Mumbai Court February 2001 Judgments

Dasu Kashinath Bergal Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Prev.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT380Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The two appellants before me were, at the relevant time, July, 1982, in partnership, running a silver refinery. Customs officers acting on information searched the refinery and found five ingots bearing foreign marking manufactured and 46 chorsas, smaller pieces of silver obtained by melting down silver ingots. They seized them under the reasonable believe that these were smuggled into India. The appellants told the officers that Shantilal Hukmichand Jain had given them the silver ingots for melting down. Shantilal Jain in turn said that he had bought the silver from Maharaj Kanya of whom he gave no further detail than that he was in Shuklaji Street.2. On the basis of these facts, notice was issued proposing confiscation of the silver and penalty on Shantilal Jain and the two other appellants before me. Adjudicating on the notice the Collector has ordered confiscation of the silver and imposed penalty on these two appellants and also on Shantilal Jain. Hence these appeals.Confiscat...

Laljee Godhoo and Co. Vs. Vs. Laljee Godhoo and Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(78)ECC211

1. We are concerned in these two appeals with whether "compounding" of asafoetida amounts to manufacture.Laljee Gadhoo and Co.(LG for short)import raw asafoetida from Afghanistan.Asafoetida is an exudate fro the ferula plant, and imported by the appellant in the form of latex.It is thereafter compounded or blended with wheat flour and gum Arabic. The process is described in the show cause notice issued to the manufacturer as follows: "The gum arabic and whet flour are blended in the signa mixers.Filtered water mixed asafoetida is then poured slowly into the mixer over the gum and wheat flour.This gets the product ready.Further the resultant product is given a heat treatment by suction in pipes through which a heater is attached and the moisture is sucked out./The power is then passed through a hammer mill where it is crushed thoroughly.This power is then passed through a sieve, which contains magnet balls absorbing any fine iron particles.The compounded asafoetida in powder form is th...

Org Systems and Dde Org Systems Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals are taken up for disposal, after hearing the parties on stay application and after waiving deposit.2. In the common order impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the orders of the Dy. Commissioner disallowing modvat credit taken by each of the appellants on the ground that the inputs on which the credit was taken were not utilised in the manufacture of goods, but in processes not amounting to manufacture and hence not requiring payment of duty, consequently imposing penalty under Section 11AC of the Act and demanding interest under Section 11AB.3. The common counsel for both the appellants does not dispute that the credit was wrongly taken in both cases, saying that it has already been reversed, or question before me the penalty under Rule 173Q. The credit was wrongly taken by ORG Systems prior to April 1994 and by DDE ORG Systems Limited between May 1994 and July 1997. It is his contention that the provisions of Section 11AB and 11AC will ...

Shri M.G. Sarasappa Kurup Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bom ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2001Bom281; 2001(3)ALLMR76; 2001(3)BomCR425; (2001)2BOMLR414; 2001(3)MhLj134

A. M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 9th February, 1995 passed by the Small Causes Court at Bombay in Municipal Appeal No. 45 of 1993.2. The short issue that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the respondent Corporation was justified in refusing permission for storage of auto tyres in the premises occupied by the petitioner. The petitioner had made an application purported to be under section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. 1888 ('the Act' for short) vide Application No. 3096. The Ward Officer, B-Ward. however, was pleased to reject the said application. There is no dispute that the Ward Officer, B-Ward was delegated with the authority to decide the said application for permission. The reason that weighed with the Ward Officer in rejecting the permission is that the petitioner was not a lawful tenant of the premises and Court cases were pending regarding the premise...

Manoj Chandulal Shah Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)824; 2001BomCR(Cri)806; (2001)2BOMLR540; 2001(2)MhLj867

ORDERN. V. Dabholkar, J.1. By this writ petition present petitioner desires this Court to invoke its supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as also inherent powers as conferred by Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.. 1973 and quash and set aside the criminal prosecution lodged against him which is registered as Case No. 23/P/95 pending In the Court of 7th Metropolitan Magistrate. Dadar, Bombay.Petitioner has also prayed for monetary compensation from the Respondents for his allegedly illegal and unlawful arrest and detention which he had to suffer at the hands of Respondents.2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition can be narrated as follows :-The petitioner is Managing Director of M/s. Big Gay Courier Private Limited, having registered office at Dhobi Talao, Bombay. The business is courier service agency and the agency has many offices within Bombay and other major cities In India. M/s. Blue Sky Courier Worldwide Express is petitioner's regular cli...

Sumitra Viresh Tari, Mother of Detenu Mahadev @ Bhai Viresh Tari Vs. M ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)653; 2001BomCR(Cri)849

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who describes herself as mother of the detenu Mahadev @ Bhai Viresh Tari has impugned the detention order dated 18.11.2000 passed by the First Respondent Mr. M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Mumbai detaining the detenu under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords,Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996).The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 18.11.2000 was served on the detenu on 18.11.2000 itself and their true copies are annexed to this petition.2. A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned detention order is founded on one C. R. namely C. R. No. 188 of 2000 under sections 452, 387, 427 of the I.P.C. registered on the basis of a complaint lodged on 26.5.2000 by Satish Patil at Dahisar Police ...

Mrs. Anita W/O Suresh Atmaram Ambre Vs. the State of Maharashtra and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)658; 2001BomCR(Cri)854; 2001CriLJ2665

Dr. Pratibha Upasani, J. 1. Though this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who styles herself as the wife of the detenu Suresh Atmaram Ambre, has impugned the detention order dated 3rd May, 2000, passed by the 2nd respondent, Shri R. H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police. Brihan Mumbai, detaining the detenu under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996).2. The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 3rd May, 2000, was served on the detenu on 18.8.2000 and their true copies are annexed to this petition as Annexure-A collectively.3. A perusal of the grounds of detention (Annexure-A collectively) will show that the impugned detention order is founded on one C.R. namely. C.R. No. 1/2000 under sections 452. 506(11), 323. 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, r...

Ramkrishna Ganpatrao Jogdand Vs. Kondiram Jaysingrao Naikwade

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2002Bom148; 2001(3)ALLMR441; 2001(3)BomCR242; 2001(4)MhLj85

S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Original plaintiff No. 1 Ramkrishna and his two sons Janardhan and Nivrutti had filed a suit against Kondiram and Vyankatrao, seeking permanent injunction restraining them from Interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs land admeasuring 8 acres and 4 gunthas. The contention of the original plaintiffs was that said Ramkrishna was declared owner of the said 8 acres and 4 gunthas of land under Section 38-F of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter, referred to as 'the said Act') said Ramkrishna had paid the price also for the same as per the declaration and as such said Ramkrishna had claimed title to the sated land. Balance portion of land admeasuring 1 acre and 28 gunthas was also in possession of Ramkrishna in addition to the aforesaid 8 acres and 4 gunthas. as a tenant.2. The plaintiffs had alleged that plaintiff No. 1 Ramkrishna was simpleton having short temper. In the heat of...

Mathurabai Genu Sonavane Vs. Rahibai Balasaheb Karathe

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR73; 2001(3)BomCR428

A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Pune dated September 8, 1994 below Entry No. 2080. 2. Briefly stated, the respondent landlord instituted suit against the husband of the petitioner herein, who is stated to be the original tenant, in respect of the suit premises, before the Court of Small Causes, Pune being C.S. No. 374 of 1993, for possession together with arrears of rent, mesne profits and costs. It appears that summons of the said suit was sent to the defendant, i.e. petitioner's husband, but was returned unserved as not claimed. Consequently, the trial Court passed order on 27th October, 1993 that suit to proceed ex-parte. Later on, the trial Court by order dated 3rd January, 1994 decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had no knowledge about the said ex-parte proceedings or the suit instituted by the responden...

Taraben Ambalal Shah and anr. Vs. Naginbhai Pragji Desai

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR544; 2001(3)BomCR371

A.B. Palkar, J.1. This is a suit for specific performance of contract of sale of immoveable property being flat No. 2 on the 4th floor of Parimal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., 22, Tilak Mandir Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai 400 057. The defendant agreed to sell the suit flat to the plaintiffs for consideration of Rs. 9,11,000/- and executed an agreement of sale on 1-9-1988. The transactions was to be completed before 31-12-1988. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 1-9-1988 and a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 3-11-1988 to the defendant. The balance sum of Rs. 7,11,000/- was agreed to be paid on or before 31-12-1988 at the time of completion of the contract by delivery of possession. However, after having received Rs. 2 lakhs the defendant expressed some difficulty to vacate the suit flat by 31-12-1988 and sought extension of time upto 31-1-1989. Defendant agreed in writing to that effect. Thereafter again defendant required some time and it was extended upto 15-3-1989 o...