Mumbai Court June 1997 Judgments

Sudhir Patil Vs. Shri S. Rafiq and Another

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998BomCR(Cri)7

ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. By means of this revision, preferred under section 482 and 397 of Cr.P.C. the petitioner (original complainant) has impugned the order dated 2-5-1991 passed by the JMFC, Jawhar, District Thane, in Enquiry Case No. 3/1991, dismissing the complaint filed by him wherein he has averred that respondent No. 1 has cheated him and an offence under section 420 IPC, is made out against him.2. In short, the allegations in the complaint read thus:-Complainant had sown 5000 seeds of water melon both on his land and also on that standing in the name of mother of one Raghunath Nangare. The complainant stated that as the water melons in the land of Raghunath Nangare, were ready for being cut, he was in search of a customer. On 15-2-1991, the respondent No. 1 came to him and agreed to purchase the water melons for Rs. 50,000/-. When he asked for earnest money, he assured that next week, he would bring the trucks, take all the water melons-fruits and pay the entire amount in a lu...

Moayyed Tayabally Boxwala and ors. Vs. Smt. Vijaya Pawankumar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)99BOMLR231

A.A. Desai, J.1. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane by the impugned judgment and decree dismissed the Civil Suit for specific performance of a contract dated 23rd August, 1979, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff (original vendee) failed to perform his part under the contract viz-obtaining of the permission from the revenue authority as envisaged by Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, the Tenancy Act).2. Mr. Sakhardande, the learned Counsel appearing for the original plaintiff has strenuously urged that on proper consideration of the relevant clause reproduced in the plaint, the obligation of obtaining such permission would be on the vendor and as such trial Court was not justified in denying the specific performance on this count.3. With the assistance of the learned Counsel, we have perused the relevant clause, namely, Clause 10. The terms of the said clause are unequivocal, unambiguous and need no further interpretation. The clause...

Gopichand P. Godhwani Vs. Gift Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is by the individual-assessee. The assessee has agitated against the authorities adopting the market value determined by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) and substituting the same for the consideration received on transfer of 7.5 per cent shares in the office premises at Mittal Towers and directing the assessee to pay the gift-tax on the same.2. The facts, as submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee, Mr.Prakash Jotwani, are that eighteen persons jointly purchased the third floor of Mittal Towers, B & C Wings measuring 14,654 sq. ft. and an open terrace of 7,100 sq. ft. for a consideration of Rs. 18,74,500.Thirteen persons of the total number of eighteen persons were belonging to the Godhwani family and the thirteen persons between themselves held 75 per cent of the shares in the properties. The remaining belonged to the other five persons. He submitted that the property so acquired jointly by the eighteen persons was an indivisible and undivided prop...

Shri Panduraqng Vithal Shind and Another Vs. Shri Vijayasingh Khandera ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1998(1)BomCR297; 1998(2)MhLj693

ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. This petition involves interpretation of section 43-1B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the B.T. & A.L (Act) as to (a) when does a person cease to be a member of the Joint Family and (b) if there is a part partition of the property where the landlord is a member ofthe Armed Forces, whether he is entitled to avail of the benefit under section 43-1B of the Bombay Tenancy Act.2. The petitioners admittedly are the original tenants and the respondent is the landlord. Though in some earlier proceedings, the respondent landlord had challenged the relationship of landlord and tenant, this controversy, however, does not survive in view of the orders passed in those proceedings. Suffice it to say that the respondent-landlord has now acknowledged the petitioners as tenants and moved an application under section 43-1B of the Bombay Tenancy Act against the petitioners herein.The subject matter of the property is agricultural ...

Haridas Nivrutti Shinde Vs. Dinkar Janardhan Bhosale and Others

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1997(3)MhLj820

1. By means of this Criminal Revision Application, the petitioner (Original Complainant) has impugned the Judgment and Order dated 24-1-1991, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur, in Summary Trial Case No. 489 of 1988, acquitting the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for offences punishable under sections 337, 323, 504, r/w 34, IPC. 2. In short, the prosecution case is that on 30-10-1987, at about 4.30 p.m. respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in furtherance of their common intention caused hurt to complainant Haridas Nivrutti Shinde in front of their house situated at Nirala vasti in the district of Solapur. The allegation is that the respondent no. 1 hurled a stone which struck on the forehead of the complainant and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 assaulted him with fists and kicks and also abused him. After the complainant had lodged his FIR, he was medically examined and was found to have suffered a contused lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm on the forehead and an abrasion over the 4th ring finger of the ...

Commissioner of Customs (P) Vs. Pawan Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1998)(97)ELT301Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The following points have been raised which according to the applicant Commissioner are points of law arising out of the Tribunals order :- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in holding that the Customs authorities have no power to confiscate the goods and impose penalty on M/s. Pawan Enterprises only on the basis that the goods seized and later confiscated, are under OGL. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration the provisions of Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act, in their entirety.2. The ld. DR Shri S.V. Singh, arguing on the applications submitted that the mere fact that the goods are imported under OGL cannot mean that they are not confiscable under the Customs Act, 1962. OGL is only for the authority to import the goods but there are other Customs procedure and formalities the breach of which can result in the confiscation of t...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The following question has been suggested by the Commissioner for reference to the High Court arising out of the order of the Bench No.3722-23, dated 6-1-1996. "Whether Modvat credit will be permissible on inputs when steel shots are tools and are not covered by exclusion clause of Rule 57A." 2. The Bench had held that steel shots which remove the rust and other impurities adhering to the surface of steels and similar goods by striking these goods at high velocity could not be considered to be tools, because they could not perform the function unless they were projected at high speed by the shot blasting machines. The Bench had observed that the shots could "at most" (not "almost" as erroneously mentioned in the application) be considered to be parts of the shot blasting machine. The question proceeds on the assumption, based apparently on the decision of the Collector (Appeals) that steel shots are tools. This assumption was not made by the Bench in its order; it could not have be...

Polycoat Powders Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT231Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether by notice dated 6th April, 1991, Modvat credit taken between 1986 and 1987 could be recovered.2. Appellant took Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs used by it in the manufacture of epoxy powder which it cleared without payment of duty for a unit in the Kandla Free Trade Zone in terms of Notification 123/81.3. The notice cites the proviso to Section 11A of the Act in conjunction with Rule 57-I but does not furnish any details as to the suppression or other factor specified in the proviso which would justify invoking it. Additional Collector in his order, says that the assessee is guilty of misstatement, by saying that clearances without payment of duty were for export. The Departmental Representative emphasises this aspect.4. I am, however, unable to find in any of the documents any statement made by the appellant before or during clearance of the goods that they were for export. On the contrary, its AR 3 application which...

Modern Petrofils Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT404Tri(Mum.)bai

1. By the impugned order the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara has denied Capital Goods Modvat credit under Rule 57Q on the following goods for the reason that they are not used for producing or processing the dutiable final product: 9. Bi-metal Thermometers, Oxygen Gas, Level [gauge], Aluminium Tubes.On hearing Shri R.C. Saxena, ld. Counsel for the appellants and Shri S.V. Singh, ld. JDR, we find that some of these goods have been considered in precedent decisions of the Tribunal as being eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A.2. Electric Wires and Cables have been held to be eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q in the case of Collector of Central Excise v.Nova Udyog -1996 (88) E.L.T. 532. Similarly the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Indian Rayons -1996 (88) E.L.T. 381 held that electric transformer being intergrated part of plant and machinery is eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. As regards air compressors the Commissi...

V.V. Belvalkar and Co. Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)(71)LC787Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above appeal arises against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay upholding the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs classifying the Mini Diskettes and Fonts Mini Diskettes imported by the appellants herein alongwith Photo-type setting system under heading 84.51/55(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as parts of Automatic Data Processing system and rejecting the appellant's claim for refund on the ground of short-shipment of chemical replenishment unit.2. The brief facts of the case are that in September, 1982, the appellants imported from USA a consignment of 3 packages containing: (v) Manuals and Technical Documents and claimed their assessment as under: Items (ii) and (iii) under heading 84.34 read with Notification No. 114/80 Item (iv) under heading 90.10 read with Notification No.11/77 The appellants filed an application for refund of duty on the groundthat Items (ii) and (iii) under heading 84.51/55(2) and without the benefit of Notification No. 11...