Mumbai Court February 2001 Judgments

Suresh Madhukar Nagarkar Vs. Ujubaia Mahav Desai and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(4)BomCR212

T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. Heard both sides.2. The defendant in B.C.C.C. Suit No. 6958 of 1972 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bombay is appellant herein.3. An agreement of licence was executed between the plaintiff and defendant on 18-11-1968. As per the said agreement the suit premises which is a portion of National Medical Hall at Bai Panbai Gangli Building, Ground Floor, Lalbaug, Bombay 400012 was given on licence by the plaintiff to the defendant for the purpose of running Dental clinic. The agreement was for the fixed term for a period of 10 years. The royalty amount of Rs. 380/- per month was also fixed to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. In that agreement there are two clauses which enable the parties to terminate the licence before the period. Those Clauses are 11 and 12 which are reproduced hereunder :'11. In the event of the licensee committing breach of any of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the licenser shall be entitled to terminate this agr...

Sitaram Prabhu Tele and anr. Vs. Rajabai Vilas Patil and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2001)ACC139; 2002ACJ85; 2001(2)ALLMR75; 2001(3)BomCR269

R.M. Lodha, J.1. By this common judgment, I intend to dispose of this group of five first appeals which arises out of the same accident though from separate claim petitions and separate awards. The only challenge in these first appeals is the correctness of the view taken by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in holding that the truck MHF-8740 was also being driven rashly and negligently at the time of accident and liable to pay 50% of the compensation awarded to the claimants.2. For the sake of brevity and convenience, I am dealing with the facts of First Appeal No. 674 of 1988. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein are original claimants. The respondent No. 5 and 6 are original opponent Nos. 1 and 2. The appellants herein are original opponent Nos. 3 and 4 while respondent No. 7 herein is original respondent No. 5. The opponent Nos. 1 and 2 are owner and driver of S.T. Bus No. MTD-9392. The opponent Nos. 3 and 4 are owner and driver of truck No. MHG-8740. The opponent No. 5 is the insure...

Stanley Parker Jones Vs. Bansraj Laltaprasad Mishra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR551; 2001(3)BomCR263

T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.1. The learned Advocate for the respondent argued this matter on 1st February, 2001 for some time. Later he prayed for adjourning it on the next day as he desired that the Senior Counsel should argue the matter. We adjourned it to 2nd February, 2001 on condition that we shall give him 11/2 hours. On the next day, we gave more than two hours for the learned Senior Counsel to argue. However, he desired to continue. We declined. He objected to it. But we closed the appeal for orders. We may also point out that the learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the learned Single Judge heard the matter on 29-4-88 and the judgment was delivered by him on 15th September, 1990 i.e. nearly after 2.2 years. She wanted to contend that on this ground alone, the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge be set aside. However, we declined and expressed that we shall consider the merits of the matter.2. This appeal arises out of S.C. Suit No. 6954 of 1972 on the...

Balsara Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT586Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Balsara Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. (BEPL for short), the appellant before us was engaged in the manufacture extruded aluminium tubes. It began life as a partnership firm. Its partners were originally Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd. (BHPL for short) and Besta Cosmetics Private Ltd. (Besta for short), each holding 50% share. Two other partner were inducted in 1990, those being Aspi Balsara and his wife Hammy Balsara.Aspi Balsara was managing director of Balsara Hygiene Products ltd, and his wife its joint managing director. On 16^th October, 1990 the partnership firm became a private limited company. In addition to the four members of the erstwhile partnership, two other persons became its shareholders. These were S.W. Deshpande and Hilla Mistry. Deshpande was director of the appellant firm and general manager of BHPL. Hilla Mistry was a director of Besta and Aspi Balsara's sister.2. The department investigated the relationship between the appellant, and BHPL and Besta. The investment patter...

Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The advocate for the appellant produces copy of certificate issued by the designated authority showing full and final settlement of the dues under Kar Vivadh Semadhan Scheme, 1998 and requests for withdrawal of the appeals....

Commissioner of Customs, Acc Vs. Prasan Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(133)ELT623Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposes of two appeals before him. The matter was earlier adjourned to enable the department to file, if it chooses to, file another appeal in addition to the one already file against this order. No such appeal has been filed.Accordingly, this appeal is considered as an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the order-in-original No.S/10-52/93-ACIU of the Additional Commissioner.2. In the order impugned in the appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Additional Collector that the prices of the integrated circuits imported by Prasan Enterprises, the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the respondent before us, were undervalued and should be determined with reference to the price list which the department relied upon. He has, however, held that a discount of 60% should be deducted from the prices in the list. The department challenges this finding.3. We have heard the departmen...

Vimal Trading Company and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. By application of the ratio of the judgement of the Delhi High Court in Pioneer Silk Mills Vs. Union of India 1985 (80) ELT 507, the penalties imposed on each of the appellants before us under Rule 209A for their abetment of the evasion of duty leviable under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 by Bindal Textile Mills cannot be upheld.2. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside....

Deccan Mechanical and Chemical Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the national interest(not actually paid or claimed) on the advances given by the purchasers of the goods manufactured by the appellant is to be included in the assessable value of these goods. The Commissioner has advanced as a reason for ordering such inclusion in the fact that, but for these advances, the manufacturer would have been compelled to resort to commercial borrowing on payment of interest.2. It is now settled by the Supreme Court (VST Industries Vs. CCE 1998(97) ELT 395, etc.)that, unless a nexus is established between the fact of the advances and a reduction in the prices of the excisable commodity, the notional interest on such advances cannot form part of such assessable value. The reason advanced by the Commissioner by no means establishes such nexus....

Bombay Housing Corporation Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)81ITD545(Mum.)

1. These two appeals were heard together and are disposed of by a common order. Both relate to the same assessment year. One of the appeals arises out of the order of the CIT(A) dt. 30th Jan., 1996, passed, in appeal against the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act. The other appeal arises out of the order of the CIT(A) dt.19th Dec., 1997, passed in appeal against the order of the AO dt. 21st Jan., 1997, under Section 143(3) r/w Section 250. What happened was that by the order dt. 30th Jan., 1996, the CIT(A) had restored the issue relating to the exemption under Section 54E to the AO for de novo consideration taking note of certain contentions raised by the assessee. The AO examined the case afresh pursuant to the directions of the CIT(A) and denied the claim for exemption again. This order was also confirmed by the CIT(A). Thus, there are two appeals.2. The first issue which is covered by the first four grounds in ITA No. 2685/Mum/96 relates to the income to be assessed a...

Shri Gangadhar Mahadu Gajakas Vs. Shantilal Ubhaychand Gandhi and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR145; 2001(3)BomCR260; (2001)2BOMLR429

A. M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. By this writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Civil Judge, J. D., Malsiras dated 27.7.1989 below Ex. 7 in Darkhast No. 88 of 1986.2. By the said application, the Petitioner, who is the plaintiff, prayed for undertaking measurement of the properties in question by NIMTANA. This prayer has been rejected by the impugned order. The Court below mainly observed that no provision of taking NIMTANA on Court Commissioner's report has been brought to the notice of the Court. Besides that the Court has observed that if the Petitioner was not satisfied with the measurement undertaken by the Court Commissioner it was open for him to file a separate suit.3. Briefly stated, the Petitioner had filed a suit for injunction against the Respondents in respect of properties described as Gat No. 760 admeasuring 52 Acres situated at village Natepute, Taluka Malsiras. The said suit was compromised between th...