Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)101BOMLR556
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The plaintiffs by the present petition have applied for leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The suit by the plaintiff is for a declaration that the Hire Purchase Agreement dated 27th January, 1995 and the Hire Purchase Agreement dated 3rd July, 1995 are validly terminated with effect from 5th June, 1999; a further declaration that the defendants have no right, title or interest or claim whatsoever in respect of the said equipment, etc.; that the defendants be ordered and directed forthwith to hand over and deliver possession to the plaintiffs of the said equipments; that the defendants be ordered and decreed to jointly and/or severally pay a sum of Rs. 31,32,608/- collectively under the said Agreements being arrears of hire charges upto 5th June, 1999 with further interest thereon; that the defendants jointly and/or severally be ordered and decreed to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 25,02,274/- towards hire purchase charges for the remaining period of hir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(114)ELT321Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri A.V. Naik, Advocate argued the appeal. Shri Ashokan, represented the department.2. The appellants manufactured sugar as also sugar cubes. In the classification list filed, sugar cubes were claimed to fall under sub-heading 1701.90. The benefit of Notification No. 15/89 was claimed.The Assistant Collector approved the classification as proposed by the assessee. The jurisdic-tional Commissioner caused an appeal to be filed before the Collector (Appeals) as he felt that the benefit of the notification was wrongly granted. The notification specifically exempted castor, icing, demarara and candy sugar but did not include cube sugar. Before the Collector (Appeals) the assessees took the plea that by conversion of duty paid sugar to sugar cubes, no excisable product emerged. The Collector observed that these two goods were known in the market separately and that the sugar cube was a separately excisable product. He mentioned that the assessees had themselves classified the product an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(1)BomCR416; 1999(3)MhLj508
ORDERB.N. SRIKRISHNA, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith to respondent No. 1 and 4 who are the only parties found to be heard to resolve the grievance in this writ petition. Respondents 2 and 3 are mere formal parties and hence no service on them is necessary.2. The petitioners passed H.S.S.C. Examination from Nagpur Divisional Board held sometime in the months of March 1991 and March 1989 respectively. On 16-7-1991, the petitioners joined the Two years' Diploma in Teaching (Dip. T.) course offered by Sagar (M.P.) University and passed the same. The first petitioner passed Dip.T. on 30-4-1993 and the second petitioner passed it on 30-4-1994. On 31-5-1993, the said Dip.T. Course offered by Saugar (M.P.) University was derecognized by the Government of Maharashtra. On 27th July, 1997, the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers in the respondent No. 2 school and joined the respective posts on 1-8-1997. A proposal for grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioners was submit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(5)BomCR169; 2000BomCR(Cri)169
ORDER1. Heard the Advocates.2. Petitioner - original complainant has filed this revision application challenging the order of the Special Judge, Satara dated 30-1-1988 in Special Case No. 6 of 1983 wherein the learned Special Judge has after examining the evidence has acquitted the respondent Nos. 2 and 3-accused from the offence under sections 161, 165 and 165-A of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5(1)(d) r.w. section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is to be noted that against the said order of acquittal the State has not challenged the order of acquittal and accordingly in absence of any acquittal appeal and on considering the fact about the scope of revision, we are not inclined to entertain this revision application. Accordingly, criminal revision application is dismissed. Rule discharged.3. Appeal dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2000Bom223; 2000(2)ALLMR155; 2000(1)MhLj264
Barde, J.1. Writ Petition No. 2162 of 1999 is filed for challenging the election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') held on 20-4-1999; while the other two writ petitions are filed for challenging the election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the Corporation separately by the petitioner-Shri Oberoi, one of the Corporators. As these three writ petitions raise common issues, those are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The grounds raised for challenging the election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor-respondents Nos. 4 and 5 respectively in Writ Petition No. 2162 of 1999 -- are as follows:3. The petitioner-Shri Dhillon had contested the election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor both on 20-4-1999 against respondent Nos. 4 and 5 respectively; and he lost both the elections.4. The contention of the petitioner-Shri Dhillon is that, at the time of voting, 16 voters were given assistance to vote for the election of the Mayor; and 8...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)(89)LC409Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants manufactured textiles. Annual stock taking was being conducted in their premises in terms of Rule 223A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Seven show cause notices were issued for recovery of duty and imposition of penalty on the shortage noticed in such stock takings conducted in 1977, 1978, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986. The Additional Collector held that six show cause notices for the period 1977 to 1985 are barred by limitation. In the seventh case the percentage of shortage was 0.76. He observed that loss of 1% was condonable and condoned the loss. However he imposed penalty of Rs. 30,000/- in terms of the said rule. The assessees went in appeal before the Collector (Appeals). They submitted that the rule permits imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,000/-. Therefore the maximum penalty leviable could be Rs. 2,000/- in each case and sought remission in the penalty imposed of Rs. 30,000/-. The Collector (Appeals) however found fault with the Additional Collector's find...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)(115)ELT822Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants are Steamer Agent. 7 containers containing a total of 146 packages belonging to two exporters were shipped by them to Houston in USA under cover of 7 bills of lading. These seven containers were rejected and re-iinported under cover of Service bill of lading dt.12-8-1995. Although the same number of containers was shown, the number of packages were shown as 106. IGM was filed on 17-1-1996 showing 106 packages. On 9-2-1996, an amendment was filed on shipper's advice. The Collector held that in this situation 40 packages which were unmanifested were liable to confiscation under provisions of Section 111(f) and 111(g) of the Customs Act, 1962. He did not order confiscation of the goods but imposed the penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the appellants. Hence the present appeal.2. I have heard Shri N.P. Jagasia for the assessees and Shri. K.L.Ramteke for the Revenue.3. Shri Jagasia placed on record bills of entry whereby these containers were cleared on nil rate of duty in terms o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)(90)LC113Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Jain Packaging Pvt.Ltd. is whether proviso to Section 11A(1) is invokable for demanding the duty for the extended period.2. When the matter was called no one was present en behalf of the appellants and the notice issued to them has been returned by the postal authorities with the remark "Company closed". We, therefore, heard Shri Jagdish Singh, learned DR and perused the record.3. We observe that in the present matter the appellants were availing of the benefit of Notification No. 175/86. The operation of this notification was suspended during the period from 25.3.1986 to 31.3.1986 vide notification No. 202/86 dated 25.3.1986. The appellants continued to pay duty by availing the benefit of notification No.175/86. The department, therefore, issued a show cause notice on 21.3.1991 for demanding differential duty during the period from 25.3.1986 to 31.3.1986 which was confirmed by the Additional Collector in the impugned order holding th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(5)BomCR889
ORDERV.K. Barde, J.1. Heard Shri C.R. Deshpande, Counsel for the petitioners, and Shri P.B. Varale, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondents.2. It is the contention of the petitioners, that the offences under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, are bailable offences because the amendment which was carried out in the Act, by Act 18 of 1981 was for a fixed period. That period has expired and, therefore, now the specially inserted word 'non-bailable' in section 10-A is not there in the Act and, therefore, offence becomes bailable offence.3. Here it is necessary to note the changes which have taken place in section 10-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In the beginning, section 10-A was providing that the offences under the Act to be cognizable and bailable. However, by the Act 30 of 1974, amendment was effected. The words 'and bailable' were deleted. So, there remained the provision that the offences under the Act to be cognizable.4. Obviously, when no provision is made u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2(2000)ACC279
ORDER1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 72 days in presenting appeal. We have perused the application and objections thereto and heard the Counsel on both the sides. The only reason given is that the delay occasioned because decision had to be taken by the Regional Office at Pune. In our view, shuffling of papers from one office to another is no ground for extending the period of limitation or condonation of delay. We are not satisfied that there is any adequate or justifiable cause for the delay. The civil application is rejected....
Tag this Judgment!