Mumbai Court February 2003 Judgments

Moinoddin, S/O KhodboddIn Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)IILLJ1040Bom

N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by mutual consent.3. The revision petitioner was accused in Summary Criminal Case No.2358 of 1995, on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded. He was charged for offence punishable under Section 85(g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, for contravention of Section 45(2)(a) of the said Act (henceforth referred to as E.S.I. Act for the sake of brevity). The Chief Judicial Magistrate was pleased to sentence the petitioner for simple imprisonment for six months, fine Rs. 5,000 in default further simple imprisonment for six months. Criminal Appeal No. 32/1999 preferred before Sessions Court, Nanded, was disposed of by Joint District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, vide his judgment and order, dated February 3, 2003. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal partly. He maintained the finding of guilt and conviction, but reduced the amount of fine from Rs. 5,000...

Transtamp India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant imported in June 2000 goods described in the bill of entry that it filed for their clearance to be CRGO silicone steel sheets from transformers without a licence and claimed clearance of the goods in terms of paragraph 5.3 of the prevailing Hand Book of Procedures 1997-2002. Clause (i) of this paragraph permits import without licence metallic waste, scrap and second and defectives other than those specified by it excluding hazardous, toxic waste and contaminated material. The department was of the view after examination of the goods that they were not waste and scrap and hence required a licence for the importation. The importer, on this objection being made known to it, waived issue of show cause notice and was heard in person.In his order, the Additional Commissioner held that the goods cannot be considered to be waste, scrap, seconds and defective and held the goods liable to confiscation with an option to redeem them on payment of fine and also imposed a penalty o...

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Janardhan Yadav Gavali,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR278

1. This group of seven appeals arises out ofcommon judgment and award passed in Land References underSection 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafterreferred to as, 'the Act'), filed by the respondents landowners, whose lands were acquired for construction ofpercolation tank and a common question is involved in allthese appeals, therefore, all these appeals are disposedof by common judgment. All these appealsare filed by the State of Maharashtra against thejudgment and award dated 10.3.1987, passed bylearned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, in LandAcquisition Reference Nos. 75 to 78 and 80, 81 and 83 of1982.2. The State of Maharashtra issued notificationunder Section 4(1) of the Act seeking to acquire landsbelonging to the respondents of village Miri, talukaPathardi, district Ahmednagar, for public purposes,namely construction of percolation tank. The above saidnotification was published in Maharashtra GovernmentGazette on 28.2.1980. The declaration under Section 6 of...

Shaikh Samsul Hudda, Vs. Khayber Properties and Investment Pvt. Ltd. a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom126; 2003(2)ALLMR495; 2003(4)BomCR90

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Taken on board on request. Heard the learnedAdvocates for the parties. Rule. By consent, the ruleis made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioners are challenging the order dated9th January, 2003 rejecting their application forpostponement of the hearing of the Appeal No. 698 of 2001till the disposal of the Interim Notices bearing Nos. 4851and 4852 of 2002. The said notices relate to contemptproceedings against the respondents.3. Drawing attention to Rule 11 of Order XXXIX ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as'the Code', it was sought to be contended that in casethe proceedings regarding contempt were heard prior tothe appeal, there would be no occasion for the Courtbelow to hear the appeal, if the respondent is found tohave floured the Court's order or acted in contraventionof the Court's order and the necessary penalty under thesaid Rule can be imposed and the appeal can bestraightaway disposed of.4. The Rule 11 of Order XXXIX of the Code, ...

Rajesh Sadanand Patil, Vs. the Additional Collector,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2003Bom304; 2003(2)ALLMR153; 2003(4)BomCR51; 2003(2)MhLj200

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Rule, Smt. J.S. Pawar, Additional GovernmentPleader, Mr. R.M. Patne, Mr. C.R. Sonawane, andMr. P.M. Patil, Assistant Government Pleaders,appear and waive service of notice of Rule onbehalf of Respondents. In the facts andcircumstances, all the petitions were taken forfinal hearing.2. In all these petitions, common questions offact and law have been involved. It is, therefore,appropriate to decide all of them by a commonjudgment.3. In the present group of petitions, orderspassed by the respondents cancelling all contractsand leases for extraction of sand have beenchallenged, inter alia, on the grounds that theorders are arbitrary, unreasonable and violativeof fundamental rights of the petitioners.4. To appreciate the controversy raised in thepetitions, few relevant facts in the first petitionbeing Writ Petition No. 7446 of 2002 may be stated.5. According to the petitioner, an auction washeld for extraction of sand at the spot of Mouje-Tanshi.The petitioner was the h...

Shri K.D. Pendse Vs. Brihan Mumbai Mahanagar Palika, a Statutory Body ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR457

C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner asPublic Interest Litigation (PIL) for an appropriatewrit, direction or order quashing and setting asideapproval and sanction of building plans andspecifications of Nav Balodyan Trust, respondentNo. 3 herein, in respect of land bearing plot No. 736A of Final Town Planning Scheme IV of MahimDivision, for fraudulently securing FSI beyondpermissible limits available for the landadmeasuring 1848.82 sq.mtrs.2. It is the case of the petitioner that BrihanMumbai Nagar Palika was the owner of land bearingOriginal Plot No. 736 (new Survey No. 736A) ofFinal Town Planning Scheme IV of Mahim Division.The said land admeasured 2100.79 sq.mtrs., out ofwhich 1848.53 sq.mtrs. was vacant while balance252.26 was encumbered. By an agreement datedNovember 8, 1968, the Corporation agreed to granton lease vacant portion of 1848.53 sq.mtrs. torespondent No. 3. The balance portion of 252.26sq.mtrs. encumbered land was excluded. It was anagreement o...

The Military Road Residents Welfare Association, an Association Duly R ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR499; 2003(4)BomCR565

C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. Rule. Mrs. P.A. Purandare, learned counsel,appears and waives service of notice of rule onbehalf of respondent No. 1. Mr. V.S. Kapse, learnedcounsel, appears and waives service of notice ofrule on behalf of respondent Nos. 3, 12 to 16. Inthe facts and circumstances, the matter is taken upfor final hearing.2. This petition is filed by the petitioner asPublic Interest Litigation (PIL) directingMunicipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, respondentNo. 1, to widen Military Road, Marol, Andheri(East), Bombay, by taking over open set back landand by removing encroachments on the said road, toasphalt, re-surface and make usable the road byproviding street lights, to construct the proposedand sanctioned storm water drain after dulyaligning the road as per regular road lines, toremove perennial bottlenecks on Marol Maroshi Road,and to carry out and make available proposed andsanctioned development plan roads.3. The petitioner is an association registeredunder the Societies Re...

intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Dri) Vs. Amj ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1309; 2003(3)MhLj954

G.D. Patil, J. 1. The present application has beenpreferred by the applicant-Intelligence Officer,Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafterreferred to as DRI), for cancellation of bail grantedto respondent No. 1 Amjad Hussein Khan by the learnedSpecial Judge, Greater Bombay by order dated 30th May2002 in N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 122 of 2000. Thelearned Special Judge granted bail to the respondentNo. 1 relying on two unreported judgments of this Courti.e. in Criminal Application No. 1788 of 2002,Smt. Hamidia Sayed Ali Shaikh v. N.C.B. and Ors.and Criminal Application No. 1816 of 2002, Mohamed JavedHaji Anwar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. Thedecision in Criminal Application No. 1788 of 2002 andCriminal Application No. 1816 is dated 16th May 2002.The learned Special Judge granted bail to therespondent/accused holding that statement ofrespondent-accused recorded under Section 67 ofN.D.P.S. Act which was confessional in nature was hit byArticle 20(3) of the Constitution following...

Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)BomCR449; (2003)180CTR(Bom)107; [2003]260ITR491(Bom)

S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated July 29, 2002, the assessee has come by way of appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, raising the following questions of law for determination by this court : '(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in concluding that the appellant had transferred the property situated at Gamdevi during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1996-97 (ii) Whether the Tribunal's conclusion that the appellant had transferred the property situated at Gamdevi during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1996-97 was so unreasonable that no person properly instructed could ever have arrived at the same (iii) Whether, the Tribunal's conclusion that the appellant transferred the property situated in Gamdevi in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1996-97 was arrived at by considering irrelevant circumstances and without appreciating and c...

Kailash S/O Baliram Pawar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)1112; 2003(2)MhLj929

R.S. Mohite, J.1. This is an appeal which seeks to quash and setaside the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad on24-10-2001 in Sessions Trial No. 84/93, by which the present appellants(hereinafter referred to as the accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4) have been convicted foran offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 ofthe Indian Penal Code. For the offence under Section 498-B of the Indian PenalCode, they have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three yearsand to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default to suffer further rigorousimprisonment for six months. For the conviction under Section 304-B of theIndian Penal Code, they have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment fora period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default tosuffer further rigorous imprisonment for the period of one year.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:(A) The deceased Sangita was a daughter of o...