Mumbai Court July 2001 Judgments

Bharat Metallic Yarn Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing on the stay application, we find that the issue being simple and precedent judgement being available, the case could be taken up for final disposal. We do so on granting waiver of pre-deposit of the duty confirmed and the penalty imposed.2. The appellants manufactured yarn and cleared the same without payment of duty and without following the various prescriptions of law.The Commissioner confirmed the duty for normal period upholding the plea on limitation. In he appeal memorandum, it is claimed that the duty not paid was calculated on the basis of the invoices without giving due deductions as per the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is also claimed that the modvat credit was available of the duty paid on inputs.3. We have seen the Tribunal judgement bearing No.CI/1186-1187/WZB/2001 dated 24/04/01 on identical facts. The present appellants are not contesting the payment of duty but are agitating the quantum thereof.We allow this appeal and rema...

Suresh Vasant Malegaonkar Vs. Ramabai Keshav Gokhale and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)MhLj933

1. This petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20th September, 1983 passed by the Second Extra Assistant Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 291 of 1981, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and there under the decree of eviction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ('Bombay Rent Act' for short) passed against the petitioner, by Second Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune dated 20th December, 1980 in Civil Suit No. 2150 of 1977 was confirmed.THE FACTS2. The facts giving rise to the present petition, in nut shell, are as under ;The petitioner herein is a tenant. He was defendant; whereas the respondents were plaintiffs in the suit. The plaintiffs are landlords of the suit premises located on the first floor of the suit building. The parties herein are referred to in their original capacity for the sake of clarity.3. The suit premises were let out to defendant No. 1 for running typewriting institute and shorthan...

Raj Breweries Ltd. Vs. Government of India and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)BomCR668; (2003)181CTR(Bom)417; [2003]260ITR220(Bom)

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Mr. Tulzapurkar and Mr. Andhyarujina for the petitioners in these petitions. Mr. Chandurkar appears for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Deodhar appears for respondents Nos. 3 and 4.2. All these petitions seek a direction through prayer Clause (a) to prohibit respondent No. 1--Government of India (for the canteen stores department of Ministry of Defence) from withholding the payments of the amounts which are due and which may become due to the petitioners on the basis of the notices issued by the income-tax authorities (respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to these petitions).3. The petitioners other than the petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 1259 of 2001 and 1261 of 2001 are companies with dominant shareholding by Shaw Wallace and Company (for short 'SWC'). Thus, in the case of one Pampasar Distillery Limited, 72 per cent. of its shares are held by SWC. One Central Distillery and Breweries Limited, which is one of the petitioners, has 98 per cent. of its shares held by S...

Mumbai District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Divisional Joint Re ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR730; 2001(4)BomCR710; [2001(91)FLR134]; (2002)IVLLJ890Bom

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The counsel for the Respondents waive service. Taken up for final hearing.2. The Writ Petition which is being disposed of in these proceedings has been instituted by the Mumbai District Central Co-operative Bank Limited. The Bank seeks to impugn an order dated November 22, 2000 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai and an order in revision passed under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co- operative Societies on March 28, 2001. The dispute which has been sought to be raised is in relation to the affairs of the Swastik Janata Co-operative Bank Limited, which is now m liquidation. The Board of Liquidators which has been appointed by the State Government has been impleaded as the Fourth Respondent to these proceedings. Respondents No. 5 to 26 are persons who have been employed and engaged by the Bank in liquidation, and whose claim for ...

Bapurao Ambadasroa Dalve and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)2344; 2001CriLJ4907

Vishnu Sahai, J. 1. Through this Appeal, the Appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 8th May 1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, in Sessions Case No. 80/94, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter :-1) under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine or Rs. 2000/- each, in default to suffer R.I. for six months; and(2) under Section 447 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo R. 1. for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default to undergo 7 days' R.I.2. In short, the prosecution case runs as under.The informant Vijaykumar @ Pintu Venkatrao Dalvi, P.W.1, is the son of the deceased Venkatrao. At the time of the incident, he along with the deceased and other members of the family was living in village Kandga, taluka and district Osmanabad. The Appellant Bapurao is the father of Appellants Udhav and Shahaji and the uncle of...

Praveshchandra Ramprakash Sahani and ors. Vs. Abdul Ajij Dayabhai and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(4)ALLMR176; 2002(2)BomCR316; 2002(4)MhLj565

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.3. The decree of eviction, which is sought to be challenged on the ground that the Lower Appellate Court failed to give benefit of Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 to the petitioners in spite of the fact that the petitioners had deposited all the arrears along with interest within 30 days from the date of filing of the standard rent application and has further deposited all the arrears within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice of the suit for eviction and thereafter had regularly deposited the rent during the pendency of the proceedings. It is the contention of the petitioners that, the Lower Appellate Court has set aside the order of dismissal of the eviction proceedings solely on the ground that regularity in payment of rent during pendency of the suit cannot make good default committed by ...

Dioga Antao Vs. Chief Officer, Mormugao Municipal Council and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)BomCR334

A.S. Aguiar, J.1. The above writ petition has been registered on cognizance being taken by this Court on the complaint dated 22-3-99 filed by one Dioga Antao, complaining of infringement of building regulations and unauthorised constructions carried out by M/s. Koshy Builders. More specifically, the complaint refers to the following projects/constructions namely:--- (1) Aristocrat Apartments at Mangor alleging that Koshy Builders had exceeded FAR to the extent of 500 sq. metres; (2) Violation of FAR and construction of additional building next to Koshy Chambers, Vaddem; (3) Illegal extensions to Mamta Apartments near Natraj Restaurant, Vaddem; (4) Illegal structures put up in Oscar's plot, opposite to Vasco clinic next to Railway Lines. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the illegal construction activity of the said Koshy Builders if unchecked would set a bad precedent; that if the said Builders are not taken to task they will continue constructing further illegal structures and...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Gajanan D. Jambhulkar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)71; 2002CriLJ349

P.V. Hardas, J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the State of Maharashtra through the Assistant Wild Life Warden and Range Forest Officer, Ramtek, assailing before is the order dated 18-5-1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ramtek, on an application moved by the present respondent under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking release of the motor vehicle bearing Registration No. MH-31-G-6648 on Supratnama. A reference to the facts relating to the passing of this order is necessary.2. Within Ramtek range under the jurisdiction of the Assistant Wild Life Warden, Ramtek, village Kachurwahi is situated. This village being in the interior part, is not easily accessible and bridge over the canal has to be crossed for reaching it. Electric Water Pumps have been installed by the villagers for lifting water from the canal for irrigation.3. In April, 1998 there were series of thefts of electric motor pump sets and the villagers had become alert and were ma...

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S R.M. Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The notice issued to M/s R.M. Engineering Pvt. Ltd, the respondent to this appeal, alleged that four invoices issued by the dealers of excisable goods and an invoices-cum-challan of the Steel Authority of India (SAIL for short) were not valid documents for taking credit. It alleged that the dealers were not registered as acquired by law, and the document of SAIL endorsed to the appellant contrary to law. The Assistant Collector confirmed the proposal in the notice. On appeal from this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) took a different view. He said that the two dealers who issued four invoices in question were subsequently registered prior to 31.12.1994. Therefore, in terms of the circular dated 8.11.1994 of the Board, these documents were valid up to 31.1.1994. He further said that the invoice 1.8.1994 of the goods received from SAIL issued by the dealer, who was also registered subsequently, has been produced and this was acceptable. These conclusions are challenged in this appea...

Bipinchandra Hiralal Shah Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In his stay order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has ordered as follows: "The appellant to pay at least 10% of the penalty amount imposed and come for hearing thereafter." 2. The counsel for the applicant says that in the absence of any indication of the period within which the amount was required to be deposited, the applicant was legally entitled to pay this amount now and still contend that he was in compliance with that order. Therefore, he says, that the order dismissing the appeal, for failure to deposit the amount, and that too without any notice, was illegal. He also pleads financial hardship.3. The departmental representative contends that the applicant has taken unfair advantage of the Commissioner (Appeals)' order.4. That may be so, but having regard to this wording of the Commissioner (Appeals)' order I think it would be proper to accept the officer the counsel for the applicant made. The appeal is accordingly taken up. On the applicant depositing, within 15 days from to-d...