Mumbai Court July 2001 Judgments

Amit Ashok Agrawal (Master) and anr. Vs. Khandesh Urban Co-operative C ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR669; 2002(2)BomCR749

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Since common questions of law and facts arise in both the petitions, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In Writ Petition No. 631/2000, the petitioner instituted a dispute in the Co-operative Court, Jalgaon for recovery of the amount of Rs. 6,42,242/-. The same was allowed by the Award dated 30th August, 1997. The appeal preferred by the respondent against the same before the Co-operative Appellate Court was dismissed on 8th May, 1998. The respondent approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 2211 of 1998 which was allowed to be withdrawn on 11-6-1998 with liberty to the respondent to approach the Co-operative Appellate Court with a review petition. Consequently, the Review Application No. 11/98 of the respondent was partly allowed by the Co-operative Appellate Court on 9-10-1998 to the extent of correcting the date of summons mentioned in the order. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred another Writ Petition N...

Latabai Bhagwan Kakade and ors. Vs. Mohammed Ismail Mohd. Saab Bagwan ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2002)ACC407; II(2002)ACC742; 2002ACJ407

A.P. Shah, J.1. These writ petitions and connected first appeals involve common questions of law relating to interpretation and constitutional validity of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as 'the Act'. The constitutional validity of certain other provisions of the Act is also sought to be challenged and since the questions are common in all the cases, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended by Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 came into force on 14.11.1994. Section 163-A of the amended Act provides for payment of compensation for death or injury suffered in a motor vehicle accident in accordance with a structured formula contained in the Second Schedule. Sub-section (1) of the said section says that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the ...

M/S. Hindustan Transmission Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. For reasons recorded below we dispense with the requirements of predeposit of duty and penalty and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself as the issue lies in a very narrow compass.2. It is the grievance of the appellants that they were not heard by the Commissioner (Appeals) on their stay application and that the stay order had been directing them to deposit the entire amount of duty of Rs.16,40,327.10 and penalty of Rs.4,11,132/- (the duty demand arises as a result of denying the benefit of modvat credit paid on waiver which was captively consumed the same in the manufacture of copper winding wires). We also find that their application for modification was not considered by the lower appellate authority who has dismissed the appeal on the ground of non compliance, again without extending any opportunity of being heard to the appellants.3. These circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision. He shall first pass...

Shri Ashok Bhatia Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an application for waiver of predeposit of penalty of Rs. 60,000/- imposed upon the applicant hereinby the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) Mumbai. We find that in stay applications filed by M/s.Degmak Engineering Corporation and Shri Hareshlal T. Bhatia. (along with appeals) pre-deposit has been waived and recovery thereof stayed.2. The applicant explains that the delay in filing the appeal arises as a result of his being excluded from the partnership and he did not receive the impugned order. Soon after it was received he filed an appeal and also due to the fact that they were personal circumstances such as bereavement in the family. We accept the explanation offered for delay and hence condone the delay in filing the above COD application.3. Coming to the application for waiver we note that out of the same impugned order appeals along with stay applications were filed by M/s.Degmak Engineering Corporation of which the applicant before us was a partner, and an application ...

Dharmendra J. Solanki Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2002(92)FLR702]; (2002)ILLJ667Bom

ORDERS.A. Bobde, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. Heard parties.2. Petitioner challenges his dismissal from service with the respondent No. 1 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. from the post of Senior Manager.3. The petitioner had applied for employment with the respondent-Corporation in the year 1981. He was appointed on July 1, 1981. The particulars of his caste which he gave at the time of his employment has becomethe cause of his dismissal after 20 years of service.4. The petitioner's case is that he comes from the State of Gujarat where his caste i.e. Salat is recognised as a socially and educationally backward class under Government Resolution No. BCR 1078/1373-H dated April 1, 1978. When hefilled up his application form, there were only two categories in the application form which the applicant was expected to choose from: (i) Scheduled Caste; and (ii) Scheduled Tribe. Knowing that since he did not belong toScheduled Tribe, he stated 'yes' to the onl...

Sarva Shramik Sangh Vs. V.V.F. Limited and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2002(93)FLR749]; (2002)IILLJ434Bom

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Both these Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are essentially directed against the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai dated August 29. 1996 in Reference (IT) No. 103 of 1988. Writ Petition No. 1336 of 1997 has been filed by the Sarva Shramik Sangh-Union of the workmen employed under the Respondent-Company the Vegetable Vitamin Foods Company (Private) Limited, whereas Writ Petition No. 481 of 1998 has been filed by the Respondent Company challenging the correctness of the aforesaid Award as well as the order dated February 13, 1998 passed by the Industrial Court, on the application filed by the Company being Misc. Application No. 397 of 1988 under Reference (IT) No. 103 of 1988, which was for review, purported to have been filed under Rule 31 for correction of certain clerical error in the Award. In the circumstances, I am disposing of both the Writ Petitions together as they involve common questions arising ou...

Tata Power Co. Limited and anr. Vs. Collector Bombay City and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR606; 2002(2)BomCR349

S.A. Bobde, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.Heard with consent of both the parties.2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the demand notice dated 7th April, 2000 issued by the respondent No. 1 Collector, demanding due and unpaid land revenue for the period 19-5-1999 to 18-5-2000 in the sum of Rs. 2,69,04,961/- in respect of Plot No. 148 of DDR III Division, threatening the petitioners on non-compliance, with attachment and sale of the said property.3. The petitioner also challenge the Demand Notice dated 12th January, 2001 demanding increased land revenue in the sum of Rs. 15,76,10,252/-. This sum demanded by this notice is the land revenue increased by 100% under section 3 of the Maharashtra Increased Land Revenue and Special Assessment Act, 1974.4. The respondent No. 2 State of Maharashtra recommended to the petitioners that it set up a 220 KV sub-station near the existing sub-station of BES & I to ensure uninterrupted and reliable power supply to South Mumbai, wher...

ibrahim S/O Ashraf Patel and anr. Vs. Jamrood Bee W/O NizamoddIn Kazi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR601; 2002(2)BomCR295

B.B. Vagyani, J.1. Heard.2. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Beed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 153 of 1991 filed by present appellants, who are original defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in Regular Civil Suit No. 287 of 1978 filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (original plaintiffs).3. The facts giving rise to this second appeal are as under :Syed Fazal was owner of the land bearing Serial No. 48-AA of village Brahmagaon, taluka Georai, District Beed. The suit land Serial No. 48-AA admeasuring 11 acres 32 qts. Syed Fazal died about 17 years before institution of the Regular Civil Suit No. 287 of 1978 leaving behind his two widows Chandbi and Sahebbi. Original plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3 are the daughters of Chandbi. After the death of Syed Fazal, his widows Chandbi and Sahebbi become owners of the suit land along with the plaintiffs. Chandbi and Sahebbi are no more alive. The plaintiffs claim that after the death of Chandbi and Sah...

Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT645Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 1.87 crores and penalty of Rs. 1.89 crores.2. The applicant received at its factory at Turbhe steel coils from their manufacturer, Steel Authority of India Ltd. It took credit of duty paid on these coils. Thereafter it either slitted these coils into coils of narrower width or cuts them into sheets. It sent part f the sheets or the slit coils to its own factory at Sewree, after reversing modvat credit that it had taken. The impugned order demands duty and imposes penalty on these two products on the ground that the process amounts to manufacture.3. After hearing both sides, we find strong prima facie case on merits in the applicant's case. The conference of Chief Commissioners held in August, 2000 considered whether either of these processes amounted to manufacture. It was clear that the activity of making sheets out of the coils would not be manufacture, and was uncertain about the second activity of cutting coils into coils ...

M/S. Metplast India Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT211Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The above application for waiver of pre-deposit of differential duty of Rs. 14.22 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla who has held that goods imported by the applicants herein described as "Stock Lot of Glass Fibre and Stock Lot of Glass Fibre Yarn" were not stock lots and he has loaded the value of goods resulting in the demand of differential duty.Penalty has been imposed under Sec. 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Ld. Counsel Shri Kantawala submits that whether the goods are of prime quality or not is not the criterion for holding that they are not stock lots and in this connection he relies upon the judgement in the case of Hindustan Pencils Ltd v CC, Mumbai [1999 (84) ECR 806 (Tribunal)]. He submits that all the materials on record filed by the importers viz. invoices of the manufacturers clearly show that the goods are stock lots and he submits that no contrary evidence had been produced by the department to dispro...