Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (G.S. Patel, J.) 1. Rule. Mr. Mishra for the 2nd Respondent waives service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. The Writ Petition is called out and taken up for hearing and final disposal. We have heard Ms. Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. Mishra, learned Advocate for the 2nd Respondent at some length and considered their rival submissions and the material on record. 2. This is a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is directed against Final Order No. 24/Final Order/ST/RB/2015 dated 18th February 2015 (Exhibit A , pp. 36-47)passed by the Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Customs and Central Excise, Mumbai under Section 32F(5) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in a Settlement Application No. 142/ST/JL/2014-SC(MB) SA(ST) 262/2014 dated 29th May 2014. By that order, the Settlement Commission rejected the application in question as impermissible under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ( CEA ). 3. The Pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [1995(71)FLR1078]
V.P. Tipnis, J. 1. The Export-Import Bank of India has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the decision of the learned Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, I, at Bombay in a Reference No. GGAT-8 of 1988. The reference was made to the Tribunal under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the Central Government. 2. One Parmeshwaran was working as a Driver-cum-Messenger with the Export-Import Bank of India at Bombay since about October 1982. M/s. Daulat Automobiles, Bellard Estate, was looking after the repairs and maintenance of the vehicles belonging to the said bank. Parmeshwaran used to take the vehicle belonging to the said bank to the aforesaid garage for repairs since about middle of 1985. On 4.3.1986 the bank received a letter from the management of the garage complaining that the said Parmeshwaran had demanded and was paid a commission by the said garage. Parmeshwaran, the workmen, was issued a chargeshe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(3)BomCR414; 2006(1)MhLj378
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition impugnes the judgment and order dated 29th April, 1994 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai dismissing the application (IT) 53 of 1982 filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the I.D. Act') in Reference (IT) 298/1981. The petitioner hospital is run by Tata Memorial Centre which is a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The respondent-employee was initially appointed vide the appointment order dated 10th June, 1971 in the post of 'Upper Division Clerk' by an order dated 3rd September, 1980, he came to be transferred to the library from the medicine department as clerk cum typist. It appears that on or about 23rd January, 1981, he was issued a charge-sheet and aggrieved by the same he had approached the Industrial Court at Mumbai by filing a complaint of unfair labour practice. The said complaint came to be disposed as withdrawn as the employer made a statement before the Indu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1989)31ITD222(Mum.)
There was no evidence of enquiry either into the claim for deduction for commission payments or for deduction of gratuity payments in the order passed by the assessing officer for the assessment year 1984-85, therefore, the Commissioner was fully justified in proceedings under section 263 for the assessment year 1984-85. There is evidence to support the finding of the Commissioner that there was no proper enquiry made by the assessing officer in respect of certain claims for deduction and such absence of enquiry caused prejudice to the revenue.Revision under s. 263--LIMITATION--Order of Commissioner passed before order of Commissioner(Appeals) The appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) was filed in May, 1986 and the order of the Commissioner(Appeals) was passed on 15-3-1989 whereas the Commissioner, City III issued notice under section 263 on 29-3-1988 and passed the order on 30-3-1988. Therefore, when the order was passed by the Commissioner under section 263, there was no order by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1986(3)BomCR709; (1986)88BOMLR548
Sawant, J.1. What is challenged in the present petition is an order of externment passed under S. 57(b) read with S. 59, Bombay Police Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The notice issued under S. 59 preceding the impugned order dt. 8th October 1985 states that the externee had been convicted of offences mentioned in the notice and further that he was likely again to engage himself in the commission of the offence similar to that for which he had been convicted. The externee was, therefore, called upon to remain present in the enquiry which was to be held under the said section. After the enquiry, the impugned order was passed on 15th November 1985 externing the petitioner from the districts of Thane and Greater Bombay for a period of two years.2. The gravamen of the challenge to the impugned order is that it has been passed only on the ground that the externee had to his record two convictions for the offences under S. 66(b), Bombay Prohibition Act. There was no further ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1985)IILLJ145Bom
Tulpule, J.1. The petitioner was an employee in the State Bank of India, branch at Wardha and was working as a clerk in the said branch. One Meshram was also an employee of the said bank and Meshram and the petitioner were occupying seats side by side at a table in the bank.2. Between 27th February, 1967 and 3rd March, 1967, it was discovered that a blank form of bank drafts which were being handled by Meshram was lost bearing No. J. 942980. The said bank draft found its way to the Katol Branch of State Bank of India and was encashed on the 3rd March, 1967. The draft was drawn in the name of one M. R. Joshi. The petitioner had taken leave on 2nd and 3rd March, 1967 from his office at Wardha. He extended that leave up to 4th March, 1967.3. The fact of the draft forms being missing was notified by the Bank authorities to its branches and on the 29th March, 1967, it was discovered that this bank draft was encashed at the Katol Branch. Enquiries were then made and suspicion gravitated towa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(6)ALLMR96
K.J. Rohee, J.1. This is an election petition under Section 80 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 by an elector challenging the election of the returned candidate from 134-Nagpur East Legislative Assembly Constituency. 2. The facts which are undisputed can be stated thus:The Programme of General Election 2004 for Maharashtra Legislative Assembly was declared on 15.9.2004 as under:i) Last Date for submission of Nomination Papers 22.09.2004ii) Scrutiny of Nomination Papers 23.09.2004iii) Last Date for withdrawal of Nomination Papers 25.09.2004iv) Polling 13.10.2004.v) Declaration of Result 16.10.2004. 3. Shri Satish Jhaulal Chaturvedi (R-1) represented 134 Nagpur-East Legislative Assembly Constituency during the elections of 1980, 1990 and 1995 as the candidate of Indian National Congress. He had lost only one election of the year 1985 wherein he had contested as an independent candidate. On 22.9.2004 R-1 presented his nomination paper to the Returning officer of 134 -Nagpur East ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)163CTR(Bom)440; [2001]112TAXMAN523(Bom)
Daga, J.This petition is preferred by the revenue against the order of the Settlement Commissioner in the case of Ajmera Housing Corporation, Bombay, relating to the assessment years 1989-90 to 1993-94.In order to appreciate the grievance of the revenue against the said order, relevant introductory facts needs to be noticed at the outset.Background facts2. Ajmera Housing Corporation, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as `the assessee') along with 19 individuals and 7 HUFs belonging to Ajmera family, had filed 31 settlement applications under section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') in the month of October 1993 for the assessment years 1989-90 to 1993-94. The applications in the case of 4 firms including the present assessees were admitted by the orders of the Commissioner passed under section 245D(1) of the Act dated 17-11-1997. Ajmera Housing Corporation along with its other group establishments are engaged in the business as land developers, build...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1954CriLJ366
ORDER1. This order shall govern the disposal of the following Miscellaneous Criminal Cases:No. 35/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Dr. S.M. Hasan and Ors.No. 36/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Shri Abhilas-Chandra.No. 37/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Dr. N.B. Khare and Ors.No. 38/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Swami K.N. Sokhta and Anr.No. 39/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Shri R.K. Shukla and Ors.No. 50/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Thakur Pyarelal Singh and Anr.No. 48/53: In re Shri Ramgopal Maheshwari and Anr.2. Shri M. V. Rajwade, I.A.S., who is the petitioner in the first six cases is the Deputy Commissioner, Durg. The last case was registered on a petition filed by the Deputy Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Nagpur. These petitions were filed under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, for taking action against the alleged contemners in respect of certain publications.3. Respondents in these cases are the authors and/or publishers of the impugned articles.(A) The authors concerned are-(1) Dr. S....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997(3)ALLMR340; 1997(3)BomCR171; (1997)3BOMLR545; 1997(3)MhLj302
A.C. Agarwal, J. 1. By the present petition, Petitioner seeks to impugn an order of dismissal passed by the District Judge, Thane on 7th April, 1993. The said order is affirmed by the High Court in an Administrative Appeal on 28th March, 1994. Short facts leading to the filing of the petition are as under : 2. Petitioner joined service in the Judicial Department at Thane as a peon. The order of appointment is dated 31st October, 1990. The same is annexed at Exh. 'A' to the petition. The order shows that his appointment was made purely on temporary basis and his services are made liable to be terminated at any time without notice or without assigning any reason therefor. 3. During the period 2nd November, 1990 to 3rd June, 1991 the Petitioner worked as a peon in the Court of VIIIth Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thane. On 3rd June, 1991 he was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Palghar. While serving at Palghar, Petitioner started absentin...
Tag this Judgment!