Mumbai Court August 2001 Judgments

Ramchandra Bhau MaraThe Vs. Smt. Shaila Marutirao Naik

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR412; 2002(2)MhLj716

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 Small Causes Court at Bombay dated 16th September, 1989 in Appeal No. 696 of 1986.2. Briefly stated some of the undisputed facts are that the petitioner is in possession of Shop No. 3 in Fatimabai Chawl (Farook House), 565A, N. M. Joshi Marg, S. Bridge, Bombay-400011. The petitioner is the original defendant, whereas the respondent is the original plaintiff. The suit premises were originally owned by one Abdul Latif Abbas Waghoo, who had constructed the suit house. The petitioner was inducted by the original owner in the suit premises on monthly rent basis. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the said Abdul LatifAbbas Waghoo died leaving behind his widow Fatimabai and nephew Abdul Rahim Suleman Waghoo. It is the respondent's case that after the death of the original owner Abdul Latif Abbas Waghoo, his nephew, said Abdul Rahim Suleman Waghoo...

Nahida Tabassum Mohd. Harshad Mohd. Asraf Khan @ Rizvi Vs. M.N. Singh, ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)7

Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Mrs. Nahida Tabassum Mohd. who describes herself as wife of the detenu-Mohd. Harshad Mohd. Asraf Khan @ Rizvi has impugned the order dated 18.1.2001 passed by the First Respondent Mr. M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai detaining the detenu under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. IV of 1981) (Amendment-1996).The detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated 18.1.2001 was served on the detenu on 21.1.2001 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this writ petition.2. At the very inception, we may mention that this is a second writ petition which has been preferred on behalf of the detenu in this Court. Earlier, the detenu-petitioner had preferred in this Court Criminal Writ...

Ashrafinath R. Yadav and ors. Vs. National Textile Corporation and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)BomCR352; (2002)1BOMLR115; [2002(92)FLR1109]; 2002(1)MhLj487

1. This Writ Petition challenges the order of the Industrial Court dismissing a complaint filed by the petitioners under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The petitioners are employed as Badli Workers in New Hind Textile Mills, which is taken over by the 1st respondent. The petitioners are working in various departments for number of years as Badli workers. The 1st respondent has not cared to make them permanent despite the fact that they are governed by the standing orders under which they should have been made permanent. After the Mill strike of1982 the strength of the employees was reduced by the Mills. An agreement was entered into between the respondents and the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, which is the representative Union of workmen of Textile Mills stipulating inter alia, 85% of the muster strength in all the departments should be of permanent workmen. The petitioners state that there are v...

Surendrakumar S. Surana Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(1)ALLMR1017; 2002(3)BomCR343; 2002(1)MhLj504

1. This Writ Petition challenges the order of suspension of the licence issued to the petitioner under the Bombay Police Act for running a place of public entertainment. The petitioner carries on the business of a Restaurant and Permit Room. On 20th January 1994, the petitioner applied for a licence to run a place of public entertainment under the Bombay Police Act. Accordingly licence bearing No. 49/94 was issued to the petitioner. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 22nd January 1998 for keeping his premises open beyond the prescribed time during the period from 19th January 1996 to 27th December 1996. After giving a personal hearing to the petitioner the 2nd respondent on. 11 th August 1998 suspended the licence of the petitioner for 15 days. This suspension was to take effect 30 days after the receipt of the order by the petitioner. The petitioner received the order on 13th August 1998. By a letter dated 21st August 1998, the petitioner informed respondent No. 2 tha...

State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. Quadar Mohd. Finjari and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)ILLJ1024Bom

A.P. Deshpande, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for respective parties. 2. These (17) Writ Petitions involve a common question of law and as such are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. These petitions are filed by the State of Maharashtra challenging a common judgment dated March 15, 1997 passed by the Labour Court at Jalgaon in exercise of power under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity). The application filed by the respondent- employees under Section 33-C(2) of the Act pertains to their claim for bonus. The applicants lodged the claim before the Labour Court by making an averment that the employees who were daily wagers working in Horticulture Department of the State of Maharashtra are entitled to receive bonus. The employees contended that they are entitled to receive bonus as their case is squarely covered by Government Resolution dated November 10, 1986. The said Government Resolution provides f...

Sakhubai Wd/O Wasudeo Kongre Vs. Bapurao S/O Wasudeo Kongre

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(4)ALLMR770; 2002(1)BomCR349

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. K.R. Lambat, Advocate for the respondent. Nobody is present for the appellant even though names of 4 Advocates appear on the memo of appeal.2. This appeal is filed by the original plaintiff, she had filed a suit against her son before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wani for possession and permanent injunction of certain land. It was her case that her husband Wasudeo had gifted the said land to her under Registered Gift Deed dated 2-4-1975. That she was placed in possession and she cultivated the land from year 1975-76 to 1978-79. However, after the death of her husband, Bapurao dispossessed her forcibly and therefore she filed a suit.3. The trial Court decreed the suit accepting her contention about the execution of valid Gift Deed in her favour by her husband and also her contention regarding possession. Bapurao preferred appeal before the District Judge, Yavatmal vide Appeal No. 15/1983 and the Appellate Court allowed his appeal on the ground that pl...

Primier Textiles Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides, the main appeal was taken up for disposal after granting waiver of pre-deposit as prayed for.2. The appellants are operating under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules 1998. The decision of addition of galleries to the chambers was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon the Tribunal judgment in the case of C.M. Paints (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, New Delhi[2000(120) ELT 829.] We find that this decision has been specifically over-ruled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in their judgment in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. vs. CCE Jaipur [2001(127) EL.T. 679]. The impugned order therefore, does not sustain. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any....

Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (imp.),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)(145)ELT109Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The two questions for consideration in this appeal are whether the appellant could import the knocked down components of vertical machining centres in terms of the "list attested procedure" contained in Chapter 20 of the 1984-85 Policy, and whether the electrical control panel of these machines could be imported under this procedure.2. In the appeals CD (Bom) 904 & 952/85 of the same appellant, the Tribunal had found that the procedure permitted import of the components, but did not permit import of the control panel. Following the ratio of this decision, we hold that all the components, except the control panel could be imported and set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. Going by the ratio of the order, we hold that the control panel is liable to confiscation and reduce the penalty imposed on the appellant in this regard to Rs. 50,000/-....

Amitasha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application by Amitasha Enterprises Pvt Ltd is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs 2.50 lakhs, and a penalty of Rs 67.09 lakhs. The application by Venkat Saripalli, the manufacturer's accountant is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs 1.00 lakh imposed on him under Rule 209A.2. The duty has been demanded, on the ground that that the applicant was required to reverse (in terms of Rule 57F(1)(ii) the credit that it took on the iron angles and sections which it cleared. These arose when applicant cut the angles and sections that were its inputs, inputs and cleared as such. The contentions of the counsel that the provisions of this rule will not apply to goods which emerge after the inputs are subjected to various processes.3. The penalty has been imposed for contravention of the rules by the applicant having taken credit on inputs which it did not receive. The demand for credit has been held to be barred by limitation. In that situation, it is difficult to see how penalty could ...

M/S Voltas Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both sides on the stay applications, the main appeals were taken up for disposal after granting the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit.2. The appellants manufactured washing machines. Their RT.12 returns for the period October, 1996 to September, 1997 and October, 1997 to September, 1998 were examined by the jurisdictional officers. Two orders in finalisation of the provisional assessment were issued by the Asst. Commissioner. The Asstt. Commissioner observed that wholesale dealers were providing after sales service. In his opinion, the service enhanced the marketability of the product. He, therefore, inflated the assessable value Rs. 83.33 per piece and demanded the differential duty in each case.3. Against these two orders, the assessee filed two appeals. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed both the appeals before him refusing to treat the final assessment order as appealable under Sec 35(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence, these present appeals.4. The Tribunal in th...