Mumbai Court March 2010 Judgments

Mukul Engineering Works Vs. the Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per: P.G. Chacko 1. The appeals filed by the assessee are against demand of duty of Rs.22,90,859/- for the period from July 97 to June 2002 and duty of Rs.52,800/- for the period April 03 to March 04 covered by two show-cause notices dated 29/07/2002 and 08/10/2004 respectively. The appeal filed by the proprietor is against the penalty of Rs.15 lakhs imposed on him under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It appears from the records that, during the material period, the assessee was engaged in the activity of building body on chassis supplied by motor vehicle manufacturers. They paid duty on their products, which were cleared to the chassis suppliers, at the effective rate specified under the relevant notifications, viz., No.4/97-CE, 5/98-CE, 5/99-CE, 6/00-CE, 3/01-CE and 6/02-CE. In the relevant show-cause notices, the department denied the benefit of the relevant notifications to the assessee by insisting that the value of the chassis and other items supplied free of cost b...

Prakash Jagannath Shiveshwerkar Vs. Prasad Gurjar and anr.

Court: Mumbai

ORDERAnil R. Dave, C.J.1. As both the Appeals have been filed against an order dated 4th September 2009 passed in Notice of Motion No. 659 of 2007 in Suit No. 119 of 2007, at the request of the learned Advocates both the Appeals have been taken up for hearing.2. Parties to the litigation have been described herein as arrayed in the Suit.3. The facts giving rise in the aforestated Appeals in a nutshell are as under:The Plaintiff has filed a Suit for specific performance of contained in an Agreement for Sale dated 3rd April 2006. It is the case of the Plaintiff that out of consideration of Rs. 24.50 lakhs, Rs. 4.50 lakhs had already been paid to the original Defendant No. 1 and the balance sum of Rs. 20 lakhs was to be paid against the delivery of vacant and peaceful possession of the flat in question.4. During the pendency of the Suit, the original Defendant No. 1 had expired and, therefore, son of Defendant No. 1 has been brought on record as Defendant No. 1(a).5. After hearing the lea...

Shri Ramdeobaba Kamla Nehru Abhiyantriki Mahavidyalaya Shikshaketar Ka ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR1792

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this writ petition, filed under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner - Union has questioned the order dated 20.03.2004 delivered by Member, Industrial Court in Complaint ULP No. 148 of 1995, dismissing the same. They have sough review of that order but that review was also dismissed on 02.04.2005. After dismissal of review, present writ petition has been filed.2. Complaint ULP was filed by present petitioner as Complainant No. 1 with other about 147 memberemployees against Respondents No. 5 & 6 under items 1, 5, 6 & 9 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as MRTU & PULP Act). The prayer was to extend to all complainants the appropriate pay scale applicable to the post held by them from the date of their respective appointments and to pay them the arrears accordingly. In prayer clause declaration of unfair labour practice under items No. 2 &...

Shri. Subhash Bhagwanta Nalawade, (at Present in Jail Custody) Vs. the ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR1441

R.G. Ketkar, J.1. These appeals are directed against Judgment and order dated September 12, 2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 42 of 2000. By the impugned judgment and order the learned Sessions Judge convicted Accused No. 1-Balu J. Nalawade, Accused No. 4-Anil J. Nalawade, Accused No. 6-Jayaram Narayan Nalawade and Accused No. 7-Subhash Bhagwant Nalawade for the offence punishable Under Section 148 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and they were sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. They were also convicted for the offence punishable Under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and were sentenced to suffer Imprisonment for Life and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- each, in default to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. They were further convicted for the offence punishable Under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC and were sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/...

Jagat Malkani Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(253)ELT718(Bom)

ORDER1. Heard.Perused appeal.Admit, on the following substantial question of law:Whether the Revenue's insistence on submission of Type Approval Certificate from a specified accredited agency from country of origin in the absence of an accredited agency in the country of origin, is contrary to the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia2. Heard both the learned Counsel for the parties on interim relief. Learned Counsel for the appellant brought to our notice paragraph No. 11 of the impugned order, whereby the Type Approval Certificate was sought to be substituted with that of redemption fine reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- and penalty reduced to Rs. 50,000/-. The appellant is ready and willing to furnish a bank guarantee to secure these amounts within a reasonable period. So far as the vehicle is concerned, it is in the custody of the Customs Department.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant agreed to furnish an undertaking that the petitioner shall produce the Certificate of Registration of t...

Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2010)112BOMLR2045,2010(176)LC1(Bombay)

ORDERVijay Daga, J.1. Perused petition.2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties to the petition.3. This petition takes exception to the final findings No. 14/2/2007/DGAD dated 26th August, 2009 and the consequent customs notification No. 116/2009 dated 8th October, 2009 issued by the Ministry of Finance and implementing the recommendations contained in the said final findings with further prayer ordering and directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to withdraw and/or cancel the said impugned final findings together with the notification with further prayer to restrain them from acting upon the said order and notification and from collecting anti dumping duty levied in terms of the said notification dated 8th October, 2009.4. The petitioners have also prayed for interim relief in terms of the final prayer. In other words, the final prayer and the interim prayer both are identical. In addition to the challenge to the final findings and the notification referred to above, the petit...

Mrs. Sabah Adnan Sami Khan Vs. Adnan Sami Khan

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR1409

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. In this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the following questions are raised for our consideration:(i) Whether a divorce between the appellant and the respondent under the Divorce Agreement dated 18th April, 2004 was a Talak in the `Ahsan mode', as the appellant-wife claims, or was it a divorce by `Khula', as claimed by the respondent-husband?(ii) Whether, the appellant was obliged to undergo Halala prior to her remarriage with the respondent on 5th April, 2007?(iii) If the divorce under the Divorce Agreement dated 18th April, 2004 is held to be a Talak by Khula, whether the appellant-wife was obliged to undergo Halala before the remarriage on 5.4.2007 ?(iv) Whether the petition filed by the appellant-wife for divorce and her Miscellaneous Application under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Domestic Violence Act') were tenable before the Family Court?2. This appeal was admitted on 14.12.2...

Best Food International Pvt. Ltd. a Company Incorporated Under the Com ...

Court: Mumbai

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Admit. Respondents waive service. By consent, Appeal is taken up for hearing forthwith. It is agreed between the parties that the final hearing of the Appeal shall be treated as disposal of Notice of Motion No. 271 of 2010 pending before the learned Single Judge.2. This Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 4th February 2010 passed in the aforementioned Notice of Motion which was moved by the Appellant original Applicant. The parties to this Notice of Motion are Respondent No. 1original Plaintiff and original Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 being Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein. Any reference to them as per their original position be understood accordingly.3. The learned Single Judge passed an adinterim order and posted the Notice of Motion for hearing and final disposal. However, the learned Judge directed the Applicant to furnish security to the extent of US $ 7.52 million as a precondition for vacating the order of arrest of ...

Maharashtra Rajya Prathamik Shikshan Sangh, a Trust Registered Under B ...

Court: Mumbai

ORDERUnder the Government resolutions mentioned in the preface, the work to carry out census of families below poverty line in rural area has been entrusted to the Collectors. As per the instructions given by the Central Govt. the said work is to be completed as per the prescribed schedule and since the actual enumeration of each and every family in rural area is to be made, staff on large scale is required for this work.The Government has received a report that some of the employees/employees' unions have refused the said census work. In view of the nature, importance and time limit, of the said work, the Collectors should utilize the services of all Government employees on District, Taluka and Village level, as per the requirement to complete the said work. In this regard the Government hereby gives directions to the collectors under the powers vested in it Under Section 272 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samiti Act, 1961. The said, orders should be followed scrupul...

Sports and Leisure Apparel Ltd. Vs. Bansi Mall Management Co. Pvt. Ltd ...

Court: Mumbai

ORDERAnil R. Dave, C.J.1. Being aggrieved by an order dated 3rd July 2009 passed in Notice of Motion No. 1828 of 2009 in Suit No. 1241 of 2009, this Appeal has been filed by the Appellantsoriginal Plaintiff Company.2. After hearing the learned Advocates, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Notice of Motion for the reason that the learned Single Judge did not find any case for granting any order for specific performance in respect of the agreement referred to by the Plaintiff.3. Facts giving rise to the present Appeal in a nutshell are as under:The Plaintiff Company was in occupation of two shops at a place called Crossroad Mall. Defendant No. 6 had leased the shops in question in favour of the Plaintiff Company. Initially the lease was for a period of three years but the said period had been extended by a further period of nine years by an agreement dated 25th August 2002 and, therefore, the Plaintiff Company had a right to continue in occupation of the said shops till 26th Augu...