Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-31-2008
Reported in : 2008(2)ALLMR686; 2008(5)BomCR234; 2008(4)MhLj106
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Common question of law arises for consideration in the present writ petition and other two connected writ petitions. Thus, all the three writ petitions can be disposed of by this judgment. 2. In all these cases, Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the `Corporation') claims to be the owner of the different premises wherein the petitioners in these petitions have their offices. For example, in Writ Petition No. 1278 of 2007, the petitioner has office on the third floor of East West Building, 49/55, Bombay Samachar Marg, Fort, Mumbai of which the Corporation is the owner. In this writ petition, petitioner No. 2 is a partnership firm of which petitioner No. 1 is the partner. In another writ petition being writ petition No. 1797 of 2007, National Insurance Company is the petitioner. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 in writ petition No. 1278 of 2007 are stated to be in possession of different parts of the premises and, according to the Corporation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-09-2008
Reported in : [2009]315ITR41(Bom)
A.V. Nirgude, J.1. This writ petition challenges the order dated February 26, 1993, passed by the Appropriate Authority under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short).2. Before the arguments could begin, learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Pardiwalla stated that the petitioners would not proceed against respondent No. 3 and accepting this statement, respondent No. 3 is dropped.3. The relevant facts of the case may be stated as under:4. One flat in a building called 'Twin Towers' situated at Prabhadevi, Mumbai, was offered for sale by its owner one Scale Investments Ltd. to the petitioners in November, 1984. The petitioner agreed to purchase the flat (Flat No. A-271 and four covered car parking spaces) for an aggregate consideration of Rs. 44,00,000 on March 5, 1985, paying Rs. 4,00,000 as earnest money and agreeing to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 40,00,000 by April 30, 1985. It was specifically contemplated that either the petitioners would buy the said...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-06-2008
Reported in : (2008)(128)ECC199
1. The factory of the respondents herein who are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE pipes and fittings falling under Chapter 39 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, was visited by preventive officers of central excise on 8.9.1998 and on verification of the stock of finished goods, shortage of stock compared to the balance recorded in the RG1 register was detected. The finished goods, i.e. HDPE pipes of various qualities involving duty of Rs. 3,75,791/-, were found short. The assessee paid central excise duty on such shortage. Further scrutiny of records revealed that the assessees cleared their goods, viz. HDPE pipes sprinkle irrigation, to various depots all over India, from where they finally sold to customers/dealers. Price declaration of the finished goods was filed by the assessees and it was noticed that the assessees had charged a higher price for sprinkler coupler than declared in annexure-II. It was also found that they were charging their customer fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-05-2008
1. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Sunglo Industries Pvt.Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee') are engaged in the manufacture of printing ink, organic composite solvents and thinner falling for classification under Chapter 32 and 38 of the schedule to the CETA, 1985. They filed a declaration under the provisions of Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the above mentioned products, claiming the benefit of SSI Notification 1/93-CE dated 28/2/1993 as amended and effected clearance of the said goods under the said notification in 1996-97. Intelligence was gathered by the Revenue that they had manufactured and cleared goods at concessional rate of duty by claiming exemption under the notification though the goods were affixed with the brand name SUNGLO' which did not belong to them but belonged to M/s. Sericol India Pvt. Ltd. As the benefit of SSI notification is not available to a manufacturer who manufactures and clears the goods carrying brand name of an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : May-15-2008
1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No.AT(181)Bel/2007 dated 29.3.2007.2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the respondents were engaged in providing services under the category Telephone Services, Online Information & Database Access & Retrieval Services, Leased Circuit Service etc. They were registered as a Service Tax assessee and were paying service tax on the taxable value of services provided by them. The respondents filed the refund claim on 23.9.2005 on the ground that they had paid the service tax on Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of the Recharge Coupon Vouchers (RCVs) for their prepaid services but the recharge vouchers had actually been sold to the distributors at a discounted price from the MRP and some recharge vouchers had also been distributed free of cost to distributors/operators. The claim was filed on the ground that the money value of the discount given on the recharge vouchers and that distributed free had ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : May-05-2008
Reported in : (2008)110BOMLR1595
Bilal Nazki, J.1. Special Case No. 1 of 2000 was tried by the Sessions Judge, Pune, who was also a Special Judge for the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act. Seven accused persons faced trial for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 324 read with Sections 149 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They also faced trial for the offences punishable under Section 4 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(i), 3(5) and 3(2) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act. By his judgment and order dated 30th April, 2002 of the learned Sessions Judge, all of them were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. They were also convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 200/- each. They were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 4 read with Section 25 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-03-2008
Reported in : 2008(5)BomCR138; (2008)110BOMLR2167; LC2008(2)434; 2008(38)PTC435(Bom)
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The judgment was reserved on 12.2.2008. By a preceipe dated 29.3.2008 the Defendants sought to tender an additional affidavit to bring on record further documents and to raise a new defence. This application was heard by me on 3.6.2008. I have rejected the application for reasons furnished later in this judgment. 2. The Plaintiff has sought an injunction restraining the Defendants from making of, using, selling or distributing tamper proof locks/seals that fall within the scope of the claims of the Plaintiff's patent bearing No. 162675 and patent of addition No. 178879 so as to infringe the same and for delivery of for destruction any material infringing the said patents. The Plaintiff has also sought damages. Defendant No. 2 carries on business as the sole proprietor in the firm name and style of Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 3 is the former employee of the Plaintiff who has joined Defendant No. 1/2 to assist him in carrying on his business. According to the Plain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-21-2008
Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR817; 2009(1)MhLj371
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned Advocates, rule is made returnable forthwith.2. By filing this petition, the petitioner, who is a student, has raised an important issue for consideration of this Court as to whether at the time of taking Common Entrance Test ('CET' for short) examination, any deviation can be made by the respondents in the matter of giving marks contrary to Rules and instructions given in this behalf.3. The petitioner has cleared her HSC Examination from the Maharashtra State and Higher Secondary Education Board, Pune and secured 62% marks in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology. The State of Maharashtra, for the purpose of admission for medical and dental courses framed rules and introduced CET. As per the said Rules, the duration of the examination is three hours. The method of answering the questions is also prescribed in the Rules. As per the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-30-2008
Reported in : 2008(5)ALLMR521; [2008(119)FLR235]; (2008)IIILLJ925Bom
S.A. Bobde, J.1. This is a writ petition by the employer challenging the order of the National Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, dated August 19, 2004 rejecting their application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The petitioner-employer sought approval of its order dated June 24, 2002 whereby respondent-workman was removed from service. The workman was served with charge sheet dated April 4/May 1, 1996 for allegedly unauthorisedly opening the Short Haul Operations Department (S.H.O.D.) office with a view td disposal of the old vehicles of the office. According to the charge sheet he was apprehended in the process of removing one jeep with the help of two other persons. He had already removed six vehicles, i.e. two Maruti 800, one Ambassador car, one Matador and two jeeps. Since the dispute pertaining to conditions of service of workmen of Indian Airlines was pending before the National Tribunal, the petitioner applied under Section 33(2)(b) for removing the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-13-2008
Reported in : [2008(117)FLR589]; (2008)IIILLJ280Bom
R.M. Savant, J.1. These petitions take exception to the Common judgment and Order dated April 26, 2006 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Jalgaon, by which Complaint (ULP) No. 104 of 2002 to 120 of 2002 were dismissed. The said complaints were filed by about 17 workers of the respondent Company working at Jalgaon. Amongst these 17 workers, 7 have filed the above petitions.2. The respondent company had three units, one at Mundhawa, Pune, one at Satara and one at Jalgaon. The petitioners were working in various capacities since the year 1987 or thereabout in the Jalgaon Plant. On account of the Jalgaon plant becoming financially not viable, the respondent company intended to close down the said plant and issued a notice of closure on February 11, 2001. The petitioners by their letter dated March 11, 2001 immediately approached the respondent company and applied for V.R.S., which had been floated by the respondent company. The applications of the petitioners were accepted by ...
Tag this Judgment!