dhondiba Sawant, Vs. Chhagan Appa Sapkal,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(3)MhLj328

R.S. Mohite, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants impugning a judgment and decree passed by 7th Additional District Judge, Pune on 21.7.1990 in Civil Appeal No. 847 of 1985. The Appellant No. 2 is daughter in law of Appellant No. 1(Original plaintiff) where as the Appellants Nos. 3 and 4 are his sons. Original Appellant No. 2 Yuvraj( deceased) was defendant No. 5 in the suit whereas appellant Nos. 3 and 4 were the original defendants 6 and 7 in the suit. Defendant Nos. 5 to 7 were supporting the plaintiffs.2. Brief facts of the case are as under.a) That in the year 1942 the plaintiff Rangarao D. Sawant wanted to purchase a land bearing Survey No. 42/1/2/3 from Village Udhat from one Govind Deshpande. He was however, short of funds. One Appa Sapkal who was resident of nearby village was plaintiff's friend. According to the plaintiff he and Appa Sapkal entered into an agreement whereby Appa Sapkal would contribute 50% of the purchase price. It was agreed that Appa Sapkal wou...