Mumbai Court September 1996 Judgments

Sonali Devendrakumar Nimal Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR209

A.P. Shah, J.1. Rule Respondents waive service. By consent, file is made returnable forthwith.2. The first question which arises for determination is whether a person belonging to a caste or a tribe specified for the purposes of the Constitution to be a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in relation to State 'A' migrates to State 'B' where a caste or a tribe with the same nomenclature is specified for the purposes of the Constitution to be a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in relation to that State 'B', will that person be entitled to claim the privileges and benefits admissible to persons belonging to Scheduled Tribe/Caste in State 'B'. The next question is whether a son or a daughter of such person born in State 'B' to which the person has migrated be entitled to claim such privileges in Stale 'B' or any other State.3. The first question is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean Seth G.S. Medical College and Ors. : [1990]2SCR84...

Lloyds Metals and Engineers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT499Tri(Mum.)bai

1. For hearing the applicants (sic)eal on merits covered by aforesaid 3 stay appeals they are required to deposit a total amount of Rs. 14,19,931/-. The issue relates to eligibility for Modvat credit in respect of items like steel plates, angles, bars, ceramic tiles etc.where the Commissioner has held them as not eligible for Modvat credit on capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. Shri N.K. Kapoor the Id. advocate pleads that they are very necessary for attaching the machinery and they are eligible capital goods.3. After hearing both sides we find that the items like steel plates, ceramic tiles, steel bars etc. are more in the nature of constructional materials. Prima facie, we may not be able to appreciate the arguments that they are machinery or accessory or parts of machines to be construed to be eligible capital goods. In the circumstances balance of convenience seems to be in favour of Revenue. They have to freeze the entire disputed amount in their Modvat ac...

Garment Craft Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT612Tri(Mum.)bai

1. M/s. Garment Craft imported two consignments, each consisting 15,000 metres of flocked velvet fabric and claimed clearance duty free under Pass Book and licence issued under the DEEC scheme. It was found that, when the goods were imported, the importer had already completed the obligation for export of "rayon readymade garments". After making enquiries, the department took the stand that the imported goods could not be used as replenishment material because they were not identical in nature and technical characteristics with goods used in the manufacture of the exported garments. The department was also of the view that the value of the goods had been underdeclared. Notice was issued proposing denial of the benefit of Notification No. 117/88 and confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty on the ground of misdeclaration of value. After considering the cause shown, and hearing the importer, the Collector passed orders, increasing the value of the goods, denying the benefit o...

Shivraj Vasant Bhagwat Vs. Smt. Shevanta Dattaram Indulkar and Another

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(1997)ACC558; 1997ACJ1014; AIR1997Bom242; 1997(2)BomCR384; 1997(1)MhLj175

ORDERDudhat, J.1. This First Appeal No. 741 of 1996 is based against the Award dated 22-1-1996 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, Raigad, at alibag in motor accident claim No. 153 of 1993. Appellant in this case is the original opponent No. 1, who is the owner of the truck. Respondent No. 1 is the claimant, who had suffered injury during the accident and suffered 70% disability. Respondent No. 2 is the Insurance Company. Though served on 26th June 1996 nobody filed appearance on their behalf. We may further mention that part from the aforesaid service through the court, respondent No. 2 was served by the present appellant at the time of admission as well as hearing of the civil applications.2. Few facts which are necessary to dispose of this first appeal are as under:--Appellants is carrying on the business of crushing the stone and other incidental activities and is the owner of vehicles Dumper / Motor Truck of the mark 'Fargo' bearing R.T.O. Registration No. MHS/2...

Sharad Shankarrao Mane and Etc. Vs. Ashabai Shripati Mane

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1997Bom275; 1997(2)BomCR12

ORDER1. Both these petitions will be disposed of by this common judgement and order. 2. Smt. Ashabai Shripati Mane is a common respondent in both these petitions who was granted Letters of Administration with respect to the property of her deceased husband Shripati Nan Mane. The said respondent Ashabai Mane had filed Petition No. 591 of 1990 for being granted Letters of Administration and the grant was made in her favour on 3-12-1991. The present petitions are filed by one Sharad Shanhkarrao Mane (Misc Petn. No. 14 of 1994) and one Namdev Govind Dhavale (Misc. Petn. No. 4 of 1995) for revocation of the said grant under S. 263 of the Indian Succession Act. 3. It is the case of Sharad Mane who is the petitioner in Misc. Petn. No 14 of 1994 that he is the nephew of Shripati Nan Mane (brother's son). It is his contention that the respondent Smt. Ashabai mane was never married to his uncle Shripati Mane who died interstate. It is his case that though the respondent Ashabai Mane claims to be...

Sharavan Baburao Dinkar and Etc. Vs. N.B. Hirve, Additional Inspector ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1997(2)BomCR51; (1996)98BOMLR824; 1997CriLJ617; 1997(1)MhLj412

Agarwal, J.1. Both the petitions raise similar challenge and can, therefore, be disposed of by a common order. Petitioners in both the petitions have filed complaints in different police stations. The petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 301 of 1996 filed complaint with the Senior Inspector of Police, Central Police Station, Ulhasnagar against the respondent No. 3 for the alleged offences under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act. The case was registered vide C.R. No. II 69 of 1995. As far as this complaint is concerned, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ulhasnagar has passed an order granting 'B' Summary. Petitioner, in the said petition, has impugned has said order in Criminal Writ Petition No. 301 of 1996.2. As far as the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 302 of 1996 is concerned, he filed a complaint at the Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station, Kalyan alleging commission of an offence against employees of the Kalyan Municipal Corporation ...

Jagdishsingh Deonandansingh Vs. Feku Jamnaprasad Yadav and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1997(4)ALLMR192; 1997(1)BomCR457

V.H. Bhairavia, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Bombay dated 26-10-1994 in S.C. Suit No. 6829/75 by the original defendant No. 1 the appellant herein.2. The suit was filed by respondent No. 1 and his widowed mother-original plaintiff No. 1 who died during the pendency of the suit; against the present appellant-defendant No. 1 and one Lalchand Gurjan Yadav as defendant No. 2 who died during the pendency of the suit but his legal heirs were not brought on record and the learned Judge in the order of decree declared a suit abated against defendant No. 2. The respondent Nos. 2 to 22 herein are the tenants of the suit property and respondents Nos. 23 to 25 are the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff No. 1.3. The facts of the suit in brief are that, one Shri Jamnaprasad Yadav, the deceased father of the respondent No. 1 owned two plots of land admeasuring 250 sq. yards bearing C.T.S. No. 376(Pt.) and 277 sq. m...

Amar Vijay Merchant and ors. Vs. Pushpakumar M.D. Thackerey and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1997(4)ALLMR133; 1997(2)BomCR389

R.M. Lodha, J.1. By this Civil Revision Application filed under section 115 of C.P.C., the petitioners herein seek to challenge the legality and correctness of the order dated 27-9-90 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court refusing petitioners' Chamber Summons No. 774 dated 6-8-90 in Suit No. 4539 of 1989.2. Shri Vijay Merchant the well-known social worker and philanthropist was concerned with various trust and philanthropy institutions and he was also the managing trustee of Sir Vithaldas Damodar Thackerey Charitable Trust which was established by indenture dated 18th October, 1984. The said trust is registered and is public charitable trust. Sir Vijay Merchant died on 27-10-87. The present petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 are his sons, wife and daughter respectively. The respondents No. 1 and 2 herein are brothers of Shri Vijay Merchant and respondents No. 4 and 5 are his nephews. The present petitioners (for short, 'plaintiffs') filed a suit in the Court of Bombay City Civil Court at Bomba...

M/S. Sails India Vs. Mrs. Rita M. Rupani

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1997Bom247; 1997(2)BomCR151; 1997(2)MhLj269

ORDER1. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent, the Civil Revision Application is heard finally at this stage.2. On 30-7-1996, the Competent Authority (Rent Act), Konkan Division, Bombay, allowed the application made by the respondent herein Mrs. Rita M. Rupani under Section 13-A2 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging house Rate Control Act, 1947 (for short 'Bombay Rent Control Act') and directed the present applicant M/s Sails India to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question i.e. one Hall, one Bedroom, one bath room with W.C. of Rizvi park 5th floor Rizvi Park Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., S.V. Road, Santacruz (West) Bombay within 30 days of the passing of the impugned order and also directed the present revisionist to pay leave and license fee i.e. Rs. 12,000/- per months as compensation from and after 1st February, 1994 till the possession is handed over. This order came to be passed on the application made by Mrs. Rita M. Rupani respondent herein (...

Homi Mehta and Sons (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This is the third misellaneous application filed by the assessee as arising out of the Tribunal's order dated 28th April, 1994 passed in ITA No. 1652 of 1989.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present application are that one of the issues raised in the appeal was with regard to the disallowance made under section 40A(8) of the Income-tax Act. It was the case of the assessee that even if disallowance is required to be made, then the amount of interest which is periodically credited to the account of the creditor is not a 'deposit' and, therefore, in calculating the disallowance under the said section, this interest element should be eliminated. This contention of the assessee was negatived by the Tribunal in the said order. Thereupon, the assessee had filed a miscellaneous application, which was registered as M.A. No. 166 of 1995, which was dismissed by the Tribunal on 16th October, 1995 and it was held that through the miscellaneous application, the assessee is only canvassing ...