Mumbai Court June 2000 Judgments

City Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Directorate of Insurance a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ACJ865

D.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the award dated 20.2.1988 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thane, directing the opponent No. 1, i.e., CIDCO, who is the employer of the claimant, to pay compensation in the amount of Rs. 34,020 with interest.2. This award is challenged firstly by the CIDCO only on one ground, namely, that the vehicle was insured with the opponent No. 2, Directorate of Insurance and, therefore, the liability to pay the compensation is of the opponent No. 2 also jointly with the opponent No. 1, i.e., the appellant. The original claimant has also filed a cross-objection claiming increase in the amount on four counts namely, (i) expenses incurred for visiting the doctor; (ii) compensation awarded on account of pain and suffering; (iii) compensation awarded on account of loss of amenities and enjoyment of the life; and (iv) compensation awarded on account of impairment of future prospect and earning.3. So far as the first aspect of th...

indu-nissan Oxo Chemicals Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(120)ELT625Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The facts of the case in brief are as follows : "The appellants were issued a show cause notice dated 27-2-1998 alleging that a number of consignments of Heptene and Nonene (herein after called "the said goods") had been imported without satisfying the requirements under the Import-Export Policy 1992-1997 (herein after called the Exim Policy).The show cause notice alleged that the appellants had imported the said goods and had cleared them as Naphta and had claimed benefit of Notification No. 12/97, 11/97 and 41/96. The show cause notice also alleged that, as the said goods were to be classified under Chapter Sub-heading 2710.00, of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; as Naphta, the same were also to be considered as Naphta for the purpose of licensing under the Exim Policy".2. We have heard Shri A. Hidayatullah Sr. Counsel appearing along with Shri Arun Mehta and Shri. J.B. Verma Advocates for the applicants. We have heard Shri Deepak Kumar for the Revenue.3. We have also seen the show ...

Sadanand S. Varde and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR510; 2001(1)BomCR261; [2001]247ITR609(Bom)

B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This writ petition under article 226 read with articles 14 and 48A of the Constitution of India is a public interest litigation by the petitioners who are taxpayers and rate payers residing in Bandra area and claim to be deeply interested in environmental protection and planned and orderly development of the city of Mumbai. The first petitioner is the president of the Bombay Civic Trust and the second petitioner is the president of the Save Bombay Committee. The first petitioner was for a number of years municipal councillor and a member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and later of the Council. He is also an ex-Minister of the Government of Maharashtra. The second petitioner was an active member of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay for a number of years and is active in the field of environment protection. The third petitioner was a professor of the Bombay University who takes keen interest in environment protection. The fourth petitioner was dir...

Smt. Krishanabai Yallapa Suryavanshi and ors. Vs. Yashwant Sakharam Lo ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR93

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and the Respondents. The Appellant No. 1, Appellant No. 9 and the Respondent No. 1 since deceased, their legal heirs are already brought on record.2. The brief facts of this case are that one Yallappa Suryavanshi (husband of deceased Appellant No. 1), was allotted Plot No. K10 (now renumbered as A115), by the Respondent No. 2 Society. It appears that the scheme was that the allottee was to pay a certain amount towards the construction of premises and the balance was to be paid in instalments. It is also an admitted position that the said Yallappa Suryavanshi had paid to the Respondent No. 2 Society, a sum of Rs. 750/- towards the construction of the said premises. It appears that a small tenement admeasuring about 400 sq. ft. was constructed on the said plot. Suddenly, the Respondent No. 2 seems to have inducted one Yashwant Sakharam Lohar Respondent No. 1, who is now dead and being represented by his legal heirs in th...

Binod Tekriwal Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(121)ELT150Tri(Mum.)bai

1. When this matter was called, it was submitted by learned advocate, Shri S.P. Sheth, that the question in this appeal is relating to imposition of penalty on the sole proprietor of the firm and also on the firm and in this case as the application made by the firm under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme has been accepted and the matter settled by an order passed by the designated authority, the Commissioner (Appeals) has deemed the appeal of the firm to be withdrawn and the matter settled in terms of the KVSS Scheme. Therefore the appeal of the sole proprietor Shri Binod Tekriwal should be considered and decided.2. Shri Deepak Kumar, DR submitted that he has no objection to the main appeal being taken up and submitted that the penalty has not only been imposed on the sole proprietor of the firm which has settled under the KVSS Scheme but also showed the fact that Shri Tekriwal was acting for and on behalf of his wife and daughter who were shown as proprietors of certain other proprietary...

Dattaram A. Arolkar and Others Vs. the Mamlatdar of Mormugao and Other ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2001Bom74; 2000(4)BomCR669

ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. As the issue involved in the Letters Patent Appeal involves an important question of interpretation of section 7-A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tenancy Act'), apart from Counsel appearing in the present Letters Patent Appeal, Counsel appearing in Letters Patent Appeal No. 9/99 were also allowed to address the Court on the issue of law.2. The Companion Letters Patent Appeal No. 9/99 wherein the same issue arose, was also tagged alongwith this Letters Patent Appeal which has been heard. However, it seems that during the pendency of the proceedings, one of the respondents has expired. In the light of that, the said Letters Patent Appeal has to be heard separately after the Legal Representatives are brought on record. However, since the issue of law was common, Counsel appearing in Letters Patent Appeal No. 9/99 were also heard while disposing of the present Letters Patent Appeal.3. Brief facts may be nec...

Smt. Radhabai Balkrishna Deshpande and anr. Vs. Shri Babu Dhondu Shewa ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR120; 2001(1)BomCR141

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. These two writ petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, dated 22-4-1983. Writ Petition No. 2806 of 1983 is filed by the owners in respect of the lands bearing survey Nos. 127 and 59/1 (part), situate at village Chinchodi, Tahsil- Ambegaon, District Pune; whereas Writ Petition No. 2301 of 1990 is filed by the alleged tenants in respect of the said lands. (The land owners will be referred to hereinafter as petitioners and the alleged tenants as respondents). To be more accurate, petitioner No. 1 is the original owner of the suit lands and petitioner No. 2 is the transferee, who has purchased the suit lands from petitioner No. 1.2. The present proceedings are arising out of suo motu proceedings initiated by the Mamlatdar and Tenancy Awal Karkun under section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The re...

Raskar Vidya Damodar (Mrs.) @ Bhujbal Vidya Vs. Maharashtra Arogyamand ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2000(4)ALLMR705; 2001(2)BomCR284

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Heard Mr. Langote, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Divekar, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the learned A.G.P. for respondents Nos. 4 to 6. Leave to delete respondent No. 3 granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.2. Rule, learned Counsel for respondents waive service. Petitions taken up for final hearing forthwith by consent of the parties.3. The petitioner holds the qualification of Master of Science with as additional Degree of Bachelor of Education. He belongs to the Other Backward Categories and is qualified to be appointed as trained teacher in a Secondary School. The respondent No. 1 Society is running a Secondary School at Taravade Wasti in Hadapsar which is a suburb of Pune City. It is a private recognized school and it runs classes from 5th to 10th standards. For the academic year 1998-99 the Government had accorded sanction as a fully aided school.4. The petitioner came to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher from 8t...

Smt. Khudejabi Umar Patel Vs. Shri AyanuddIn Abdul Razak and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)102BOMLR320

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree in Regular Civil Appeal No. 326 of 1993, dated 29th July, 1995 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Kolhapur, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and thereby confirmed the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur, dated 30th March, 1993 in Regular Civil Suit No. 84 of 1985 dismissing the said suit filed by the appellant herein. Mr. Patil has appeared for the appellant herein in support of this Second Appeal and Mr. Sakhare with Mr. Dalvi have appeared for Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is served and is represented by an Advocate, but both of them are not present.2. The facts leading to this Second Appeal are as follows:-The appellant who filed Regular Civil Suit No. 84 of 1985 is a widow. Respondent No. 1 herein is the brother and respondent No. 1 is her own son who is also the son-in-law of respondent No. 1. The property in this litigation is an ag...

Sterling Construction and Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) passed under the provisions of Section 263 dated 31st March, 1999 for the assessment year 1995-96. In this appeal the assessee has contested the validity of order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under the provisions of Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on various legal grounds as well as on merits, For the sake of convenience the grounds of appeal raised are reproduced below :-- "(1) The learned CIT erred in revising the assessment order, which was passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (2) The learned CIT failed to appreciate that since the assessment order was framed by the Assessing Officer on the directions given by the Dy. CIT under Section 144A of the Act, the Assessing Officer had applied his mind and hence his order could not be revised under Section 263 of the Act. (3) The learned CIT ought to have appreciated that the assessment order passed by the A...