Mumbai Court February 2003 Judgments

Dhondiba Malharrao Naik Vs. Shriram Ramchandra Aindalwar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(6)BomCR844

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. In Regular Civil Suit No. 108 of 2001 instituted before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Biloli, the present appellant was the defendant and the suit was filed for declaration of ownership of Block No. 53 and perpetual injunction. A separate application for temporary injunction protecting the possession of plaintiff over Block No. 53 was filed. The said application at Exhibit 6 came to be rejected by order dated 9-1-2002. The plaintiff, therefore, approached the District Court in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2002 which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge at Biloli by his judgment and order dated 21-11-2002.2. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 5141 of 2002 which was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and more so, the petitioner was perhaps satisfied that the remedy of revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not available to him. This Court (Si...

Dwarkadas Alias Dwarkaprasad Ramjeevan Agrawal (Deceased) Through L. R ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR658; (2003)105BOMLR277

D.S. Zoting, J.1. Heard Mr. D.R. Bhadekar, the learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vikhe Patil, the learned A.G.P. for the respondents, in both the appeals.2. These are the two appeals preferred by the land owners whose lands have been acquired by the Government. Both these appeals arise out of the common Judgment and Award dated 29th July, 1988 passed by the Reference Court in L.A.R. No. 126/1983 and 133/1983 respectively, and, therefore, they are being disposed of by common judgment.3. Facts relevant for the decision of these appeals may be briefly stated as under :-The State of Maharashtra issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking to acquire the lands belonging to the claimants of village Tikhadi, Taluka -Kalamnuri, Dist. Parbhani, for a public purpose namely Upper Penganga Project, Isapur Reservoir, The notification was published in Maharashtra Government Gazette on 21.7.1977. The declaration under...

Somras Distilleries Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)105BOMLR710

V.C. Daga, J.1. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. Perused record and proceedings.2. This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench in I.T.A. No. 670/Nag/98 dated 8th September, 2002 for the assessment year 1993-94.THE FACTS3. The facts in brief are that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Nagpur passed an assessment order on 27.3.1997 against the appellant under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short) and issued show-cause notice as to why penalty proceedings should not be initiated against the present appellant, the assessee.4. The present appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) bearingCIT(A)-I/208/1997-98 against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of income Tax on 27.3.1997. Since the appeal was barred by limitation, it was accompanied by application seeking condonation of delay under the signature of one of the p...

Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation (thro' Its Executiv ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR394; (2004)IIILLJ10Bom

B.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by this Court (Single Bench) in Writ Petition No. 641 of 2001 on July 23, 2001 this Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation which is a successor of the Irrigation Department (Kukadi Division) of the State of Maharashtra.2. The respondent-employee was admittedly appointed on daily wages and purely temporary basis as a typist-cum-clerk under the Kukadi Irrigation Project, Sub-Division No. 26, and a stop-gap arrangement awaiting the appointments to be made pursuant to the regular selection process prescribed for the Class III employees under the State Government. Every time he was so appointed, he was issued an appointment order specifying the period of his appointment. He was not continued on and from October 1, 1984, which is not in dispute. For the first time he issued notice of demand on March 2, 1991 for reinstatement in service on the ground that he was illegally termina...

Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]137STC1(Bom)

1. As the issues raised in these two petitions arise out of common transaction and common proceedings, both these petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.Facts in Writ Petition No. 2599 of 2002 :2. The moot point raised by the Commissioner of Sales Tax in this petition is, on a rectification application filed under Section 62 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ('the BST Act', for short) by a third party who is not directly affected by the adjudication, whether, the Tribunal can recall its order passed under Section 55 of the BST Act and rehear the matter on merits 3. The facts narrated in the petition are as follows :Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ('BPCL', for short)--the respondent No. 2 herein, is engaged in the business of refining and marketing petroleum products. The BPCL, inter alia, manufactures SKO (LABFS). (LINEAR ALKYL BENZENE FEED STOCK) ordinarily known as kerosene and sells the same to various parties. The said kerosene manufactured by B...

Shree Chalthan Vibhag Udyog Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant is a sugar mill engaged in the manufacture of sugar, molasses and distillation of ethyl alcohol. It denature the ethyl alcohol before clearance. The denatured alcohol is of two types, specially denatured and ordinary denatured. We are concerned with the value for assessment of specially denatured ethyl alcohol. The alcohol denatured by adding to it acetone, benzene or other substances. The appellant requires the buyers of this product to supply to it the quantity of denaturant substances that it requires. While clearing the denatured alcohol, it included, for purpose of asseessement the quantity and volume of denaturant i.e. the total of undenatured alcohol and the denaturant, but for the price to be paid by the buyer deducted the quantity and value of denaturant. One of the gate passes issued by the appellant, as an example, will illustrate this point. Less denaturant ltrs 400 provided by buyer 1,97,220/- Sales tax etc Rs. 39,444/-.2. The notice issued to the appella...

Gurmit Singh Bindra Vs. Dwarka Tourist Hotel Pvt. Ltd., a Private Limi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR930; 2003(5)BomCR250

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.Perused the records. Rule. By consent, the rule is madereturnable forthwith.1. The petitioner challenges the order dated12-8-2002 passed by the lower Appellate Court dismissingthe appeal filed by the petitioner/defendant against thejudgment and order of the trial court dated 27-3-1992whereby the trial court had decreed the suit for evictionof the petitioner on two grounds, namely, need of thesuit premises for personal occupation of therespondent/plaintiff, and secondly on the ground ofsub-letting of the premises by the petitioner without theconsent of the respondent.2. The impugned order disclosing concurrent findingson the point of bona fide need of the premises by therespondent and comparative hardship to the respondent incase the relief is not granted as well as on the point ofsub-letting of the premises by the petitioner, is soughtto be challenged on various grounds, while placingreliance in the decisions of the Ape...

Ramesh S/O Bhikamchand JaIn Vs. Corporation Bank

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR874

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff who had instituted Special Civil Suit No. 441 of 1998 on or about 30th November, 1998, in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, for a decree of eviction and to seek possession of the subject premises as well as for recovery of rental considerations for the period from 1-12-1995 to 30-11-1998 with interest thereon at the rate of 24% per annum till the realization of the payment. This suit was dismissed by judgment and order dated 23-2-2001 and being aggrieved by the same the plaintiff approached the District Court in appeal i.e. Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2001. By order dated 5-7-2001, the appeal was returned for being filed before this Court on the ground that the same was not tenable in view of its valuation shown at Rs. 22,99,440/-. The plaintiff moved an application for review and the same was rejected by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Jalgaon, on 21-7-2001. Hence, this returned Appeal against...

German Remedies Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(154)ELT104Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application by German Remedies is for waiver of deposit of duty totalling Rs. 92.52 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 95.76 lakhs; the application by G.C. Madhom, its Excise Manager, is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on him under Rule 209A.2. The duty has been demanded, and penalties imposed, on the view that the medicament manufactured by the applicant was correctly to be classified as patent or proprietary medicament in sub-heading 10 of Heading 3003 and that the assessee had wrongly classified the goods in sub-heading 20 as medicaments of non-patent or proprietary. The medicament consisted of enteric coated acetyl salicylic acid tablets.The blister packs containing these tablets, as well as cartons which covered them, bore, in addition to the name of the tablets, the letters "ASA". These letters in brackets have been held by the Commissioner to be a brand name within the meaning of Note 2 to Chapter 30. The Commissioner has also invoked the extended period of ...

Babubhai Tarachand JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT287Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeals are taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, after waiving deposit.2. The appeal by Babulal Jain is against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai, ordering confiscation under Section 121 of the Act of currency of Rs. 2.50 lakhs seized from the possession of his employee Suresh Patel and against a penalty imposed on him under Section 112 of the Act of Rs. 25,000/-. The appeal by Suresh Patel is against the penalty imposed on him of Rs. 2000/- under Section 112 of the Act.3. The order of the Commissioner states that following the seizure of a sizable quantity of gold from Imtiyaz Pothiyawala, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence searched on 8-3-2000 the premises at Thakkar Niwas in the occupation of Bhupendra Thakkar. When the search was going on, Suresh Patel entered the premises carrying the currency in question. He told the officers that the money had been given to him by his employer for being given to Rajubhai...