Mumbai Court December 2000 Judgments

Siemens Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT751Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue for consideration in this appeal is of the classification of the product "Switch Fuse Unit". The assessees claimed classification under sub-heading 8537. The department classified these products under sub-heading 8536.90. For ease or reference the two entities are reproduced below:85.36 Electrical apparatus for switching or protecting electri- cal circuits, or for making connections to or in electrical circuits (for example, switches, relays fuses, surge sup- pressors, plugs, sockets, lamp-holders, junction boxes,) for a voltage not exceeding 1,000 volts.8536.10 Overload protection or thermal relay, starting relay 16% controls, for refrigerating and air-conditioning appli- ances and machinery.8536.90. Others . 16%85.378537.00 Boards, panels, consoles, desks, cabinets and other 16% bases, equipped with two or more apparatus of head- ing No. 85135 or 85.36 for electric control or the distribu- tion of electricity, including those incorporating in- struments or apparatus of ...

Devji Ravji Patel Huf Through Its Manager and Karta Kantilal Bhavarlal ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR196; 2001(3)BomCR828; (2001)4BOMLR388

ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The defendants above named have taken a serious exception to my granting leave to the plaintiff under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of the High Court to receive, try and determine the suit filed by him in this Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. By the above chamber summons, the defendants have prayed for revocation and/or cancellation of such a leave granted. The defendants have filed an affidavit of one Shri Thomas Cherian in support of their chamber summons, setting out the facts and the grounds on which they have sought revocation of the leave granted to the plaintiff under clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The plaintiff has filed affidavit in reply controverting the facts and averments made in the affidavit of Shri Cherian and maintaining their case that leave under Clause 12 was rightly granted and this Court has Jurisdiction to receive, try and determine the above suit in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction.2. I have heard both the lea...

Asha Krishinlall Bajaj (Smt.) Vs. Sub-registrar of Assurances and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR629

1. The petitioner has moved this petition against the Sub-Registrar of Assurances and Joint District Registrar & Controller of Stamp Duty of Documents, against the order of impounding the instrument of release presented by the petitioner for registration on the ground that those documents amounted to deed of conveyance and not the deed of release under the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for both sides. Perused the record. The facts giving rise to the dispute, in brief, are thus:---The husband of the petitioner was owner of flat No. 53 bearing City Survey No. 3727 admeasuring 511 sq. yards situated in Kansai section, Ambernath (E), Dist. Thane, together with house constructed thereon. The husband of the petitioner died intestate leaving behind the petitioner, a son and a married daughter. The son and the married daughter are well established in life and, therefore, were not interested in the property and thus wanted release of their respective 1/3 share in f...

Kum. Saroj J. Kamble Vs. Smt. Latha Mohan and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR471; (2001)2BOMLR948; 2001(2)MhLj874

ORDERS. A. Bobde, J.1. 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of the School Tribunal, Navi Mumbai dated 27.9.1999, allowing the appeal of respondent No. 1 i.e. Smt. Lata Mohan, is preferred by Kum. Saroj J. Kamble. The first respondent had filed the said appealbeing Appeal No. 142 of 1997 challenging her reversion from the post of headmistress. This reversion had become necessary because of the order of the School Tribunal in an earlier appeal bearing No. 18 of 1994, which set aside the reversion of the petitioner and found the petitioner entitled to hold the said post of headmistress. It is the post of headmistress which is the bone of contention in this dispute.2. The litigation has been going on for quite some time. It appears from the seniority list dated 22.1.1993 that respondent No. 1 is senior to the petitioner, having been appointed on 6.6.1979, the pet...

State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. Shivram Sambhajirao Sadawarte, Chief ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(2)BomCR492; (2001)ILLJ1198Bom

B.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. This petition has been moved before us for the sole purpose to settle the position in law so far as this Court is concerned, in the matter of suspension of a Government employee under Rule 4 (1)(c) or 4(2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 (for short the Rules).2. We shall briefly set out the facts of this case. The respondent was working as Naib Tahsildar at Badnapur, Dist. Jalna and while he was holding the said post a complaint came to be lodged with the Anti Corruption Bureau, alleging that the petitioner had demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 500/-, alongwith one Awal Karkoon and June Shri Prakash Tribhuwan, on October 10, 1997. The applicant came to be arrested on the same day and he was in police custody for more than 48 hours, as a result of the raid by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalna. This followed an order of suspension, issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad on October 27, 1997. Simultaneously a charg...

Manohar Purushottam Sonar Vs. Nandkrishna Narayan Sonar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR518

V.K. Barde, J.1. The plaintiff from Regular Civil Suit No. 201/1977 filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nandurbar, has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), dismissing his suit for possession of the premises leased to the tenant and the further judgment of the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Dhule, dismissing his appeal filed against the said judgment and decree.2. The plaintiff filed the suit contending that the suit premises, the ground floor portion of the house City Survey No. 1100/1 being property No. 2417 of Nandurbar was leased to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 40/-. The month of tenancy begins on first of each month as per British calendar and ends at the end of each month of the British calendar. The defendant paid rent upto 30-9-1976. However, thereafter the defendant was avoiding to make payment of the rent by giving false excuses and he did not pay the rent till the time of notice. The plain...

Narendramal S/O Mishrimal Bafna Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)490; 2001CriLJ1667

ORDERJ.N. Patel. J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent.2. These are two applications filed by the sole surviving Director of M/s. Azide Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., challenging his prosecution for having committed offence under Rule 4(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Maharashtra Factories Rules, 1963 and for offences under Section 7-A(2)(e) of the Factories Act, 1948.3. The applicant came to be prosecuted by the respondent-State through its Assistant Director, Industrial Safety and Health, Nagpur for the reason that in an enquiry into the leakage of toxic gas which resulted into the death of Shri Rajesh Gupta, Managing Director, who was also notified as the 'Occupier' under the Factories Act and Shri Harpal Singh Thakur and Shri Ramkrishna Raut, the Company was found guilty. On 13-10-1995 at 7.30 a.m., it was found that the factory was engaged in manufacturing activity of making sodium azide and that the c...

Kamal Dyeing, Bleaching and Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(130)ELT961Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applicant filed this application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 1,76,876.11. The learned Counsel submits that the applicants are engaged in the processing of grey fabrics. He submits that the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order granted benefit of 2% in respect of shrinkage from the grey cloth during the processing.He submits that the instructions issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai No. 1/94, dated 23-3-1994 from File No. V/T-3/Ch. 54 (30)1/94 are to the effect that shrinkage in respect of man-made fabrics comes to approximately 8% or so. He also relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in their own case, Order Nos. 71-72, dated 3-1-1995 where by the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the adjudicating authority for re-determination of the duty. In this case the Tribunal noticed the fact that some of the adjudicating authorities had allowed loss up to 5% and without any evidence a mechanical application of percentage of 2% is not sustainab...

Roop Body Builders Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. I have read the written submission and heard the departmental representative.2.The duty is stated to be Rs. 1,29,634/-. The question relates to the acceptability of invoices issued by the dealers for the purpose of Modvat credit. Some defects have been found by the adjudicating authority in them.3. The issues are arguable and the applicant has already deposited Rs 75,500/- in pursuance of the stay order of the Commissioner (Appeals).I therefore do not think that any further deposit is called for and accordingly waive deposit of the remaining duty and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- and stay their recovery....

Chandrashekhar Purushottam Rathi Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR573; 2002(2)MhLj181

S.G. Mahajan, J.1. Since both the parties in this appeal consented for the final disposal of this case, the matter was fixed for final hearing.2. The appeal is taken up for final hearing by consent of both the parties.3. The order impugned in this appeal was passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Yavatmal, on 13-6-2000 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 192/94 whereby he allowed the said appeal, set aside the judgment and decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 172 /92 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal, on 30-7-1994 and remanded the matter back to the lower Court, that is to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal, with a direction to return the plaint to the plaintiff, who is the present appellant, for presentation after complying with the provisions of Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code.4. The Government of Maharashtra through Collector, Yavatmal, issued a demand notice to the plaintiff (present appellant) by making the assessment of his plot as converted f...