Mumbai Court June 2001 Judgments

Ashwinikumar Sarvansingh Chauhan Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)157; (2002)104BOMLR353

S.S. Parkar, J.1. These two appeals arc filed by two accused separately against the judgment and order dated 4.2.1997 delivered by the Special Judge under N.D.P.S. Act, Pune convicting both of them under Section 20(b) read with Section 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentencing each of them to R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default R.I. for one year, in Sessions Case No. 6 of 1996 arising out of common prosecution against them. Since both the appeals arise against the judgment in common prosecution they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Briefly the prosecution case is as follows:P.S.I. Langhe attached to the Crime Branch, Pune received information on 5.1.1996 around 10.30 a.m. through an informer that one person wearing particular clothes with fair complexion was to deliver large quantity of charas at that time to accused No. 2 Babu Panwala, the owner of a pan stall situated near the compound wall of Jayprakash Garden in fron...

Dady Nowroji Adenwalla and ors. Vs. Burjor H. Antia and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)104BOMLR1a

J.A. Patil, J.1. This is a suit for declaration, injunction and possession. The property in respect of which these reliefs are claimed is Flat No. 10 on the 4th Floor of a building known as 'Roxana', situate at 109, Maharshi Karve Marg, Mumbai-400020. The approximate area of the said suit Flat is 2850 sq. ft. The plaintiffs claim to be the owners and landlords of the said suit Flat. Plaintiff No. 1 is the husband of deceased plaintiff No. 2. Defendant No. 3 is the sister of deceased plaintiff No. 2. The suit flat was previously in occupation of one Minocher Hormasji Nariman, as a tenant thereof. He died issueless on 24th May, 1993.2. According to the Plaintiffs in the year 1984 the owners and landlords of the 'Roxana' building had evolved a scheme to sell the flats and garages in the suit building on ownership basis with a view to form a Co-operative Housing Society or a Limited Company. For that purpose they had given offers to the occupiers/tenants in the said building. The plaintiff...

Bina Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Counsel for the appellant produced a copy of the order of 28 December 1998 from the designated authority certifying full and final settlement by the appellant of the dues demanded in the order impugned in this appeal under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998....

J.B. Wadiwala and Others Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals are against two orders of the Collector of Customs, Vadodara.2. One of the arguments raised before us was that, insofar as the appellants other than appellants N. Shivprasadan, Rajesh R Gandhi and Gandhi Texturising Industries (appeals E/435, 433, 438, 437 & 436/91) are concerned, the orders are in contravention of the principles of natural justice. It was contended that after the Additional Collector of Customs, Vadodara, heard the parties, he was promoted and transferred. The matter thereafter came up for adjudication before the Collector. The Collector, it is contended, did not hear these persons.3. In his order, the Collector records the fact of transfer of the Additional Collector and the adjudication by him. He mentions the presence of Mr K.S. Nanavati, advocate and his two juniors Mr G.G.Parekh and Mr D.B. Bhutty. He also mentions the presence of Rajesh Gandhi and N.B. Bhatt, who is not the appellant before us. His order is silent as to the hearing offered ...

Indiana Conveyors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. By its application, the appellant has enclosed a copy of an order from the designated authority certifying full and final settlement of the dues demanded in the order impugned in this appeal under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT1216Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This order seeks to dispose of two appeals, one by the manufacturer, and one by the Commissioner, against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Amitron Ltd. filed a classification list on 19.11.1990 in which it claimed inter alia classification of copper tubes as parts of machinery under heading 8485.90 of the tariff. By notice issued on 25.4.1991, the classification of these goods was proposed under heading 8415.00 denying the benefit of notification 166/86. Adjudicating on this notice, the Assistant Collector, by his order dated 27.8.1991 held the product to be copper components classifiable under heading 7411.10 of the tariff. The Collector (Appeals) by his order dated 13.2.1990 dismissed the appeal filed by the manufacturer against this order, confirming the classification determined by the Assistant Collector.Neither side has appealed this order.3. It appears that despite the classification ordered by the Assistant Collector, the manufacturer continued to pay duty at the ...

Durga Marketing and Video Audio Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT107Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in these appeals is the value for purpose of assessment of electronic components imported by each of the appellants. These goods consist of trimpots, which are stated to be a variety of potentiometer and of various transistors and in the case of appeal 426, of switches. In both cases, the basis for enhancing the valuation is the local market price of such goods as certified by the Electronic Components Industries Association (ELCINA). The Additional Commissioner purports to make deductions of various elements from the market price of the goods in order to arrive at the assessable value of the goods. His reasoning runs thus: The elements comprise 191% of the cif value of the goods. Therefore, if cif value is Rs. 100/-, the goods will be sold at Rs. 291/-, giving a ratio of 342 to 1 between the cif and the market price. Applying this ratio to the market price to 450 per unit, namely given for the goods in each of the appeal to be arrived at.2. There are...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Hariyana Shipbreakers Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Notice dated 8.4.2000 was issued to the Commissioner pointing out the absence of copies of the order of the adjudicating authority to the appeal informing him that the hearing was fixed on 5.5.2000. On that date, the copies of the order not having been submitted, the matter was adjourned to 15.5.2000 at the request of the departmental representatives. On 15.5.2000 the bench finding that the copies of the order still not having been filed, the appeal was dismissed. The application seeks restoration of the appeal.2. The ground in the application is that the officer of the department came with the copies of the order on 15.5.2000 after the Tribunal order has been passed. There is no attempt to explain why, if this was the case, the matter was not mentioned before the bench on that date.Further, there is no attempt to explain why, despite two opportunities for the Commissioner to comply with the basic requirement of law, the Commissioner failed to forward copies of the order. The Commi...

Wadala Shri Ram Industrial Premises Co-operative Society Limited Vs. K ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR26; 2001(4)BomCR365

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Rule.2. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.3. Respondents waive service.4. By consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal.5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.6. By this writ petition, the petitioners have taken exception to the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Appeal) M.D. Mumbai, dated 9th October, 2000 in Appeal No. 101 of 1989.7. The above numbered appeal was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 challenging the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, dated 12th April, 1999 approving the amendment in the bye law of the petitioner society. The said appeal has been allowed by the Divisional Joint Registrar. The Appellate Authority took a view that the amendment to the bye law of the petitioner society shall not be applicable to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 until they induct new tenants/renew or enter into fresh contract with the existing tenants and receive increase...

C.C. Yi Vs. Janakidevi Anantlal Gupta and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR324; 2001(4)BomCR834; (2001)4BOMLR19; 2001(4)MhLj114

V.C. Daga, J.Rule returnable forthwith.Respondents waives services, By consent of parties heard finally.1. This petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.4.2000 delivered in Appeal No. 42 of 1998 by the Fifth Additional District Judge, Thane, whereby the judgment and decree for possession passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 638 of 1994 with order passed in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 63 of 1995, dated 12th January 1998 by the Civil Judge. Junior Division, Bhiwandi, was confirmed.FACTS IN BRIEF Facts in narrow compass are as under :-2. The petitioner is a Dentist by profession. He is a monthly tenant occupying premises consisting of four rooms located on the first floor of the Municipal House No. 240, situated at Kap Kaneri, Bhiwandi. The respondents are the owners and landlords of the suit premises, which were let out to the petitioner under lease agreement dated 31st October, 1961.3. The respondents herein instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 638 of 1994 against ...