Mumbai Court December 2002 Judgments

Aryan Fine Lab Ltd., Kantibhai S. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal by Aryan Fine Fab Ltd. is against the order of the Commissioner demanding duty on goods that if manufactured, ordering confiscation with an option to redeem some other goods that it manufactured, imposing a penalty on it. Appeals by Kantibhai S. Patel, its excise clerk and Prem Kumar its director are against penalties imposed on them under Rule 209A.2. None of the appellants is present despite notice. I have read the memorandum of appeal and also heard the departmental representative.3. The facts briefly are that the departmental officers stopped a van loaded containing carton fabrics manufactured by the assessee on which no duty had been paid. Their subsequent visit to the factory showed the presence of quantities of fabrics in the store room, and in the packing and finishing room of the factory which were not entered in the RG1 register.4. The contention in the appeal of the manufacturer does not question the liability of the duty on the fabrics but questions the confi...

Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)MhLj760

V.M. Kanade, J.1. The Petitioner has filed this petitioner underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India and is seekingan appropriate writ, order or direction directing therespondent State of Maharashtra and the Conservator ofForest North and Chandrapur Circle to refund an amountof Rs.69,59,078/- with interest @ 20% p.a. from15.8.1987 till realisation of the said amount. ThePetitioner is also seeking an appropriate writ forquashing and setting aside the communications dtd.23.9.1987 and 24.9.1987 which are annexed at AnnexuresI and J respectively to the Petition.2.Respondent no.2 had issued a Tender Notice dtd.8.6.1987 for sale of Bamboo Units in Vadasa (Unit No.7)and Gadchiroli Unit Nos.10,11,12 and 14). Therespondent no.3 had also issued a Tender Sale Notice inrespect of Bhamragarh (Unit No.5) Chandrapur Circle forthe same purpose. The terms and conditions of both thetender notices were identical. The tender was to besubmitted in the prescribed form on or before 15.7.87and sealed tend...

Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd., Vs. Union of India (Uoi),

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(5)BomCR445; 2003(90)ECC293; 2003LC143(Bombay); 2003(156)ELT467(Bom); 2003(3)MhLj645; [2004]135STC168(Bom)

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of India seeks to challenge the order dated26th October 1989 passed by then Collector of CentralExcise & Customs, Division Aurangabad. The 1stpetitioner herein is a Company Limited by shares and is aCivil Contractor engaged in civil construction works atsites of various party. The other petitioners aredirectors and/or shareholders of this Company. Therespondent no. 2 is the Collector of Central Excise whoseorder is challenged. The respondent No. 1 is Union ofIndia. The Attorney General of India was also joined andnotice was issued to him since a declaration is sought inone of the prayers with respect to unconstitutionality ofHeading No. 7308 of Schedule to the Central ExciseTariff Act, 1985. 2. Mr. Kanade, learned Counsel, has appearedfor the petitioners and Mr. Godhamgaonkar, StandingCounsel, has appeared for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 3. The facts leading to this petition are asfollows : (a) An industrial estate...

Jamnadas Madhavji and Co. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi),

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)BomCR798; 2004(164)ELT8(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. In these two writ petitions, the Petitionershave challenged the circular dated 13th July, 1987issued by the Respondents, wherein the CashCompensatory Support ('CCS' for short) on export ofspices under brand name in packs of 1 Kg. or lessweight has been reduced from 10% to 7% withretrospective effect from 1st July, 1986. ThePetitioners have also challenged the circular dated16th July, 1987 issued by the Respondents wherein theExporters of spices were required to obtainregistration of their brand names with the SpicesBoard to avail 10% CCS with effect from 16th July,1987. Since the facts in both the petitions aresimilar, we have heard both the petitions togetherand have disposed of the same by this commonjudgment. 2. For the sake of convenience, we have dealtwith the facts in Writ Petition No. 3600 of 1987 inthis judgment. The facts relevant for the purpose ofpresent petition are as follows : The Petitioners are a registered export houseand export all major/minor spic...

Sub Divisional Engineer Vs. Sudhakar Bapurao Bhagat

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)BomCR803; [2003(97)FLR1130]; (2003)IILLJ786Bom; 2003(2)MhLj628

C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. This appeal is filed against thejudgment and order dated November 30, 2001, passed bythe learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1131 of1991. Admitted. Mr. Choudhari, learned advocate appearsfor the respondent-workman and waives service of noticeof admission. With the consent of the parties, thematter has been taken up for final hearing. 2. The services of the respondent wereterminated by the appellant, as he was rendered surplusdue to completion of work of Dham Unnati Dharan.According to the appellant, the respondent-workman wasappointed for the said project and as soon as theproject was over, his services were no more required.In the circumstances, he could not have claimed anybenefit from the appellant-State. In spite of that, theprovisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ) werefollowed and he was offered retrenchment compensation ofRs. 2310.75. He, however, refused to accept the amount. 3. Being aggri...

Shri Jos Peter Dsouza Vs. Mr. Vilas P. Thali,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2003Bom231; 2003(4)BomCR228

P.V. Kakade, J.1. This Petition has been filed in publicinterest by the Petitioner who is a practicing Advocatein Goa. The first Respondent is an Additional AdvocateGeneral practicing in Goa and who came to be appointedon 23rd March, 2001 by the Governor of Goa in exerciseof his powers under Article 165 of the Constitution ofIndia, upon the recommendation, approval and resolutionpassed by the Council of Ministers. In this Petition,the Petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamusdirecting the first Respondent, the Additional AdvocateGeneral to refund to the Government Treasury all theamounts received over Rs. 2000/- per day in appearancesfrom the date of his appointment and for directing theRespondent Nos. 2 and 3 who are the Law Secretary to theGovernment of Goa and the State of Goa respectively toforthwith stop all the payments which are not inconformity in appearances by the Respondent No. 2 andnot to pay the Respondent No. 1 over and above Rs.2000/-per day regardless of the number o...

Anita Krishnakumar Kachba Vs. Krishnakumar Ramchandra Kachba

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2003Bom273; 2003(4)BomCR731; 2003(1)MhLj828

V.C. Daga, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court No. 1, Pune dated 17-11-1998 dissolving the marriage between the parties to the appeal by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act' for short) and further directing the respondent-husband to continue to pay Rs. 500/- per month to the appellant by way of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Act in addition to the amount of Rs. 100/- towards maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cri.P.C. for short) with an order granting custody of both minor sons to the respondent-father with right of access to the appellant-wife-Anita. The parties for the sake of clarity are referred to in the capacity as are shown in the present appeal.FACTS IN BRIEF2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal in nutshell are as under.The appellant got married with the respondent on 26-1-1991 at Ki...

Sandeep Prakash Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1171; 2003(2)MhLj818

J.G. Chitre, J.1. This application is heard finally today as requested by counsel of both parties. This criminal application has exposed a very strange phenomena of the life and a page in the life of a Government servant, who has been entrusted with the work of revenue intelligence. For unfolding the matter around which this criminal application is revolving, few facts need to be stated. 2. The applicant at the relevant time was working as Assistant Director in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as D. R. I. for convenience) One M/s Select Impex (P) Ltd. discharged four consignments containing Quartz Analog gold watches from Mumbai to Dubai/Sharjah by Sea during the period form 12-1-1999 to 4-2-1999 consisting of 27, 250, 800, 880 watches respectively. Out of those consignments, the first consignment was further sent from Dubai/Sharjah to Hongkong by Sea and the remaining 3 consignments were sent from Dubai/Sharjah to Hongkong by Air. When Shri Rajeev Aggarwal ...

Moreshwar Shankar Phatak and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR651; 2003(3)MhLj127

A.P. Shah, J.1. Admit. Respondents waive service. By consent appeal is taken up for hearing.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th August, 2000 passed by the Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yavatmal, in Land Acquisition case No. 65 of 1992. By the said judgment and order, the trial court dismissed the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', as barred by limitation. Briefly stated the facts are that the land of the appellants was acquired under the provisions of the Act for Arundhati Project. The Award was declared by the Collector on 18th February, 1992 in the absence of the parties. Notices were caused to be issued to the land owners on 18th April, 1992 under Section 12(2) of the Act. According to the appellants the notices under Section 12(2) were received by them on 29th April, 1992. By letter dated 15th May, 1992 the appellants requested for sending a copy of the Award to enable them to f...

Mukesh Bhagwandas Ganatra Vs. Priti Mukesh Ganatra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)MhLj408

V.C. Daga, J. 1. This case affords a further illustration, if illustrations were required how ego of two neo rich families resulted in matrimonial casualty in respect of parties to the appeal. The source of this appeal is a judgment and decree dated 23rd May 2000 passed by the Family Court, Bandra rejecting M. J. Petition No. A-1019 of 1993 alleging cruelty and desertion against the respondent/wife.FACTS-IN-BRIEF2. The parties to the appeal belong to Kachhi Lohana (Gujarati) community. The appellant and respondent both come from the culture of joint family. The appellant got engaged with the respondent on 6th September 1987. In the month of December 1987, father of the appellant and respondent along with appellant with one Mr. Khot, an engineer by profession had been to U.K., U.S.A. and other countries to select some machineries to start the industrial unit owned by the father of the appellant at Bandra, which was lying closed since long.3. The marriage between the appellant and respon...