Mumbai Court June 2001 Judgments

Mono Steel (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 1.34 crores approximately.3. The issue relates to the determination of the capacity of the furnace in the applicant's factory under the relevant regulations and on merits is debatable. Having regard to the issues involved, and the fact that there is no dispute that duty of Rs. 1.08 crores had been paid, we do not think that any further deposit is required. We waive deposit of the remaining amount and stay its recovery....

Shankar Bhairoba Vadangekar, Since Deceased, by His Heirs and Legal Re ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR61; 2001(4)BomCR806; (2001)4BOMLR58; 2001(4)MhLj131

A. M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the III Additional District Judge, Kolhapur, dated 4th September in Regular Civil Appeal No. 230 of 1984.2. This is one of those unfortunate matters, to which the observations made by the Apex Court in a recent decision in Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava,' would aptly apply, for the litigation has remained unresolved for last around twentyfive years inspite of the ground of bona fide requirement pressed by the landlord. It is disheartening that matters between landlord and tenant for possession on the ground of bona fide requirement remain pending for so long. In para 15 of that decision, the Apex Court has observed that 'The judicial tardiness, for which unfortunately our system has acquired notoriety, causes the lis to creep through the line for long long years from the start to the ultimate termini, a malady afflicting the system.'3. Briefly ...

Baliram S/O Bhiwaji Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR820; 2001(4)BomCR322; (2001)4BOMLR157; 2001(3)MhLj742

B.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. This petition, filed in public interest, seeks a writ of mandamus against respondent Nos. 1 to 3, to take the possession of land admeasuring 1 Acre 35 Gunthas from the Survey No. 290 of Nilanga town which was allotted to respondent No. 4 (the former Chief Minister of Maharashtra) by cancelling the certificate of allotment and the occupancy rights and to quash and set aside the order dated 14th October, 1960 issued by the respondent No. 3 as well as the order dated 7th September, 1981 which is in the form ofcertificate of allotment of land in survey No. 290. The petition also seeks a relief of declaration that the allotment of Government land to the extent of 1 Acre 35 Gunthas from survey No. 290 in favour of respondent No. 4 is illegal, arbitrary and not in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (the Code, for short) and the Rules framed thereunder and further declaration that the sale deeds executed by respondent No. 4 in favou...

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Ganpat Dinkar Shinde and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1359; 2002BomCR(Cri)313; (2001)4BOMLR258; II(2001)DMC456; 2001(4)MhLj184

Pratibha Upasani. J.1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant, State of Maharashtra, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order, dated 15th October. 1985 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No. 71 of 1985. By the impugned Judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, acquitted both the Respondents/original accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He also acquitted Respondent No. I /original accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.2. In short, the prosecution story can be stated as follows : Deceased Sunita was the wife of Respondent No.1 Ganpat Dinkar Shinde. Their marriage took place on 12th June, 1984. Respondent No.2 Chagabai Dagadu Shinde was the aunt (kaki) of Respondent No.1. Herhouse was adjacent to the house of Respondent No. 1. Respondent No.2 was a widow. The prosecution case is that there was ill...

Sulochanabai Kashinath Gujar Vs. Krishnabai Dhaniram Ugvekar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2001Bom490; 2001(4)ALLMR45; 2001(4)BomCR789; (2001)4BOMLR931

A. M. Kbanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Thane, in Civil Appeal No. 183 of 1983 dated April 7, 1989.2. The petitioner is a tenant in respect of the premises which are owned by Respondent No. 1 bearing Municipal House No. 75, Ali No. 63 known as Ugvekar Chawl, situated at Rambaug, Kalyan. The suit property consists of one room which was let out to the predecessor of the petitioner-Kashinath Gujar - on a monthly rent of Rs. 8.00 plus 0.16 paise towards education cess. After the demise of the said Kashinath Gujar, the petitioner has become tenant of the present Respondent No. 1.3. Respondent No. 1 instituted a suit in the Court of the IInd Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalyan, being R.C.S. No. 288 of 1975 praying for recovery of possession of the suit premises. Eviction of the petitioner-tenant was prayed on different grounds, viz., default in payment...

Shalini Vyankatesh Puntambekar Vs. Jayaprakash R. Agarwal

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR303; (2002)2BOMLR524; 2002(1)MhLj925

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the orders passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Pune dated 16-6-1995 in Civil Revision Application No. 110 of 1994 and of the Small Causes Court Judge, Pune dated 8-8-1994 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1007 of 1989.2. The petitioner-original plaintiff is the landlord in respect of premises consisting of house bearing City Survey No. 380 of Shaniwar Peth, Pune. The petitioner instituted suit against respondent-tenant for possession of the suit premises before the Small Causes Court, Pune being Civil Suit No. 1007 of 1989. The main ground pressed by the petitioner for eviction is that the respondent-tenant has acquired suitable residence and therefore was liable to be evicted within the meaning of Section 13(1)(l) of the Bombay Rent Act. The petitioner's case proceeded on the premise that the suit premises were let out to the respondent exclusively for residence purpose but the respondent has cha...

Sanjay S/O Balaram Kirale Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)1616; 2002BomCR(Cri)399; 2001CriLJ3779

ORDER1. The petitioner has approached this Court to challenge the detention order dated 30-11-2000 passed by the respondent No. 2 as detaining authority detaining his maternal uncle Vasant alias Vashya s/o Ramappa Suvarna in exercise of powers vested under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slum-lords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (Amended in 1996) (hereinafter referred to a M.P.D.A. Act).2. The grounds of detention and the detention order which are also dated 30-11-2000 are annexed as Annexures P-l and P-2 respectively to this petition. The order of detention has been confirmed by the respondent No. 1 on 23-1-2001.3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Although in this writ petition the learned Counsel for the petitioner has pleaded large number of grounds, but since in our view this petition can be allowed on the ground mentioned in para No. 13 of the petition alone, we are not advertin...

Ramesh, S/O Bisan Parteki Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)2092; 2001CriLJ3780

P.S. Brahme, J.1. Appellant Ramesh Parteki was tried for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of I.P.C. before the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Sessions Trial No. 252 of 1994, for the charge of committing murder of his wife Gulabwati by burning her alive and for subjecting her to cruelty. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, by his judgment and order dated 26-9-1995, convicted the appellant of the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life, while acquitted him of the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. by this appeal, the appellant is challenging the order of conviction and sentence.2. The incident which gave rise to this prosecution against the appellant, occurred on 3-3-1994 around 4.30 p.m. in the residential quarter of the appellant at Kandri Mines, District Nagpur. The victim Gulabwati was second wife of the appellant. Pramila Rashid Sheikh is admittedly the daughter of the appellant, born from his first wife and sh...

Prestress Wire Industries, Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT1193Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The impugned order demands duty of Rs. 20.77 lakhs approx., of which Rs. 3.43 lakhs approx. has been paid, leaving a balance of Rs. 17.34 lakhs approx. Penalties have been imposed of Rs. 20.77 lakhs on the assessee and Rs. 5 lakhs and Rs. 1 lakh on Rajendra Gildia (application E/Stay-324/2001) and P.T. Venugopalan (application E/Stay-325/2001) respectively, its employees. Redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs for confiscation of land, building and plant has also fixed.2. Duty has been demanded and penalties imposed on the ground that in determining the assessable value of the stranded wire manufactured by it, the applicant did not include the amounts, equivalent to 4% of the base price of the goods which it recovered from the buyers as representing Central Sales Tax, post manufacturing charges and incidental charges. Of this Rs. 4.19 lakhs has been demanded on the ground that applicant recovered amounts as representing Central Sales Tax payable on the goods that it sold to the railways, w...

intrade Impex Private Limited and Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(136)ELT967Tri(Mum.)bai

1. On it being pointed out by the representative of the applicant that the stay application in the appeal filed by H.M. Prabhakar, Managing Director of Intrade Impex Pvt. Ltd., had not been not listed today, we have, with the consent of the departmental representative, taken up that application also.3. Duty has been demanded from Intrade Impex Pvt. Ltd., the importer, on the ground that it misdeclared the value of upholstery fabrics imported by it, and its value ought to U.S. $ 3.67 per meter instead of $ 1.40 per metre that it declared. The basis for the demand is stated to be figures mentioned in what is described as "straight bill of lading" issued for carriage o the fabric from the factory of the manufacturer to the seaport in the United States from where the goods were shipped to Kandla. It is difficult to see, on the face of it, how this document constitutes sufficient evidence to increase the value; normally no carrier of the goods would be concerned with their price or value, ...