Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-27-2005
Reported in : 2006(1)ARBLR229(Bom); 2006(1)BomCR89; (2005)107BOMLR779
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Arbitration Act') read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenges an order passed by a learned Single Judge in Arbitration Petition No. 78 of 2005. By the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge has, on a petition filed by the first respondent herein, under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, passed the following order: '... ORDER (i) Interim order in terms of prayer Clause a(ii) and a(iv). (ii) In case the Petitioners deposit an amount of Rs. 13.30 crores in this Court and furnish a bank guarantee of a nationalised bank in the terms in which it is contemplated by the contract between the parties dated 28-6-2004 to the satisfaction of the Prothonotary & Sr. Master of this Court, within a period of eight weeks from today, interim order in terms of prayer Clause a(i) shall stand granted. (iii) In that event, the Receiver shall take possession of the property and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-20-2005
Reported in : (2006)102TTJ(Mum.)53
1. The assessee as well as the Revenue are impugning the orders of learned first appellate authority in this bunch of 14 appeals and two cross-objections in asst. yrs. 1989-90 to 1999-2000. The learned Counsel for the assessee has placed on record a comprehensive chart exhibiting the grievances of respective parties in different years. A perusal of this chart shows that orders of the learned first appellate authority are being impugned on 28 counts. Some of the issues are common in the appeals of the respective parties as well as in different years. Therefore, we proceed to take up the issue in dispute in seriatim.2. Before taking up the issues on merit it is pertinent to note that cross-objections of assessee in asst. yrs. 1998-99 and 1999-2000 are time-barred by 3 yrs., 101 days and 2 yrs., 217 days, respectively, therefore, first we deal with the petition for condonation of delay in filing the cross-objections.3. In order to explain the delay assessee has submitted that the grounds...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-09-2005
Reported in : 2005(4)BomCR732; [2005(106)FLR375]; (2005)IIILLJ434Bom
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 1.7.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1347 of 1996, rejecting the petition in limine. The writ petition was filed against the Award dated 31.7.1995 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. II (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Reference No. CGIT-2/55 of 1993, by which the impugned retrenchment was held to be illegal and void. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its letter dated 3.6.1993, had referred the following industrial dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication: 'Whether the action of the Management of M/s DBH International Ltd is justified in retrenching S/Shri A.M. Ghosalkar, S.R. Parab, E.T. Deshmukh, Chiman Sawant, Baban Vethebkar, Mrs D.D.' Mello and Mrs Rajalakshmi H. Pillai with effect from 16.9.1991? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?'. The aforesaid reference was made in pursuance of the failure report submitted by the Concil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-03-2005
Reported in : (2005)(188)ELT374Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This five-member Bench has been constituted "to reconsider the decision rendered in the case of Lady Amphthil Nurses Instns. v.Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - reported at 2002 (150) E.L.T. 776 (Tri.-LB), pursuant to the referral order dated 8-4-2005 of the three-member Bench, to which the matter was originally referred to by the Division Bench that heard the appeal initially (vide referral order dated 1-7-2005). We have heard at length Shri E.P. Barucha, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants and Shri R.K. Pardeshi, learned D.R.for the Department. Both of them have argued the matter extensively and have painstakingly taken us through various case laws relevant to the case. Brief Facts of the Case 2. The appellants were issued two show cause notices dated 29-9-98 and 17-3-99 proposing confiscation of medical equipments, spares and accessories earlier imported by the appellants duty free under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-88, and collectively valued at Rs. 8,24,78,36...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on : May-18-2005
Reported in : (2005)97TTJ(Mum.)516
1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), Central-VII, Mumbai, dt. 30th July, 2004 for the asst. yr.2001-02. "(I) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the entire amount of Rs. 23 crores from M/s EEL was taxable as appellant's income for asst. yr. 2001-02, without appreciating that-- (a) the appellant was bound under agreements dt. 10th Jan., 1995 and 11th Feb., 1995 between him and M/s ABCL to handover to M/s ABCL entire income from 'engagements' as defined in the said agreements except those under Clause 1.7 thereof and M/s ABCL could enforce the terms thereunder as per Clauses 11 and 20 thereof. Further, he was also legally bound by his assurance given in information memorandum of M/s ABCL issued in 1996 for placing shares thereof at a premium of Rs. 70 per share. (b) the said agreements were genuine and bona fide as found by Hon'ble Tribunal vide its order No. 4453/Mum/2000 for asst. yr. 1996-97...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-07-2005
Reported in : 2005(4)ALLMR657; 2006(1)BomCR70; (2005)107BOMLR854
Acts/Rules/Orders: Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908 - Order 21, Rules 10, 12, 32, 32(1) to (4), 32(5), 35, 97(1), 97(2), 98, 98(2), 99, 101, 102, 103, 104 and 105; - Order 39, Rule 1; Advocates' Act, 1961 ;Bombay High Court (O.S) Rules;Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 55(1) and 52;Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 3, 12 and 14Cases Referred: Mukund Bapu Jadhav v. Tanu Sakhu Pawar, A.I.R. 1933 Bombay 457; Subhan B. Shaikh Noor v. Abdul Samad Haji Abdul Raheman, 1978 Mh.L.J. 519; Babulal v. Hazarilal Kishori Lal and Ors., (1982) 3 S.C.R. 94; Silverline Forum Pvt.Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust and Anr., (1998) 3 S.C.C. 723; Bhanwar Lal v. Satyanarain and Anr., A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 358; Krishna Tukaram v. Mahadeo Krishnaji, A.I.R. 1953 Bombay 227; Krishna Kumar Khemka v. Grindlays Bank, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 899; Sujit Singh and Ors. v. Harbans Singh and Ors., 1995 (6) SCC 50; Ramchandra Ganpat Shinde v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1673; Satya Brata Biswal v. Kalyan Kumar Kisku and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-06-2005
Reported in : (2005)(188)ELT306Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The above appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Complex by which he has - (a) Confirmed duty demand of Rs. 7,24,808/- on the appellant hospital. (b) Confiscated medical equipment imported by the hospital duty free under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988 on the ground of violation of the condition relating to free treatment to indoor as well as out door patient from the hospital, of the table to the notification. (c) Allowed the redemption of the goods confiscated on payment of fine of Rs. 5,02,095/-. (d) Imposed penalties of Rs. 2,51,048/- on the hospital and its secretary under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. We have heard both sides. The undisputed position is that the hospital was charging Rs. 10/- per OPD Patient for case paper and Rs. 20/- per IPD patient for admission and was also charging Rs. 25/- from indoor patients for X-ray, sonography and other test. As per condition No. 2 of the table annexed to the relevant notifi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-14-2005
Reported in : 2006(2)ALLMR146; 2006(3)BomCR135; 2006(2)MhLj443
P.S. Brahme, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the records.2. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4756 of 2004 on 25th February, 2005 is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition confirming the order dated 4-10-2004 passed by the Joint Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Amravati. The learned Joint Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Amravati vide his order dated 4-10-2004 dismissed the R.M.J.C. No. 33 of 2004 filed by the appellant wherein he has sought for extension of time and R.M.J.C. No. 59 of 2004 filed by respondent No. 1 for rescission of contract came to be allowed.3. The facts which are not in dispute may be stated in brief as follows :The appellant filed Special Civil Suit No. 69 of 2001 on 30-3-2001 against the respondent No. 1 (sole defendant) for specific performance of contract on the basis of agreement of sale dated 9-2-2001 whereunder the defendant agreed to sell his house property to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-23-2005
Reported in : 2005(3)ALLMR339; 2005(5)BomCR419; [2006(107)FLR52]; (2005)IIILLJ54Bom; 2005(3)MhLj640
D.B. Bhosale, J.1. The question raised in this Letters Patent Appeal is where there is an Award directing reinstatement of a workman is passed by Labour Court, which is being challenged by way of writ petition in High Court, and if such workman has not been employed in any establishment during such period, whether he could be denied relief under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'I. D. Act'). In other words, if such a workman files an application seeking relief under Section 17-B of the I. D. Act whether High Court is obliged to pass orders in such application directing the employer to make payment as contemplated under this section. This question was raised in view of the observations made by this Court in the order dated 22-11-2000 impugned in the instant Letters Patent Appeal, denying to pass appropriate order under Section 17-B, holding that no duty is cast by this section on the High Court to make an order for payment of full wages last drawn by him duri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-07-2005
Reported in : 2005(6)BomCR909; 2005(4)MhLj481
D.S. Zoting, J.1. Heard Shri G. V. Wani, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri R. R. Mantri, Advocate for the respondent.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent, taken up forthwith for hearing.3. It is to be noted that the respondent Mathurabai died during pendency of this petition. The respondents Nos. 1(A) to 1(E) are the legal representatives of the original respondent. By this petition, the present petitioners are challenging the order dated 17-9-2004 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik in RTS/Review/187/04 condoning the delay in preferring the review petition by the deceased Mathurabai.4. Relevant facts are as under :Mutation Entry No. 20740 came to be effected in favour of the present petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said entry, deceased Mathurabai filed an appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) before the Sub Divisional Officer, Pachora which was decided on 17-4-2000 and the appe...
Tag this Judgment!