Mumbai Court February 2001 Judgments

Sitaram Maruti Nagpure Vs. Fakirchand Purushottam Dhase

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR396

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the petitioner-tenant is liable for eviction within the meaning of section 12(3)(a) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The Courts below have decreed the suit. Mr. Joshi for the petitioner contends that since the respondent landlord refused to accept the money order sent by the petitioner, in law he had waived the same; and, therefore, there was no cause of action for either issuance of suit notice or the institution of suit on the ground of default. He has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Kamalabai Baburao Kabade v. Laxmibai Janardan Jagtap, reported in : AIR2000Bom490 and an unreported judgment in Writ Petition No. 3227 of 1987, dated June 8, 2000. Mr. Rao for the respondents on the other hand relied on the decision in the case of Abdul Gani Dinalli Momin v. Mohamed Yusuf Mohamed Isak, reported in 80 Bom.L.R. 646. He contends that the dec...

Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. M/S. Ashok Surfactants Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In spite of notice issued twice, the Commissioner has not cared to rectify the defects. Hence appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982....

Shri Dhanram Chamnaji Soni Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT1376Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In the order of the Tribunal dated 11.8.1992 the Tribunal has reduced the fine from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.30,000/- and penalty from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. The penalty was paid on 12.6.1991. The redemption fine has been paid on 18.10.1999. The Superintendent states that there should be extension of time from CEGAT. I fail to understand how the Superintendent can come to this conclusion. The order passed on 11.8.1992 does not state the time within which the amount has to be paid. Under the circumstances the question of getting extension does not arise. After the order of 1992 when the amount was sought to be paid in 1999, the department could have objected for making the payment after seven years of the order. Having accepted the same they ought not have made the party to come before the Tribunal for extension. Time was not fixed for compliance of the order. Hence question of getting extension does not arise. Having accepted the money, the department cannot turn round and ask the pa...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Pranav Paper Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In spite of notice issued twice, the Commissioner has not cared to rectify the defects. Shri B.K. Choubey wants some more time. I cannot agree to that. Once I can tolerate the mistake being committed. Twice it cannot be tolerated. Hence appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982....

M/S. Wox Coolers P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this appeal the learned counsel Shri N.K. Kapoor, advocate, pleads before me that even though he has shown the duty paying documents to the adjudicating authority, the Commissioner had not discussed the same at all in the impugned order.2. Show cause notice had been issued on 26.4.1995 charging the appellants that they have manufactured 358 ET coolers during 14.3.1993 to 10.5.1993 and cleared the same without payment of duty. Value of the said goods was Rs.10,02,400/- involving duty of Rs.1,00,240/-. The defence statement was that what is contained in the hand-book which has been seized has no relevance to the facts of the case. It is alleged by the assessee that the department has not proved that who wrote the hand-book. The assessee pleads before me that statement has been filed showing clearances of coolers with duty paying documents which has not been considered by the Commissioner.3. Shri J.M. George, learned JDR, adopts the reasoning of the lower authority.4. I have consid...

The Central Pulp Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In these two appeals the question involved is whether felt, needled rey press felt, synthetic fabric/cloth are entitled for modvat credit or not. The question has been decided by the appellate authority against the assessee. I find this matter has been settled by the larger bench decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of Union Carbide India Ltd. 1996 (86) ELT 613 and Ghataprabha Paper and Board Mills Pvt. Ltd. 2000 (117) ELT 552 in favour of the assessee. Hence, following the said judgments the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals stand allowed with consequential relief, if any. The appeals were taken up as the matters were covered by the said decisions after waiving pre-deposit. In view thereof, the stay petitions also stand disposed of....

M/S. Wai Wai Stationary Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT1388Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These two appeals relate to a common set of facts. They are therefore being disposed of together vide this single order.2. I have heard Shri Naresh Thakkar for the appellants and Shri AK jain for the Revenue.3. A Second Hand Injection Moulding Machine was imported. The Bill of Lading was in the name of M/s. Nisu Products. The IGM listed the importer as M/s. Nisu Products which was a partnership firm with Shri Ramesh Nahata, as a partner. Shri Ramesh Nahata was also a Director of a related company called M/s. Wai Wai Stationary. M/s. Wai Wai Stationary filed the bill entry claiming that they had made the payment of the machines. At their instance the steamer agent also sought amendment of the IGM in the relevant line. The Customs denied the request for the amendment and substituted the name of M.s. Nisu Products for M/s. Wai Wai Stationary in the bill of entry. The bill of entry was dt. 14.12.94 M/s. Nisu Product had contracted for takeover of a Company tile as M/s. S.M. Pen & P...

Smt. Bilkisbanu Abdul Gafar Shaikh Vs. Shri M.N. Singh, Commissioner o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)822; 2001BomCR(Cri)743; (2001)2BOMLR461

Vishnu Sabai, J. 1. Through this criminal writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who describes herself as the mother of the detenu Mohd. Arif Abdul Gafar Shaikh, has impugned the detention order dated 10.7.2000, passed by the first respondent, Shri M.N. Singh, 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), hereinafter referred to as the 'M.P.D.A. Act'.The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 10.7.2000, was served on the detenu on 10.7.2000 itself and their true copies are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this petition.2. A perusal of the grounds of detention (Annexure 'B') would show that the impugned detention order is founded on one C. R., namely, C. R. No. 15/2000 under sections ...

Nashik Workers Union Vs. M/S. Trimbak Rubber Industries Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)BomCR91; (2001)2BOMLR558; [2002(92)FLR789]

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent. Petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The present Writ Petition arises out of an order of the Industrial Court at Thane dated 30.11.1994 in three Complaints alleging unfair labour practices under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Two of these Complaints, Complaint (U.L.P.) Nos. 20 and 21 of 1990, had been filed by the Petitioner while one Complaint, Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 22 of 1990, was filed by the Respondents.3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Respondents manufacture Automobile Tubes and rubber products in their factory at Nashik. The Respondents employed at the material time about 130 employees. The workers on whose behalf the complaints were filed, had been engaged in 1988 by the Respondents. According to the Petitioner, the workers were engaged as employees to do work of a regular nature. Some time in J...

Shri J.R. Prabhu, Principal, College of Agricultural Banking Vs. the S ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(2)ALLMR702; 2001ALLMR(Cri)1087; 2001BomCR(Cri)787; (2001)2BOMLR803; [2002(92)FLR118]; (2001)IILLJ1469Bom; 2001(3)MhLj616

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. The two criminal applications challenge the order regarding issuance of process against the respective petitioners as also the prosecutions by which they are prosecuted for contravention of Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter, referred to as the said Act). Since the prosecutions are challenged by common grounds, the applications are being heard together by mutual consent.2. The petitioner in Application No. 627 of 1993 is Principal of College of Agricultural Banking, Pune (hereinafter, referred to as 'C.A.B.' for the sake of brevity), which is run by Reserve Bank of India for conducting the residential training programmes to its officers. The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) on 2.1.1992 carried out the inspection of the said college and found that contract labours were engaged. 31 for catering establishment, 17 for watch-n-ward and cleaning and 9 for gardening. Show cause notice dated 12.1....