Mumbai Court July 2001 Judgments

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Ahmednag ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003ACJ954; 2002(3)ALLMR549; (2002)2BOMLR544; 2002(1)MhLj952

A.P. Deshpande, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. At the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the name of the respondent No. 3 is allowed to be deleted in Writ Petition No. 624/1994. 3. As the issue involved in the Writ Petition and the Civil Revision Application is the same, and in between the same parties, I proceed to decide both the matters by this common judgment. 4. Maharashtra State Electricity Board instituted a Special Civil Suit bearing No. 251/1986 against the Central Railway and Northern Railway, so also, against one private party by name, M/s. Rozi Enterprises Private Ltd., for a money claim in the sum of Rs. 4,37,921.68 Ps. Notices came to be issued in the said suit to the defendants (hereinafter referred to as Railways and the private party). Pending the suit, Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, came to be enacted and it came in force from 23rd December 1987. The said Act constituted Claims Tribunal for adjudication of claims referred to in Section 13(...

Nalini W/O Onkar Patil Vs. Girdhar Kashinath Patil and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)BomCR287; 2002(4)MhLj728

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. The petition arises from the judgment and order dated 31st December 1999 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik allowing the revision application filed by the respondents Nos. I and 2 against the order of the Additional Collector, Jalgaon dated 19th January 1999. The Additional Collector, Jalgaon in RTS Appeal No. 56/98, by the said order of 19th January 1999, had allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Sub Divisional Officer Bhusawal dated 6th April 1998. The said Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhusawal by his order dated 6th April 1998 in RTS Revision No. 47/97 had rejected the revision application filed by the petitioner against the mutation of entry No. 1319 and other mutation entries carried out by the Talathi of village Rajore on 27th July 1995 pursuant to application stated to have been filed by one Onkar Patil.2. It is the case of the petitioner that Onkar Pandurang Patil was her husband and he had purchased agriculture lan...

Pawan Kumar Atmaram Saboo and anr. Vs. Saboo Collections

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR212; 2002(24)PTC27(Bom)

S.D. Gundewar, J. 1. Heard finally at the stage of admission by the consent of the parties.2. These two Appeals Against Order bearing Nos. 27/01 & 28/01 are being disposed OF by this common judgment since both of them are directed against the common order dated 23-10-2000 passed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Nagpur below applications (Exh.5) for temporary injunction moved in Special Civil Suit Nos. 2/2000 & 3/2000, whereby the learned trial Judge rejected the said applications.3. The facts, in so far as, they are relevant for the disposal of these appeals are as under:-The appellant No. 1 is the sole proprietor of the firm named and styled as 'Saboo Sons'. He is also one of the Directors of the appellant No. 2 - 'Saboo Decopride', which is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The appellants are engaged in the business of marketing, selling and providing bed sheets, bed covers, mattresses, etc. The appellant No. 1's father Atmaram Saboo sta...

Vyankatesh Sikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(2)ALLMR826; 2002(2)BomCR284

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Since common questions of law and fact arise in all these petitions, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The grievance of the petitioner in these three petitions is that the appeals filed by the respondent No. 3 have been disposed of without affording proper opportunity to the petitioner to put forth their say in the matter.3. The facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the respondent No. 3 preferred appeals against the order of termination issued by the petitioner. For some time, there was no Presiding Officer for the School Tribunal at Aurangabad. After having appointed one such officer to preside over the said Tribunal, the same started re-functioning from 26th April, 1999. About 30 matters were listed on the notice board for the purpose of hearing on the said date and among those 30 matters, the same did not include the three, appeals filed by the respondent No. 3 herein. Though the learned Advocate f...

Sitalsing Asaram Naik and ors. Vs. Narbadabai Wd/O Laxmanprasad Shukla ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR902; 2002(3)BomCR410

A.P. Deshpande, J.1. The present petitioners, who are the original defendants, are the trustees of a Public Trust, by name, 'Panchayati Shri Balaji Mandir', Chelipura, Aurangabad. The suit bearing Special Civil Suit No. 324/93 came to be filed by the plaintiffs, who are the legal representatives of deceased Laxmanprasad and are claiming title through him over the suit property. During the life-time of Laxmanprasad, he had claimed the title over the suit property and had opposed the claim of the trustees of the trust that the property belongs to the Public Trust. In the suit, the trustees/defendants filed an application under section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure for framing of preliminary issues and the learned Judge of the trial Court did frame the issues and decided the same as preliminary issues. The issues that came to be framed are as under:-(1) Whether jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred in view of sections 79 and 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950?(2) Whether the su...

Surendra Ramchandra Taori Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001ALLMR(Cri)2079; 2002BomCR(Cri)128; (2002)104BOMLR34

J.N. Patel, J.1. The petitioner who is a journalist and working as reporter of Daily Hindusthan published from Amravati, is a resident of Malkapur town in Buldhana District. The petitioner was required to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by filing the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as he came to be arrested and detained in custody under the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2-Special Executive Magistrate and Police Inspector Local Crime Branch, Buldhana, District Buldhana on 23.10.1999 in a proceedings initiated under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. It is the case of the petitioner that, as a journalist, he exposed the police machinery of Malkapur Police Station on having taken up some matters criticising the mal practice and high handedness of the Police personnel. One of such matter was relating to sensational murder case in Malkapur town which occurred in the month of September 1999. It is the cas...

The Yashwant Co-op. Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The three applications are posted before us today relating to the appeal file bearing No. E/155/2001_Mum. One application is for waiver of pre-deposit of the sums confirmed and the penalties imposed. The other two applications are for amending the appeal memorandum and the stay application.2. The learned counsel seeks to withdraw these two miscellaneous applications. They are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.3. On hearing the application for waiver of pre-deposit it appears to us the issues having been settled earlier the appeal itself could he taken up for disposal. This was done on granting the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit.4. The appellant was operating under Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. On 16/12/1998. They filed a declaration for determining the annual capacity of production. The Commissioner's provisional approval was communicated vide letter dated 22/12/1998. Vide another letter dated 18/06/1999 the entire annu...

Dr. Rajeev Kumar JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on the appellant.2. Penalty has been imposed on the applicant on the ground that when he was the managing director of Hitech Drugs Ltd., he abetted the sale by the company contrary to law of 60 tonnes of acetone which the company imported free of duty under notification 203/92 which prohibited sale without discharging export obligation.3. The counsel for the applicant contends that the evidence cited in the Commissioner's order implicates the applicant in involvement of sale of 30 tonnes. (In reply to our question he says, to the best of his knowledge, the company has not appealed this order.) He accepts that the applicant in his statement before the investigating officers, admitted his role in the sale of the goods; he also accepts that the two buyers of the goods, in their statements, have named the applicant to be the person with whom they dealt and they paid the proceeds of sale. The counsel is not able ...

Sunshine Metal and Alloys Vs. Collector of Customs, Kandla

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(139)ELT130Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In this case the appellants are aggrieved by denial of extension of benefit of exchange rate or rate of duty prevailing on 16/11.1988 which is the date on which the bill of entry was filed/presented by them. The benefit has been denied holding as under: "It is seen that the importers had presented Bills of Entry on 16.11.1988 covering the goods. However, it is also noticed that the goods had already been seized in September, 1988. In view of this, their attempt to file the Bs/E after the goods were placed under seizure had no meaning, as the goods could not have been released at that time. Hence, the Customs House was right in refusing to note the Bills of Entry. Therefore, the benefit of the exchange rate or rate of duty prevailing on that day cannot be extended to the importers on the basis of the Bs/E which they attempted to file." 2. We have heard Shri V.S. Nandkani, learned counsel and the learned DR.3. There is no dispute that the bill of entry had been presented on 16.11.198...

Shree Bhavani Processors Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-I, duty has been demanded from M/s. Shree Bhavani Processors and penalties have been imposed upon them. The appeal against this order has been filed by one Kailash Agarwal of New Kashiram Textile Mills for and on behalf of Bhavani Processors. References is made to an agreement dated 14/2/2000. From the so called agreement it appears that the premises in which M/s. Shree Bhavani Processors were operating belong to M/s. Kashiram Textile Mills and that on its termination of the lease and on vacation of the premises by M/s. Shree Bhavani Processors, the premises were leased to one M/s. Anchal Processors. The so called agreement is signed by the lessor and the new lessee agreeing to discharge the obligations to Central Excise department in the event there are any liabilities against M/s. Shree Bhavani Processors and in case Shree Bhavani Processors are unable to fulfil the same.2. In the memorandum of appeal this so ca...