Mumbai Court May 2012 Judgments

Shahid Mohammedali Bepari Vs. the Sub-divisional Magistrate and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2012CrLJ365(NOC)

Oral Judgment: 1 Heard Mr.Pise, the learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms.V.S.Mhaispurkar, the learned APP for the State. 2 Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 3 By this writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the externment order dated 11.4.2011, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Miraj, SubDivision Miraj, under Section 56(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) externing the petitioner from the districts of Sangli, Satara, Kolhapur and Solapur, for a period of two years. The petitioner had challenged the said order by filing an appeal under Section 60, but the State Government dismissed the same. 4 On 20.8.2010, the petitioner was served with a notice by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Miraj Division, Miraj, to show cause, as to why he should not be externed from the districts of Sangli, Satara, Kolhapur and Solapur, for a period of two...

Balbir Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-i

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.14,30,084/-, interest and penalty. The demand is confirmed after denying credit in respect of scrap on the ground that the applicant had taken credit on the strength of invoices issued by the registered dealer without receiving inputs. The case of the Revenue is that M/s. Simandar Steel Movers (I) Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Simandar Enterprises have passed on the cenvat credit by raising only invoices without actually supplying the goods, i.e. iron and steel scrap, to the applicant. The Revenue is relying upon the investigation conducted upon the transporters to show that the inputs were not received by the applicant. 3. The contention of the applicant is that they have received the scrap under the invoices and payments were made through banking channels and the scrap was used in the manufacture of final product which is cleared on payment of appropriate duty, therefore it cannot be said...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur Vs. Deepak Fertilizers and Pet ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. The Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapters 28, 29 and 31 of the Central Excise Tariff. During the manufacture of final product, the respondent also manufactured ammonia which was captively consumed in the manufacture of fertilizers for which the respondents had availed exemption from payment of central excise duty under Notification No.4/97-CE. The respondents were also importing ammonia and procured under bond and also receiving from local suppliers under Chapter X procedure. The Commissioner of Central Excise granted permission to store all the three types of ammonia in the common storage tank. The respondents claimed exemption from payment of duty on ammonia in terms of the Board’s Circular dated 1.10.1996, which exempted all gases from the whole of the excise duty, if...

Dwarkadhish Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, N ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. The applicants filed this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In paras 13 and 15 of the COD application, the applicants kept blank the space where the number of days of delay is to be mentioned. During argument, it has been submitted that there is a delay of 76 days in filing the appeal. The reasons for not filing the appeal within the period of normal limitation is that the office superintendent, Shri Sanjay Anant Tope, was advised rest by the doctor in view of back pain. 3. The learned AR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that it is admitted by the applicants that the impugned order was received on 20.9.2011 and the appeal has to be filed within three months as per the provisions of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act. The appeal was to be filed on or before 20.12.2011. In pursuance of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the jurisdictional Superintendent vide letter dated 15.12.2011 requested the ...

M/S. Monarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ulhas Nagar Municipal Corpor ...

Court: Mumbai

P.C. 1 Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr.Kumbhakoni, learned Counsel waives notice for respondent No.1. Mr.Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Counsel wavies notice on behalf of respondent No.2. By consent, matter proceeded for final disposal forthwith. 3 This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the General Body Minutes of the meeting dated 18th April, 2012, (Exhibit-G to the petition) appointing the second respondent as its octroi agent. A declaration is also sought that the action of the first respondent in appointing second respondent as Octroi Collecting Agent is contrary to the provisions of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and the law governing field of distribution of state largesse. 4. The broad undisputed facts which have led to the filing of the present petition are as under:- The Corporation invited tenders for appointing agent to collect octroi duty for the per...

M/S. Agency Real Margao Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sandeep Naik

Court: Mumbai Goa

Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Shri V. Korgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. None for the respondent though served. 2. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Margao dated 19/04/2011 whereby an application filed by the petitioner for an adjournment on the ground that their witness Shri Alex Fernandes was sick and was unable to attend the Court and further stating that the petitioner would take steps to appoint a Commissioner to examine such witness, was dismissed. 3. Shri Korgaonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that the said witness is crucial witness and further that only on two occasions earlier the petitioner had sought an adjournment to examine the said witness as the earlier witness who was summoned failed to remain present. The learned Counsel further points out that only on account of the sickness of the said witness the petitioner was unable to proceed with the case on the said da...

Ramesh Raghobaji Kirtane and Others Vs. the Chandrapur District Centra ...

Court: Mumbai Nagpur

1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties. 2. All these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. Writ Petition Nos.1919/2011, 1920/2011, 1921/2011 and 1922/2011 have been filed by respondent nos.2 to 5 in the original Complaints (ULP) No.121/2006, 125/2006, 126/2006 and 130/2006. 3. Writ Petition Nos.4666/2011, 4667/2011 and 4582/2011 have been filed by the original complainants in Complaint (ULP) Nos. 121/2006, 126/2006 and 125/2006. These complaints were decided by common judgment and order on 8.3.2011 by the Industrial Court, Chandrapur. FACTS : 4. The original complainants filed complaints (ULP) Nos.121/2006, 125/2006, 126/2006 under Section 28 r/w Item Nos.5 and 9 of Schedule IV the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short _ the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971) claiming that respondent nos.2 to 5 in the complaints filed by them were...

M/S. B.V. Jewels, a Partnership Firm Vs. the Commissioner of Customs ( ...

Court: Mumbai

M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) from the order dated 21/12/2006 of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “CESTAT”). This appeal was admitted on 14/8/2007 on the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT was correct in confirming the demand of duty of Rs.12,31,06,700/- and a penalty of an equivalent amount? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT was right in ordering confiscation of 10,631.39 carats of diamond and imposing a redemption fine of Rs.43 lakhs? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT was correct in concluding that 63,078.35 carats of diamonds are liable for confiscation? 2. The CESTAT by its impugned Order dated 21 /12/2006 held that there was a shortage of 72095.55 Carats of diamonds (after taking into account...

Chowgule Education Society and Another Vs. State of Goa, Through the S ...

Court: Mumbai Goa

Oral Judgment: (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Lawande, learned Government Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2, Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Advocate for respondent no.3 and Mr. Rao, learned Advocate for the intervenors. 2. Rule. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 26/03/2012 passed by respondent no.2 under Rule 33 of The Goa Education Rules, 1986 ('the Rules' for short) by which the application dated 26/09/2011 filed by the petitioners for closure of Higher Secondary School, has been rejected. 4. Petitioner No.1 is a society registered under the Registration of Societies Order dated 29/08/1962 and petitioner no.2 is the Principal of Smt. Parvatibai Chowgule College of Arts and Science. The petitioners sought approval of respondent no.2 for closure of Higher Secondary School in terms of Rule 33 of the Rules by communication dated 26/09/2011. Thereafter, by another communication dat...

M/S. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. M/S. DolphIn ...

Court: Mumbai

1. Both the parties, original claimants and the Respondents have challenged the impugned Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Arbitration Act) passed by the Arbitral Tribunal dated 7 April 2010 by raising respective grounds from their point of view. 2. The operative part of the Award is as under : “(i) The Respondent do pay to the Claimant a sum of US $ 2,699,235.63 on account of providing wellhead tools and services to the Respondent. (ii) The Respondent do pay the Claimant a sum of Rs.71,68,723/by way of cost of arbitration. (iii) The Respondent do pay the Claimant interest on the sum directed to be paid to the Claimant by this award from the date of the award till the date of payment at the statutory rate of 18% p.a as set out in section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.” 3. The original claimant was a Dolphin Drilling Limited (DDL). Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) was the original Respondent. DDL ...