Mumbai Court July 2001 Judgments

indus Videotronics and anr. Vs. Digambar M. Badodkar and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)2009

S.S. Parkar, J.1. This group of six petitions is filed for quashing the prosecutions lodged against the petitioners under the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 and the Rules made thereunder in the Metropolitan Magistrates Courts in Greater Mumbai. Since in all the petitions common question of law is raised in the backdrop of similar facts, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment2. Out of the above six petitions in five petitions the petitioners have been selling film video cassettes and the petitioner in Criminal Application No. 578 of 1994 has been selling toys. When the Inspectors of Legal Metrology inspected some shops they found a large number of packages of video cassettes and toys bearing the names of the petitioners which did not comply with the conditions laid down under the provisions of the Weights and Measures Act and the Rules by not giving particulars on the packages like price, month and year, si...

Prithviraj Dajiso Chavan, Vice Chairman of Shri Laxmidevi Sahakari Dud ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR684; (2001)4BOMLR445; 2001(4)MhLj202

V.G. Palshikar. J. 1. Writ Petition No. 2058 of 2001. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the Maharashtra Ordinance No. 7 of 2001 effecting certain amendments to the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. However, Ordinance impugned in this petition lapsed by efflux of time. Hence this, petition is rendered infructuous. It is disposed of as such. 2. Writ Petition No. 2607 of 2001 is filed by the petitioners challenging the subsequent Ordinance issued for the same purpose being Maharashtra Ordinance No. 12 of 2001. It replaces Ordinance No. 7 of 2001. The arguments were heard in this writ petition. 3. Writ Petition No. 2687 of 2001 raises similar questions regarding validity of the Ordinance, but the main relief claimed by the petitioner is a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to exercise their statutory power under section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act by issuing appropriate directions, orders, circulars etc. for holding fair and impartial ele...

Jagdish Amritlal Karia and anr. Vs. the Bombay Municipal Corporation a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR131; 2001(4)BomCR673; (2001)4BOMLR552; 2001(4)MhLj524

P.S. Patankar, J.1. The learned Single Judge felt that what has been held by another learned Single Judge of this Court in Rambhai Laxminarayan Kothari v. Municipal Commissioner and Ors., is not a good law in view of the observations of the Apex Court in the case of The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Polychem Ltd., He further felt that the two other Judgments of the learned Single Judge reported in Ramakant Madhusudan Tipnis v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, and Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd. v. The Municipal Commissioner of Greater Bombay, the Judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Polychem (cited supra) was not considered. Therefore, the following question came to be referred to the Division Bench for decision :-'When admittedly the structures in relation to which property tax or general tax is being levied are unauthorised structures, in the sense that they have been constructed without getting building plans sanctioned by the Corporation and th...

Indian Medical Association, Nandurbar Branch and ors. Vs. State of Mah ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR517; 2002(3)MhLj895

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the Indian Medical Association, Nandurbar Branch through its President, Dr. Sunil Shah. The petitioner No. 1 is the branch of Association of Medical Practitioners at the national level and the petition is filed in public interest by the said association at Nandurbar. The Indian Medical Association at the national level is a legal entity, the petitioner No. 2 is the resident of village Dangri, Tq. Amalner. The petitioner No. 3 is the resident of Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar. The petitioners have challenged the decision of the Government of Maharashtra to establish Government Medical College with 100 seats intake capacity at Kolhapur and have further sought directions against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to establish a new Medical College or increase the seats available in the existing Medical Colleges for M.B.B.S. course in the Marathwada and Vidarbha regions. The petitioners have also sought a Wri...

Union Bank of India, Mumbai Vs. K.K. Salian and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2001(91)FLR526]; 2002(1)MhLj870

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The employee in the present case, the first respondent in Writ Petition No. 1520 of 1997 filed by the employer, was a Special Assistant in the service of the Union Bank of India. A chargesheet dated 6th July, 1984 was issued to him, in which a disciplinary enquiry into a charge of misconduct was proposed to be held. The charge against the first respondent was that while in the employment of the Bank, he had fraudulently enrolled 84 members in the guise of floating a Co-operative Housing Society. As the Chief Promoter, the first respondent was alleged to have collected an amount of Rs. 7.20 lakhs by cheques and in excess of Rs. 1 lakh in cash over a period of 6 years. (These members who were enrolled, it is common ground, were employees of the Bank). The chargesheet recited thatfalse assurances were given to the members to the effect that the clearance ofthe Government of Maharashtra had been received by the first respondent andon these assurances amounts were col...

Vijaysingh Gordhandas and ors. Vs. Dwarkadas Mulji

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR629; 2002(2)BomCR764

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition, under Article 227 of Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the Small Causes Court, Bombay dated 21st November, 1995 in Interim Notice No. 659 of 1995 in L.E. Suit No. 147/195 of 1979. 2. The above-said suit has been filed by the petitioners for possession of the suit property against the respondent-licensee on the ground that the subject license has been revoked. In the said suit an application was preferred on behalf of the petitioners-plaintiffs praying that Vijaysingh Gordhandas-plaintiff No. 1 be allowed to give evidence after the evidence of their witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 was already recorded. This application was filed in terms of the provisions under Order 18, Rule 3-A of Civil Procedure Code. The Court below has, however, rejected the said application on the ground that the plaintiff witness P.W. 1-Mr. Shreenarayana Shivmangal Mishra has already been examined in his capacity as Constituted Attorney of the plai...

Gafur Vs. Hirabai W/O Dnyanshswar Kolte (Sou.)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR691

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Order passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Pune dated February 18, 1989 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 966 of 1986.2. The petitioner is the tenant in respect of premises being two Khans room in CTS No. 354, House No. 312 situated at Wanori, Tal. Haveli, District Pune as monthly tenant on payment of Rs. 16/- plus education cess Rs. 0.64 paise and other taxes of Rs. 2.18 total Rs. 18.82 paise. According to the respondent-landlady, the petitioner was in arrears; for which reason she issued notice dated September 19, 1983, which is stated to have been duly served upon the petitioner on September 19, 1983. Later on in 1984 the respondent instituted a suit for possession on the ground of default. In the said suit the respondent also prayed for possession on the ground of bona fide and reasonable requirement. At this stage, it is relevant to point out that the respondent-landla...

Shri P.S. Patheja, M/S Patheja Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this batch of cases the applications for restoration of the appeal shave been made as also applications for modification on the orders passed on the earlier stay applications. The applications for restoration of the appeals were taken up together for disposal in this common order. Shri Arvind Datar Sr. Counsel was appearing for all the applicants along with Shri S. Sheerazi Advocate. Shri M.H. Shaikh appeared for the Revenue.2. M/s. Patheja Forgings & Auto Parts Mfg. Ltd. and M/s. Patheja Brothers forgings Stampings Ltd. were assessees manufacturing dutiable products. S/Shri M.S. Patheja, V.S. Patheja, G.S. Patheja and P.S.Patheja were directors/officers of these two companies. In two orders the Commissioner confirmed duties against both assess unit and also imposed penalties upon them. Penalties on the four aforementioned directors/officers of the company were also imposed in both the orders.The assessee companies and the directors filed appeals before the Tribunal and also...

Modern Paper Converters Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Two show cause notices issued to the appellant demanded duty on the ground that the printed plastic film obtained by it as a result of subjecting unprinted plastic film to printing that supplied by the was not entitled to the benefit of entry no. 30 of the Table to the Notification 14/92. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand. On appeal from this order, Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the notice has been issued in pursuance of a decision arrived at by the Assistant Collector on the classification of the product, by denying the benefit of the notification; that decision had become final, not having bene challenged in appeal. Therefore, the assessee should have paid duty in accordance with the classification. He therefore dismissed the appeal.2. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that it is not correct to say that the earlier classification had become final. An appeal had been filed before the Collector (Appeals), who had dismissed it on the ground that it di...

M/S Tirupati Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Applicant assesses in this case took modvat credit of Rs.13,72,947.00 on the basis of forged documents. In the impugned order this quantum was confirmed the penalty of equal amount was imposed on the applicant. Along with the appeal against this order they have filed an application for waiver. The principal claim made is that adequate opportunity was not given to the assessees to state their case. We find that from paragraph 3.1 to 3.15, the Commissioner has detailed the various occasions on which opportunities were given to the assessees to secure copies of the evidence relied upon against them and also to appear for hearing. The assessees did not avail of the opportunity and therefore at this stage we do not find any merit in this claim.2. The second ground is raised that the unit has been closed. However there is nothing in the application to show that their financial is condition such as to cause an undue hardship upon them in case of insistence on predeposit of duty confirmed ...