Mumbai Court February 2001 Judgments

M/S. German Remedies Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This group of appeals has been filed against the decision of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai made in Order-in-Appeal No.GS/350/B-1/93 dated 30.9.1993 whereunder the learned appellant authority had varied the order passed by the adjudicating authority to the extent of several items mentioned in the stay order.2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products falling under item 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. For production of their final products they were availing modvat credit under rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules on various inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of the final products. It is the case of the appellants that they were filing declaration provided under rule 57G of the Rules. The adjudicating authority issued 11 show cause notices demanding a sum of Rs.13,24,040.96 under rule 571 of the Modvat Rules mainly on the basis that the description of the goods mentioned in gate pas did not match with the description...

Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Anjani Synthetics Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(131)ELT313Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in these two appeals is whether the manufacturer was entitled to take Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs used by it for manufacture of processed fabrics which it removed, without payment of duty, under the provisions of Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules for manufacture of garments which were exported by their manufacturer.2. In the orders impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeals of the manufacturers against the orders of the Assistant Commissioner. He has held that clearances under Rule 13 were not exempted from duty, and therefore Rule 57C would not be attracted.3. The department's appeals against these orders contend that the fact that the manufacturers removed the fabrics without payment of duty to garment manufacturers following the procedure prescribed in Chapter X of the Rules, as provided in Notification 47/94, shows that the goods were exempted.CCE v. Omkar Textile Mills Ltd., 2000 (122) E.L.T. ...

Sou. Shakuntala J. Gujar Vs. Shri Dilip R. Pawar and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR566; 2001(3)BomCR247; (2001)2BOMLR405

A. M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition takes exception to the order passed by the Civil Judge, S. D., Alibag dated 15.10.1993 below Exh. 33 in Special Civil Suit No. 98 of 1990.2. By application below Exh. 33 the Petitioner herein prayed that the Petitioner be permitted to carry out the proposed amendment to the plaint as set out in the application. The Petitioner, besides the relief claimed in the plaint for partition, now sought further relief that the Will executed by the deceased is void and Illegal. The Court below, by the impugned order, rejected the application preferred by the Petitioner and refused to permit amendment as sought mainly on the ground that permitting the petitioner to carry out the amendment would amount to allowing him to introduce new cause of action and further that the claim set up by way of proposed amendment is barred by time. It is this decision which has been taken exception to in the present writ petition.3. After having considered the relevant pleadi...

Patel Engineering Works Vs. Shri Santosh Kumar Rawool and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR561; 2001(3)BomCR463; (2001)2BOMLR420; [2001(89)FLR383]; (2001)ILLJ1354Bom; 2001(3)MhLj439

ORDERR.J. Kochar, J.1. The Petitioner-employer as well as Respondents employees are aggrieved by the Order of the Industrial Court passed by it in Complaint of Unfair Labour Practice filed by the individual employees invoking theItems 2, 5, 6 and 9 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.2. The Complainants had complained that though they were in employment for a period between 11 years and 17 years and that they were not regularised or made permanent and that they were paid lower than minimum wages. According to them they had completed more than 240 days continuous service and therefore, they were entitled to be made permanent and were entitled to wages and service conditions of permanent employees. According to them, the Petitioner employer was getting the work done through contractors and that they were deprived of the benefits of permanency. This is the nature of the complaint of the employees.3. The Petitioner Company appe...

Balu Appaji Sangaonkar Vs. Rangrao Dattoba Palkar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR556; 2001(3)BomCR249; (2001)2BOMLR715; 2001(2)MhLj709

A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the 4lh Additional District Judge, Kolhapur dated 16.12.1992 below Exhibit 35 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 69 of 1992.2. The preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Respondent is that this writ petition cannot proceed in absence of Kondi Rama Dhinde, original defendant No. 1. This objection is, however, being raised for the first time across the bar. This writ petition has remained pending since 1993, for it was admitted as back as on 18.2.1993. Admittedly, the Respondent did not file any reply affidavit or a formal application raising this preliminary objection, but the same was raised only when the Court was about to dictate the judgment after hearing both the Counsel on merits. In any case I find no force in the preliminary objection. In my view the presence of Kondi Rama Dhinde, original defendant No. 1, is not essential or necessary for the adjudic...

Balu Baburao Zarole and ors. Etc. Vs. Shaikh Akbar Shaikh Bhikan and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2001Bom364; 2001(3)ALLMR95; 2001(3)BomCR255

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. In the first of these two companion Second Appeals (S.A. 615/2000), the suit for specific performance has been decreed and the Judgment of the Trial Court has been affirmed in Appeal. The Original First Defendant, whose heirs are the Appellants, became a deemed purchaser under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and the purchase price was fixed at Rs. 20,032/-. The First Defendant was a tenant in respect of Survey Nos. 216 and 217. On 30th November, 1974, an Agreement to sell was entered into by the first defendant with the Plaintiff, by which the Plaintiff made the entire payment towards the purchase price of Survey Nos. 216 and 217 on behalf of the First Defendant. The First Defendant agreed to sell Survey No.216 to the plaintiff.2. The Trial Court decreed the suit holding that the agreement to sell was duly proved and that the Plaintiff who had paid the entire consideration had established his readiness and willingness to per...

Empire Industries Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra Industries, Energy ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001(89)FLR721]; (2001)IILLJ170Bom

F.I. Rebello, J. 1. The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It has a factory at Ambarnath, which was engaged in the business of manufacturing of E.O.T. Cranes. The workmen employed in the factory were represented by the Association of Engineering Workers, a recognised Union under the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, the respondent No. 3 herein. The petitioners signed various settlements with the said Union. The last such settlement was signed on December 24, 1986 which expired in June, 1989. Afresh charter of demands was submitted on July 27, 1989. The petitioners could not meet with the demands as according to them they were incurring heavy losses and that at the material time there were accumulated losses of Rs. 11.05 crores. It is contended by the petitioners that as the demands of the workmen were not met the workmen started resorting to various unlawful activities. Various meetings took place between the representative...

Dinanath Badriprasad Shreshta Vs. Chandradevi Mahanprasad Upadhya

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR92; 2001(4)BomCR286

B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This appeal challenges the judgment and decree made in the suit by which it is declared that the present respondent (original plaintiff) is a co-owner of the suit premises and relief granted of restraining the appellant, his agents, servants and persons claiming through him from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff and/or dispossessing the plaintiff and the family members from the suit premises and restraining the appellant from inducting any person or persons in the suit premises and from dealing with, disposing of or alienating the right, title and interest in the suit premises or any part thereof whatsoever.2. The facts necessary for disposing of this appeal are as under :--Sometime in the year 1943 the defendant came to Bombay and had been residing with the plaintiff and her family then consisting of her husband, two sons and daughters in B.I.T. Block tenements situated at Bellasis Road, Byculla. The defendant was aged about 8 or 9 years at that time. Bo...

Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai Vs. Ramesh Rajaram Jadhav

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR225; 2001(3)BomCR609

R.J. Kochar, J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by two awards dated 25-8-1998 and 16-11-1998 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in Reference No. C.G.I.T. 247. By part I award, the Tribunal held that the domestic enquiry held against the workman was as per the principles of natural justice but the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse and therefore, the management was allowed to lead evidence to substantiate its action. In the opinion of the management, the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not perverse and, therefore, it did not lead any oral evidence in the matter. Specific purshis was filed by the petitioners that it did not want to lead any evidence. By its part II award (final) the Tribunal has held that since the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse, meaning thereby, the charges were not proved against the workman and therefore, they could not be punished. The Tribunal, therefore, finally held that the order of dismi...

Syed Shafiq Ahmed Vs. State of Maharahstra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002CriLJ1403

ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.2. Perused the records.3. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 29th Oct. 1988 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad in Regular Criminal Case No. 195 of 1987 and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1988 by his judgment and order dated 6th August, 1990. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by the said order dated 29-10-1988 had convicted the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for a 9 months while acquitting the other accused in the said case by name Mirza Mohammed Baig for the same offences for want of evidence against him.4. The accusation against the petitioner was that on or about 13-3-198...