Mumbai Court February 2001 Judgments

Smt. Ratiloku Shetty Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2001Bom380; 2001(4)ALLMR128; (2001)3BOMLR153; 2001(4)MhLj624

ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. 'ASHOK RESTAURANT & BEER BAR' is the illuminated neon sign board displayed by the petitioners on the front of the hotel premises, According to the respondents this name board displayed by the petitioners attracts Sections 328 and 328A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. According to the respondents the petitioners have violated these provisions as the name board was displayed without prior permission of the Competent Authority under the said Act. According to the. respondents, the said name board amounted to an advertisement, announcement or direction as contemplated by the said Act. The petitioners, however, contend that it was merely a neon sign or illuminated name board of the petitioners, displayed on the front of the premises and that it amounted to neither advertisement nor announcement nor a direction as contemplated by the aforesaid provisions of the Act. The petitioners contend that it is only a name board indicating the place and the service ...

Shri Suresh Hiralal Shah Vs. Shree Mahavir Swami Digambar JaIn Mandir ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR779; (2001)3BOMLR256; 2001(3)MhLj147

A. M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.2. All these writ petitions are against the order passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner. Pune Division, Pune rejecting the Petitioner's application for being impleaded in the proceedings pending before him in respect of Shree Mahavir swami Digambar Jain Mandir Trust under Section 22 of the Public Trusts Act. The Petitioner herein had preferred an application purported to be under Section 73A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act praying for Impleading him as Opponent in the proceedings of the change report filed by the alleged trustees. The Petitioner categorically stated in the said application that the Petitioner was interested in the affairs of the Trust. The Petitioner in para 2 of the application clearly asserted that the Petitioner has already raised objection by filing Caveat to the alleged change report and the Petitioner was shown as opponent in the change report No. 507 of 1998, 508 of 1998 and 509of 1998 an...

Shri Narayan S. Bite and ors. Vs. Shri Mahadeo Shripati Pise and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR414; 2001(3)BomCR262; (2001)3BOMLR540

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition takes exception to the order passed by the Civil Judge. J D. Atpadi dated 14.8.1992 below Exh. 28 in R.C.S. No. 20 of 1989.2. By the application below Exh. 28 the Petitioners original defendants prayed that the Court may frame issue regarding Consolidation Scheme and the same be referred to the Competent Authority, under the Bombay Fragmentation and Consolidation Act for being adjudicated as the said issues would arise out of the pleadings of the parties and could be exclusively settled, decided and/or dealt with by the Competent Authority under the said Act. This application was, however, rejected by the Court below mainly on the ground that the Consolidation Officer has no power to decide the title of the parties while implementing the Consolidation Scheme. The Court held that no powers are conferred on the Consolidation Officer to deprive a person of his title, because the issue of title is an absolute jurisdiction of Civil Court. In the circ...

Syndicate Bank Vs. Vijay Tanks and Vessels Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR744; 2001(3)BomCR724a; (2001)3BOMLR718; [2001]105CompCas501(Bom)

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Among the credit facilities which were extended by the Syndicate Bank, the Petitioner in this Company Petition, to the Respondent-Company-Vijay Tank and Vessels Limited, the Petitioner issued a Bank Guarantee for and at the request of the Respondent to a Company known as Southern Petrochemical Industries Pvt. Ltd. (S.P.I.C.). The Bank Guarantee, bearing No. 11/80, was in the amount of Rs. 33,65,200/- and was an unconditional and irrevocable Guarantee issued on 7th May, 1980. As is usual in the case of other unconditional Bank Guarantees, the Petitioner irrevocably and unconditionally guaranteed that it would pay an amount of Rs. 33,65,200/- on a demand in writing made by the beneficiary under the guarantee without recourse to the Respondent. The Respondent had entered into a contract with the beneficiary under the guarantee S.P.I.C. for the establishment of an Ammonia Terminal Facility and in pursuance of that contract, an unconditional and irrevocable Bank G...

Vyankat Parasu Jagdale and ors. Vs. Yeshwant Vithu Jagdale and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR103; 2001(3)BomCR259

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Satara dated 23-1-1995 in Misc. Appeal No. 170 of 1992.2. The said Misc. Civil appeal was filed by the petitioners against the order passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, J.D., Karad dated 16-7-1992 Exh. 101 in Regular Civil Suit No. 332 of 1990.3. The said application was filed by the respondents alleging that the petitioners original defendants inspite of injunction granted by the Court below as well as the undertaking filed by them acted in breach of the undertakings and disobeyed the injunction order. The Court below, after examining the record, held the petitioners guilty and therefore ordered that the petitioners defendant Nos. 1 to 4 be detained in civil prison for a period of ten days. The Court below issued warrant of arrest and detention of the petitioners defendant Nos. 1 to 4 on depositing the subsistence allowanc...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S Indian Petrochemical

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The clearance from the Committee of Secretaries of the Cabinet Secretariat which is required, since the respondent is a public sector undertaking, has not been produced. The departmental representative is unable to say whether the appellant has even applied for it.2. The appeal is therefore dismissed for want of such clearance. The appellant is however at liberty to seek revival of the appeal if and when such clearance is obtained....

Vidarbha Veneer Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant is absent and unrepresented. By its written submission of 25.12.2000, which has enclosed evidence of full and final settlement of the dues under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998....

Garden Cotton Yarns Ltd., Garden Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise an ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(76)ECC483

1. Garden Silk Mills (appeal 4564) is a processor of textile fabrics, both on its own account, as well as, as a job worker. J. Bhesania (appeal 4565) was, at the relevant time, its director. Garden Cotton Yarn Ltd (appeal 4563) was the owner of fabrics which were processed by Garden Silk Mills and returned to it. Vareli Associates (appeal 4566) and Garden Associates (appeal 4567) purchased between them the entire stock of second quality fabrics manufactured by Garden Silk Mills.These five are in appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat. In that order, the Commissioner has held that the expenses towards advertising which Garden Silks Mills and owner of the processed fabrics incurred, but passed on to the dealers of these goods, were includible in the assessable value of the processed fabrics. He has further held that the assessable value of the second quality fabrics sold by Garden Silk Mills to Vareli Associates and Garden Associates should be the price at...

M/S. Dipesh Engg. Works Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT210Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These four appeals have common grounds and arise from the same order. They are therefore being disposed of vide this single order.2. In spite of repeated instructions and cautions, the appellants have not appeared before us. We are therefore taking up these appeals for disposal ex part on merits. We have heard Smt. R. Arya for the Revenue.3. The appellants filed classification list nos. 1/91-92, 2/91-92, 3/91-92 and 1/92-93 from time to time. One kind of goods manufactured by them was described as "wooden plates and frames for filtration in filter plates". These goods were described as articles of wood and claimed to classify under sub-heading 4410.90. These classification lists were approved by the jurisdictional Assistant Collector. In September, 1993, the jurisdiction Collector of Central Excise passed orders in terms of section 35E(4) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (as it then was) directing the Assistant Collector to file an application before the jurisdictional Coll...

Swastik Rayon Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(148)ELT75Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Collector had confirmed the demand for duty issued to the appellant on the ground that the process of twisting and doubling of cellulosic filament yarn with a blended yarn comprising polyester and viscose amounts to manufacture, and imposed a penalty on the appellant. He has also ordered confiscation of the goods, plant and machinery with an option to redeem them on payment of fine.Porritts & Spencer (Asia) Ltd vs CCE 1999 (106) ELT 18 and in CCE vs Banswara Syntex Ltd 1996 (88) ELT 645, the Supreme Court has held that doubling or multifolding of yarn does not result in the emergence of a new commodity, and that the yarn continues to be yarn. The departmental representative has no answer. During the relevant period, there was no deeming provision in the tariff to deem such doubling or multifolding to be manufacture.3. Accordingly we hold that these process do not amount to manufacture.Hence duty was not payable, or penalty imposable, or...