Mumbai Court March 2003 Judgments

Mr. Mohd. Nabi Ahmed Nabi Qureshi Vs. Mr. M.N. Singh, Commissioner of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)633

Deshpande, J.1. Heard the learned advocate for the detenu and the learned A.P.P. for the State.2. The order of detention in this case is dated 30.5.2002. It was served and executed on the detenu on 11.2.2002. It is under Section 3(1) of M.P.D.A. Act, 1981. One C.R. No. 57 of 2002 and two in-camera statements dated 29.4.2002 and 31.4.2002 are the basis for grounds of detention.3. The petitioner has raised number of contentions in this petition, however, Mr. Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner restricted himself to grounds 9-B, 9-D & 9-F.4. So far as ground 9-B is concerned, his contention was that C.R. No. 57/2002 under Section 384 read with 34 of I.P.C. registered at Deonar Police Station did not disclose any offence under Section 387. In that regard he relied upon the bail order passed by the Magistrate which is Annexure-D of this petition. He drew my attention to the portion of the order wherein the Magistrate has observed -'So also, it is brought to my notice that both ...

Samsher Ali S/O Ramjan Ali Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR124; 2004CriLJ207

P.S. Brahme, J. 1. Heard Mr. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sudhir Loney, learned A.P.P. for the Respondents. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by Detaining Authority, i.e. Respondent No. 2, under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders Act, 1981 (55 of 1981) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 3. The petitioner has been detained on 30th September, 2002 by the order of detention dated 28th September, 2002 by Respondent No. 2. The copies of documents and grounds of detention were served on detenu/petitioner on 3rd October, 2002. The order of detention has been approved on 8th October, 2002.4. The petitioner has challenged the order of detention on several grounds as indicated in the petition. However, since we are of the opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed in view of the decision of the Apex Court ...

Asudamal S/O Laxmandas Sindhi Vs. Kisanrao S/O Wamanrao Dharmale and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR361; 2003(4)MhLj134

V.M. Kanade, J.1. None appears on behalf of the respondents though served. Notice before admission was issued on 17-9-1990. This notice was served on the respondent Nos. 1 to 7. Thereafter, the matter was admitted on 10-4-1991. Notice on merits was served on the respondents and legal heirs of respondent No. 3 on 10-7-1992. Further all respondents have been served again on 10-4-2000. This is an old matter of 1990. The original suit was filed in the year 1978, in this view of the matter, the matter is heard finally.2. This is a Second Appeal filed by the appellant, who is the original plaintiff, challenging the Judgment and order of the Second Additional District Judge, Amravati, who set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the Second Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Daryapur.3. Brief facts are as follows :The original plaintiff filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 126 of 1978 for specific performance of contract or in the alternative for refund of earnest money with damages. It was the ...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Zakir Ali S/O Parvarish Ali and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR1082; 2004(1)MhLj565

B. H. Marlapalle, J. 1. The award passed in L. A. R. No.1159/1987, by the learned District Judge at Beed on 8th of July, 1988, has been challenged in this appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act').2. We shall deal with the facts.Agricultural land located in Survey No. 171 of Ambejogai, admeasuring 3 H. and 72 R. and owned by the appellant i.e. Zakir Ali s/o Parwarish Ali was acquired by the State Government under the Act for construction of S. T. Depot and Staff Quarters for the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, along with other patch of land admeasuring 49 R. from the said survey number thus, making a total of 4 H. and 21 R. under acquisition. The notification under Section 4 was issued on 12-8-1982, possession of the subject land was taken over on 13-8-1984, and, finally the Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on 23rd of September, 1986, and granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 900/- per R. for agricultural land and Rs...

Flotech Welding and Cutting Systems Limited, a Company Registered Unde ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Bom)268; 2004(3)MhLj87

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The short question raised in this petition is, whether the authorities under the Income-tax Act were justified in treating the revised return for the assessment year 1991-1992 and the original return for the year 1992-1993 as invalid under Section 139(9) of the Income Tax Act.2. Although, the Writ Petition pertains to the assessment year 1991-92 and 1992-93, Mr. Pardiwala, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner fairly stated that after treating the revised return for assessment year 1991-1992 as invalid, the Assessing Officer has passed assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act ('I.T. Act' for short) and the appeal filed against the said assessment order is pending. He submitted that the petitioner is willing to peruse the appellate remedy for AY 1991-92, however, it may be clarified that the petitioner is entitled to raise all contentions before the appellate authority. In the present case, the Tribunal has held that even though the...

Sharda Vipat Meshram Vs. Shrawan Maniram Dupare and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR684; 2003(5)BomCR777

S.G. Mahajan, J.1. Heard Shri R.V. Gaikwad, the learned Counsel for appellant and Shri R.B. Pandharkar, the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 1. None appeared for respondent No. 2.2. Respondent No. 1 Shrawan is the father of appellant Sharda and respondent No. 2 Vikas. Respondent No. 1 brought a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No. 1264 of 1996, in the Court of 8th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division Nagpur, against the appellant and respondent No. 2 for the possession of the suit house claiming that their possession over the house is permissive.3. The suit was decreed by the 8th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur against which the present appellant and respondent No. 2 filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 454 of 2001. The learned 5th ad hoc Additional District Judge, Nagpur by his judgment and order dated 14-2-2002, dismissed the said appeal. Thereafter the present appellant alone has filed the instant second appeal.4. The learned Counsel for appellant submitted that after the ...

State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Departm ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR508; (2003)105BOMLR1a

V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.2. This Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants-State challenging the judgment and decree dated 6th June, 1989 passed by the 10th Additional District Judge, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 155 of 1985, whereby the Judgment and Order dated 29th September, 1984 passed by the Third Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 1121 of 1981 was set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed.3. Brief facts which are necessary for the purpose of deciding the Second Appeal are that the respondent original plaintiff purchased the house property bearing Municipal Corporation No. 508 situated in Ward No. 20 from one Pandurang Maroti Satpute by registered sale deed dated 6th September, 1965. The said house property consisted of the built up house and the open site on the Northern side in front of that house. It was ...

Flotech Welding and Cutting Systems Ltd. Vs. Chander Singh and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]271ITR300(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J. 1. The short question raised in this petition is, whether the authorities under the Income-tax Act, 1961, were justified in treating the revised return for the assessment year 1991-92 and the original return for the year 1992-93 as invalid under section 139(9) of the Income-tax Act.2. Although, the writ petition pertains to the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93, Mr. Pardiwala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, fairly stated that after treating the revised return for the assessment year 1991-92 as invalid, the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act (the 'I. T. Act', for short), and the appeal filed against the said assessment order is pending. He submitted that the petitioner is willing to pursue the appellate remedy for the assessment year 1991-92, however, it may be clarified that the petitioner is entitled to raise all contentions before the appellate authority. In the present case, the Tr...

Asian Ancillary Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. Adjournment is sought on the ground that "our consultant is out of station due to preoccupied matters and not in a position to attend today's hearing." Noting that the urgency which requires the absence of the consultant before us has not been specified and indeed, there is no evidence that any consultant has been engaged, we have read the relevant documents and heard the departmental representative.3. The duty of Rs. 62687/-, is required to be deposit by the applicant, representing the amount payable in terms of Rule 57AD (2)(b), which has been applied on the ground that the applicant took credit of the duty paid on common inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted final product.4. The adjudicating authority recorded that the applicant used some of the inputs on which credit was taken in the manufacture of goods which were cleared without payment of duty in terms of the exemption contained in notifications 64/95 and 10/97, which specifically apply to goods supplied to...

Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals are against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs rejecting the two claims of the appellant for refund of customs duty paid by it in excess.2. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have read the memorandum of appeal and heard the departmental representative. The claim for refund under consideration in appeal 101/98 was based on the ground that heating element imported by the appellant was wrongly classified on importation by the appellant in heading 85.16.20 of the Customs tariff, and should have been specific in heading 8514.90 of the tariff at the lower rate of duty. The Assistant Commissioner found this claim to be untenable. He noted that heading 85.16 included electric heating resistors other than those of heading No. 85.45. Heading 8514.90 covered industrial or laboratory electric furnaces and ovens and parts thereof. He found that by application of note 3a of the General ...