Mumbai Court April 2010 Judgments

Sudarshan Kumar S/o Basuki Singh Vs. the Union of India (UOi) through ...

Court: Mumbai

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition to impugn the circular dated 19th June, 2008. At the relevant time the petitioner was working as Assistant Commissioner of Provident Fund, Employees' Provident Fund Organization (EPFO). The petitioner was also exercising power as an Authority under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 for the purpose of deciding the disputes arising under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act').3. On 30th January, 2009 this Court had directed that no departmental action should be taken against the petitioner in relation to the issuance of arrest warrants on the parties in respect of the subject proceedings pending before him. On 28th April, 2009 a statement was made by the petitioner that the petition is a public interest litigation and the office was accordingly a...

The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Moonlight Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

K.K. Tated, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the rival parties.2. This reference, at the instance of the Applicant/Revenue, is made by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai under Section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 vide its judgment dated 30th April, 2001 for the opinion of this Court on the following eight questions of law:i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the activity of the appellant does not amount to manufacture when it is carried out on goods supplied by its customers though the same activity amounts to manufacture if carried out on the appellant's own goods?ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law, in holding that the impugned activity is apparently falling within the description of sale under the Works Contract Act?iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law, in holding th...

Balaji Telefilms Ltd., a Company Incorporated Under the Provisions of ...

Court: Mumbai

A.P. Bhangale, J.1. Heard. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, who argued in support of the notice of motion, contended that the plaintiffs are the buyers of all the copyright in respect of the original Tamil film Thullatha Manaum Thullum. The motion is also supported by various affidavits submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs in order to prima facie establish that the plaintiffs are entitled to the copyright in respect of the said Tamil film so as to produce a Hindi film based upon the same script as that of the original Tamil film. It is the grievance of the plaintiffs that the defendants infringed upon the legal rights of the plaintiffs to produce a Hindi film based upon the original Tamil film Thullatha Manaum Thullum, and produced the Hindi film Sun Zarra in order to deprive the plaintiffs of their valuable legal right, title and interest of which they are lawful owners under a contract which has been entered into validly with the owners of the copyright of the said original T...

Bal Kishan Agrawal Glass Inds. Ltd. Vs. Cce, Kanpur

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Per : Ashok Jindal The appellant has filed this appeal against the rejection of their claim for remission of duty on tableware / kitchenware which were damaged due to heavy rain. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are the manufacturer of glass and glassware and were availing Cenvat credit on the input used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. The appellants filed a claim of remission of duty involved on damaged / broken tableware / kitchenware due to heavy rain on 6.9.2003. The claim of remission of duty was rejected. Hence this appeal. 3. Shri. Atul Gupta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant drew my attention to the order-in-original wherein the claim of the appellant was rejected on the following grounds:- (a) Delay in submitting the claim of remission as the incident took place on 06.09.2003 and the information was furnished on 23.10.2003. (b) The appellant failed to take precaution to safeguard their goods to avoid the incident....

Shishupal Natthuji Patle of Tumsar Vs. Praful Manoharbhai Patel of Gon ...

Court: Mumbai

A.H. Joshi, J.1. In this Election Petition, the respondent has filed Written Statement and has raised objection to its maintainability on various grounds as narrated in Application [Exh.10]. Additional objections and grounds have been raised by filing another application [Exh.22]. These applications have been replied by filing a detailed reply.The petitioner has filed application [Exh.24] for leave to cure certain defects in the Election Petition.All these applications were heard together at length.2. After perusal of pleadings and after hearing the learned Advocates, this Court had framed Issues at Exh.14, which are as follows:(i) Whether the petition presented by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed under Section 86 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 81(1) and 81(3) of the said Act?(ii) Whether the petition presented by the petitioner is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as...

Shri Date Tanaji Honaji and Prithviraj Vasant Kamble Vs. the Secretary ...

Court: Mumbai

R.G. Ketkar, J. 1. By Writ Petition No. 7740 of 2008 filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Date Tanaji Honaji (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) interaila has prayed for direction to Respondent Nos. 1 to 10 to hold fresh inquiry regarding the caste certificates and certificate of validity issued in favour of Respondent No. 11 Pritviraj Vasant Kamble (hereinafter referred to as Respondent No. 11) and after inquiry if it is found that those certificates were obtained by producing false affidavits, documents and/or misrepresentation, suppression of true and correct facts by the Respondent No. 11, the said certificates may be cancelled forthwith and the Respondent No. 11 may be prosecuted for the same; for direction to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 10 to take appropriate action against the persons/officers who have granted these caste certificates, certificate of validity in favour of the Respondent No. 11 without following proper procedure and as...

ispat Industries Limited a Company Incorporated WithIn the Meaning of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR2109,2010(176)LC91(Bombay)

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. This judgment would govern two petitions, one instituted by Ispat Industries Limited (Ispat) and the second, by the Union of India, through the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad. Both the petitions have been heard together.The petition instituted by Ispat questions the validity of an order passed on 30 November 2004 by the third respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise to the extent that it holds that a refund of education cess of Rs. 5.52 lakhs is inadmissible to the company and a show cause notice dated 22 December 2009. A mandamus is sought directing the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise to sanction the rebate claim of Ispat aggregating to Rs. 10.40 lakhs together with interest.The Union of India has questioned in its petition the legality of an order passed on 11 September 2009 by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India holding that Ispat is entitled to a rebate of education cess paid on exported goods.2. The facts in so far as th...

The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd. a Company Incorporated in the Un ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2010)232CTR(Bom)12

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, the petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. Counsel for the respondents waives service.2. The petitioner is a company incorporated in the United Kingdom and is engaged in the business of insurance. The petitioner is registered as a sub-account of a Foreign Institutional Investor (FII) with the Securities and Exchange Board of India. The dispute in this case relates to assessment years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. On 30 April 2001, the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) constituted under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held that the purchase and sale of shares by the petitioner was in the ordinary course of its business and the income which resulted from this, constitutes business profits and not capital gains. One of the issues which the ARR addressed was whether the gains arising from realization of por...

Parbat S/O Namdeo Naikwadi Vs. the Indian Oil Corporation Limited,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2010(112)BomLR2307

Naresh H. Patil, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.2. By this Petition, the Petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside a communication dated 9th March, 2010 issued by Respondent No. 1 Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Aurangabad Divisional Office, Aurangabad.3. The Petitioner states that the Respondent No. 1 issued an advertisement on 17th August, 2009 in daily newspapers Sakal and Lokmat for selection of Kisan Seva Kendra Retail Outlet Dealer (for short 'KSK Dealership') at Khanapur, Taluka-Akole, District-Ahmednagar. The said dealership was for open category candidates. One of the condition was that the applicant should be resident of village Khanapur.4. The Petitioner accordingly applied in the prescribed form. The Petitioner's application came to be rejected on the ground that 'the proof of residence is not as per requirement of advertisement'. The Petitioner was not found eligible after scrutiny and accordingly by the impugned communication dated 9th March, 2010 the dec...

Punjab National Bank Thr. Its Branch Manager Vs. Shaikh Jumman Shaikh ...

Court: Mumbai

R.K. Deshpande, J.1. This revision application is preferred by original defendant-Punjab National Bank challenging order dated 31.10.2006 passed by learned District Judge, Chandrapur setting aside order dated 15.10.2005 passed below Exh.-13 by learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division, Chandrapur below Exh.-13 dismissing the suit i.e. Regular Civil Suit No. 142/2005, filed by the plaintiff. The appellate Court has directed the trial Court to restore the suit and to proceed further as per law, to decide the same on merits.2. Such of the facts as are necessary to decide the controversy are stated below.The applicant is the original defendant and respondent is original plaintiff. The parties shall hereinafter referred to according to their original status as the 'Plaintiff' and the 'Defendant'. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 142/2005 claiming relief of injunction, restraining the defendant and its officers permanently from taking over the possession of M/s. Janta Plastic Ind...