Mumbai Court October 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Prakash Ramaji Lende Vs. United Church of Northern India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR525; 2004(1)MhLj363
S.A. Bobde, J.1. Heard Shri N. S. Talmale, the learned counsel for the appellant.2. This second appeal is filed by the defendant, who has been ordered to be evicted by a decree of lower Appellate Court. The only point raised on behalf of the appellant is that the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, which was to take effect from 28-2-1992 is not legal since it was not intended to take effect at the end of month of the tenancy. According to learned counsel, notice would have been valid only if it was intended to take effect at the end of the month i.e. on 29-2-1992, since the month of February in the year 1992 ended on 29th. This contention is no longer tenable in view of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as amended by Act 2002. Prior to this Amendment, the Section 106 read as follows :--'106. Duration of certain leases in absence of written contract or local usage. -- In the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable p...
Ameya Clearing Agency and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-2003
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT529Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These appeals have been filed, by a firm of Custom House Agent (herein after referred to as CHA) and Dock Clerk of the CHA, against penalties of Rs. 50,000/- respectively imposed on them under the provisions of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. a) The officers of Marine & Preventive Wing of Commissionerate, (Preventive) intercepted, on information, tempos outside Green Gate of Bombay Docks. The driver of tempo No. MDD-6522 produced relevant Baggage Declaration forms (herein after referred to as BDF) and other connected documents. The tempo Nos. 4113 and MRQ-2609 were found to be carrying packages cleared, from Unaccompanied Baggage Centre, Mumbai (herein after referred to as UBC), Under BDF No. 755 dt. 20/05/1999. The packages were having markings of BDF number, date and passport number and were found to contain electronic goods, like Video Cassette, Walkman, Camera, TV set etc, valued at Rs. 20,70,645/- at Local Market Value (herein after referred to as LMV). They were ...
Mayur Steel Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-2003
Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT107Tri(Mum.)bai
1. In the normal course 1 would have adjourned this matter accepting the request made by the counsel for the appellant on the ground of serious illness in the advocate's family. However, reading the papers and hearing the departmental representative, I find that the matter is covered by the decision of the Tribunal and the judgment of the Supreme Court and therefore proceed to take up the appeal itself after waiving deposit.2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing as barred by limitation the appeal filed by Mayur Steel Corporation against the order of the Dy. Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) finds that the order of the Dy. Commissioner was received by the partner of the appellant in October 2001 and the appeal against this order was filed sometime in May 2003. Neither the order in appeal nor the appeal filed by the assessee indicates the date of filing of the appeal. He has said that the appeal has themselves been filed beyond the period of 9...
Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji Education Society Vs. State of Maharashtra,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR77; 2003(6)BomCR487
D.G. Karnik, J. 1. By an order dated 25th October, 2002 notice was issued to the respondents. In pursuance of the notice, parties have appeared and by consent of the parties, the petitions are heard finally.The facts stated in brief are as follows:2. The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies' Registration Act, 1860. The respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra. The respondent No. 2 is the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (for short, the University) established under the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 (for short, the Act). The respondent No. 3 is the Vice Chancellor of the University and the respondent No. 4 is the Director of Ayurved, the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner society has its main object of establishing hospitals and medical research centres in rural areas all over India. The petitioner society has established 100 bedded Ayurvedic medical hospitals at village Mayani. Taluka Khatav, District Satara which is a drought pron...
C.M.C. Limited Vs. Unit Trust of India and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Bom16; 2004(1)ARBLR179(Bom); 2004(1)BomCR59
V.G. Palshikar, J. 1. By this petition the petitioners have challenged an order made by the learned single Judge of this Court in proceedings commenced under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said act').2. The claim of the petitioners is that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement between the petitioners and the respondents and therefore parties must resort to arbitration in case of dispute. However there is no failure on the part of the petitioners because of which provisions under Section 11 of the Act could be resorted to. According to Mr. M. S. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners the commencement of proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act itself is void ab initio, as no jurisdiction under that section could be invoked because there is no failure on the part of any of the parties to arbitration clause in relation to nomination of an arbitrator. According to the petitioners the cl...
Rambhau S/O Ganpat Rudrakar (Deceased Through Lrs.) Manjurabai Wd/O Ra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR154; 2004(1)MhLj528
S.A. Bobde, J.1. This Second Appeal is against the concurrent findings of the two Courts below decreeing the respondents' suit for eviction. The substantial question of law that is formulated for decision is whether the waiver of the first notice to quit can be inferred from the fact of the respondents having instituted and prosecuted subsequent proceedings for permission to terminate the tenancy. The question arises in this manner.2. The appellant is the tenant of a shop block. The shop block is taken on lease from the respondent. In 1978-79, the respondents initiated proceedings for permission to terminate the appellant's tenancy under Clause 13(3)(i) and (ii) of the C. P. & Berar Letting of House and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Control Order'), This permission was thus sought on the ground of arrears of rent and for being in habitual default. The Rent Controller has rejected the permission on 4-10-1979. The respondent, therefore, appealed. The appe...
The Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Shri Upendra Mahadik, th ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Bom108; 2004(1)ALLMR25; 2004(3)BomCR229
A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr. Dharmadhikari, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. A.A. Joshi waives notice for Respondents 1 and 2. Mr. M.H. Solkar, A.G.P. waives notice for Respondent No. 3.2. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent.3. This Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner Bank essentially takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Respondent No. 3 dated 23rd July, 2003, directing parties to maintain status-quo till further orders. The background in which the present petition has been filed and the facts relevant for deciding the point in issue, are as follows:-(a) The Petitioner Bank had extended loan facilities to M/s. Mahaganesh Texpro Limited, of which, Respondents 1 and 2 were directors at the relevant time. Besides, the Respondents 1 and 2 had extended personal guarantees with regard to the loan facilities extended by the Petitioner Bank. The Pet...
Vijayendra Rajarao Hallar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Shri A.M. T ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR738; 2004(3)BomCR360
1. Petitioners herein challenge the common judgment and order dated 4th March, 1998 passed by the Maharashtra Administration Tribunal (for short M.A.T.) in O.A.No. 849 of 1996. O.A. No. 883 of 1996 and O.A.No. 876 of 1996 filed by the respective petitioners in these petitions.The facts giving rise to the petitions briefly stated are as follows:2. The respondent Mr. A.M. Thatte who is the common private respondent in all the writ petitions and who holds a Bachelor's Degree in Engineering (Electrical) joined Agriculture and Cooperation Department on 16th June, 1970 as a Junior Engineer. He was promoted as a Deputy Engineer 3rd December, 1977 and was further promoted as an Executive Engineer on 23rd May, 1985. One Mr. S.L. Patil who is not party to either of the petitions joined Agriculture and Cooperation Department as a Junior Engineer (Electrical) in May, 1971 and after obtaining degree in Electrical Engineering approached this court by filing a Writ Petition No. 886 of 1988 challengin...
Agriculture Produce Market Committee Through Its Secretary Vs. State o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-2003
Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR890; (2004)106BOMLR942
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Risod (for short 'A.P.M.C.') is the petitioner before us. By means of this writ petition, the demand notices (D 1 to D 14) are being challenged by the petitioner. The demand notices (D 1 to D 14) were issued by the Municipal Council, Risod (for short 'the Council') demanding property tax from A.P.M.C., Risod.2. The only challenge to the said notices is based on the ground that the Council does not provide any facility to the A.P.M.C. nor services are rendered by the Council and, therefore, the question of levy of any property tax on the A.P.M.C. does not arise. It is the petitioner's case that it itself has provided sanitation, lighting, road, drainage, water connection, severage etc. to its properties and therefore, demand of property tax by the Council is unjustified. The learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to place reliance on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Pradeep Ginning and Deokumar Oil Mills v. The Munici...
Gujchem Distillers India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-2003
Reported in: (2004)(168)ELT417Tri(Mum.)bai
1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 16,62,495/- we find that it is possible to dispose of the appeal itself at this stage as the principal grievance of the applicants is that the test report relief upon by the department to hold that the Sodium Carboxy Methyl Cellulose manufactured by them falls for classification as derivative of cellulose under CETA sub-heading 3912.31, instead of CETA sub-heading 2907.90 as claimed by them, has not been furnished to them; hence after waiving pre-deposit, we take up the appeal for hearing with the consent of both sides.2. We find that this case has a chequered history. In April, 1986 the show cause notice was issued to the appellants proposing classification of the production in dispute under Chapter heading 39.12 and the notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 26/08/1996, relying upon the order-in-appeal dated 03/03/1986 passed in the case of Ashok Organ...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »