Mumbai Court April 2001 Judgments

Uttam S/O Patruji Khobragade Vs. Omprakash S/O Damodar Rawal and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)4BOMLR173; 2002CriLJ437; 2001(3)MhLj642

R.K. Batta, J.1. The complaint was filed by the non-applicant No. 1 against the present applicant for offences under sections 420, 465, 177 and 181, Indian Penal Code. By order dated 5-4-1988, Judicial Magistrate, First Class Malkapur, issued process against the present applicant under sections 420, 465, 177 and 181 of the Indian Penal Code, subject to the condition of deciding the question of sanction, if raised or contested at the later stage. This order of issue of process was challenged by the present applicant before the Sessions Court at Buldana by filing Criminal Revision Application No. 89 of 1988.2. The learned Sessions Judge, Buldana vide judgment dated 16th December, 1988. allowed the revision, quashed issue of process and dismissed the complaint. Against this order, the non-applicant No. 1 filed Criminal Revision Application No. 45 of 1989 before this Court. By judgment dated 14-9-1989, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Buldana, was quashed and set aside and t...

Ujwalaben Mahindra Shah and anr. Vs. Kesharchand Gulabchand and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR458; 2002(1)MhLj378

1. Heard learned advocates for the parties.2. Perused the records.3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.4. The petitioners challenge the order dated 10th April 2000 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar in Special Civil Suit No. 477 of 1988. By the impugned order, the trial Court has rejected the application filed by the defendant Nos. 16 and 17, who are the petitioners herein, for treating Issue No. 1 as a preliminary issue and to decide it accordingly.5. Few facts relevant for the decision are that in the suit filed by the respondent No. 1, a point regarding non maintainability of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff firm is not a registered Partnership firm has been raised by the petitioners 'and some defendants. The contention of the petitioners is that the suit is not maintainable at the instance of the plaintiffs firm in view of Section 69 of the Partnership Act in the absence of its registration. Based on those pleadings the trial Court has fra...

Ramdas Somaji Nikam Vs. Indian Bank and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001(90)FLR803]; (2001)IILLJ933Bom

1. Rule. Respondents waive service. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Petitioner was initially employed as a Clerk in 1978 and was promoted as Clerk-cum-Shroff in the first respondent Bank in the year 1989. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the Assistant General Manager, Deputy General Manager and Branch Manager respectively of respondent No. 1. 3. This is an unfortunate case for more than one reason. The respondents have shown neither respect nor regard for the earlier orders and judgments of the Industrial Tribunal, this Court and the Apex Court. Upholding the order of the Industrial Tribunal, reinstating the petitioner with full back wages, this Court by an order and judgment dated March 23, 2000 passed strictures against the respondents describing their conduct as utterly inhuman and callous. The Apex Court dismissed the respondents Special Leave Petition filed against the said judgment. The petitioner who has already suffered enormous hardship and been dragged through a prolonged an...

Narendra Narayan Kadu and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1672; 2002CriLJ106

ORDERR.K. Batta, J. 1. Heard learned Advocate for the applicants and learned APP for non-applicant/State.2. The applicants were tried for offence under Sections 324, 452 read with Section 34 IPC and they were convicted under Section 452 read with 34 IPC to suffer S.I. for one month and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, S.I. eight days and under Section 323 read with 34 IPC to pay fine of Rs. 300/- each, in default, S.I, one month. The applicants challenged the said conviction and sentences before the Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge vide Judgment dated 10-11-1997 allowed the appeal, set aside the sentence and conviction and directed the Magistrate to commit the case for trial to the Court of Session for offence under Section 307 and 450 read with 34 IPC. The applicants were also ordered to be taken into custody and directed to be produced before the J.M.F.C. This order is challenged in this revision.3. Learned Advocate for the applicants urged before me that the appellate Cou...

Boisur Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT327Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appeal taken up for disposal with consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. On an application filed under Section 35E(2) of the Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty imposed on Boisur Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., the appellant before us, by the Joint Commissioner under Rule 9(2), 52A and 210 of the Central Rules and imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,60,468/- under Section 11AC of the Act.3. The order of the Commissioner was passed on a show cause notice issued to the manufacturer demanding duty alleged to have been short paid on the goods cleared by it between 22.3.1995 to 20.7.1996. It was the contention of the manufacturer before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the provisions of Section 11AC, which was enacted on 28.9.1996, will not apply to acts committed prior to that date. The Commissioner (Appeals) has declined to accept this plea on the ground that he is bound by the instructions of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, communicated by circular No. 354/118/96...

M/S. Asia Automotive Ltd. Vs. Cc Ex, Aurangabad

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the order on the appeal before him without giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard. This is evident from the reading of this order.3. The order is therefore set aside and the appeal allowed. The Commissioner shall, after giving the appellant reasonable opportunity of being heard, dispose of the appeal in accordance with \law....

Asia Polytex (India) Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT282Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat, confirming the demand for duty issued to Asia Polytex (India) Limited, the appellant before us, and imposing penalty on it.2. The notice issued to the appellant demanded duty on the yarn obtained by texturing partially oriented yarn. The notice, which was dated 1.11.1993, demanded duty on the clearances that were made of such yarn from 19.11.1991 to 21.2.1992. It invoked the extended period contained in the proviso under sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Act on the ground that the manufacturer suppressed the fact of texturing.3. The counsel for the applicant contends that the department had been informed by the manufacturer of the texturing that it undertook, and further that the manufacturer was genuinely under the belief that it was entitled to the benefit under the notification 178/83. He cites before us a certificate dated 8.7.1991 issued by the jurisdictional Superintendent. This certificate say...

Commissioner of Central Excise and Vs. New Pasta Traders

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(132)ELT502Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the determination of additional duty of customs payable on the ship M.V. Shanta Bhibani.The ship came into Sikka Jetty, part of the Jamnagar Customs Port in 1986, after it discharged cargo that it had brought into Kandla on account of engine trouble. While there it caught fire and also collided against a ship. It was thereafter grounded. By order of port authorities it subsequently auctioned by the Gujarat Maritime Board, Jamnagar, apparently for recovery of port dues. It was purchased by New Pasta Traders, the respondent to this appeal with an intention to break it up into scrap.2. The dispute relates to additional duty of customs payable on the ship. That duty is equal to the Central Excise duty for the time being leviable on such goods manufactured or produced in India. Heading 89.08 of the Central Excise Tariff covers vessels and other floating structures for breaking up. The rate of duty at the relevant time was Rs. 800/- per li...

Cosmo Films Limited and Janardan Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise an ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applications are for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 17.24 lakhs and penalty of equivalent amount imposed on the company, and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under rule 209A on Janardan Gupta, its director. The manufacturer has factories at Chikalthana, Silvassa and Waluj. It manufactures in its factory at Chikalathana biaxially oriented polypropylene (BOPP) film, as well as adhesive tape. It sold some of the BOPP film to buyers at prices ranging from Rs. 120/- to 140/- per kilogram, and cleared the remainder to its factory at Silvasa for making laminated BOPP films there, at Rs. 80/- per kilogram. The appellant sent the entire quantity of adhesive tapes manufactured in this factory to its factory at Waluj to be used in packing of the BOPP films manufactured by it. It laid duty on these films under rule (b)(1) on the cost of the manufacture.2. In October, 1997 the departmental officers visited the factory and discovered the difference between the values at which the manufacturer sold ...

Asian Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the liability to additional duty of customs on waste oil imported by the appellant.2. Counsel for the appellant does not challenge the classification for the purpose of levy of basic customs duty of the oil as lubricant under heading 34.03 of the tariff. He says that the waste oil is not a commodity produced or manufactured in India and therefore the ratio of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Hyderabad Industries Ltd. Vs.Union of India 1999 (108) ELT 321 would apply, with the result that additional duty of customs is not leviable.3. We have found this argument to be correct and acceptable. As a matter of fact, the appeal by Continental Petroleum, one of the 13 persons whose appeals have been disposed off by a common order of the Commissioner (Appeals), in which the present appellant before us also figures, has been disposed of the by Tribunal (in its order in appeal C/40-41/95-C) relying on the Supreme Court's judgement....