Mumbai Court March 2003 Judgments

Mrs. Padma Prafulla Shirke and Shri Prafulla Shankar Shirke Jagdale Vs ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR884; IV(2004)BC371; 2003(5)BomCR634; 2003(3)MhLj496; [2003]46SCL275(Bom)

R.M. Lodha, J.1. M/s. Shivam Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The said company took loan from Maharashtra State Financial Corporation (for short MSFC). The company executed diverse documents for repayment of the said loan. For the purposes of securing the loan granted in favour of said company, the petitioners who are wife and husband respectively, gave collateral security of their (i) residential bungalow, admeasuring 800 sq. ft. at 4/26, Artistic Village, Sector VIII, New Mumbai and (ii) residential flat at Tarun Bharat Society, Chakala, Andheri (East). it appears that the said company fond itself in tremendous financial difficulty and ultimately a reference was made under Section 15(1) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short 'SICA') to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) ON 29.12.1998 which was registered as case No. 361 of 1998. By order dated 26.5.99, the BIFR declared the said ...

Gopal S/O Dwarkaprasad Pandey Vs. District Collector and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)2BOMLR909; 2003(3)MhLj883

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the respondents.2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.3. The petitioner, by the present petition wanted to seek direction for disposal of his application for grant of sanction to prosecute the Sub Registrar, Tumsar for having allowed registration of the sale-deed, allegedly registered in contravention of the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter called as the Act) and the Maharashtra Registration Rules, 1961 (hereinafter. called as the Rules). However, during the pendency of the petition, it appears that the said application filed by the petitioner was disposed of as rejected. The petitioner, therefore, seeks to challenge the same on the ground that the refusal to grant the sanction for prosecution of the Sub Registrar, Tumsar is bad in law besides being arbitrary inasmuch as that the registration of the sale-deed in question by the Sub Registrar is to...

Sahebrao Sadashiv More and anr. Vs. Chainsukh Madanlal Sancheti and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(6)BomCR818

V.M. Kanade, J.1. Heard Shri Bhangde, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, and Shri K.H. Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1.2. This is an application filed by the respondent No. 1 for dismissal of the election petition under section 86 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 for non-compliance of the provisions of section 81(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act (hereinafter referred to the 'said Act') and also for non-compliance of the provisions of section 83 of the said Act.3. The first objection raised by the respondent No. 1 in the written statement in para (1-d) is that there is a non-compliance of provisions of section 81(3) of the said Act. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 that as per the provisions of section 81(3) of the said Act, every election petition has to be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents mentioned in the petition and every copy has to be attested by the petitioner under...

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2002)LC6Tri(Mum.)bai

2. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has held that the place of removal of the motor vehicles manufactured by the appellant in its factory at Nashik and sold to departments of Government of India was the premises of the buyers who received these vehicles and therefore the charges for the transportation of these goods up to the buyer's premises, consisting of freight and insurance, are to form part of the assessable value. The Commissioner has reasoned, applying the definition of the "place of removal" in Section 4 of the Act, after its amendment in 1996 which includes a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold, this buyer's premises, which is the place of sale, is the place of removal. The contract executed by the appellant with the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposal, who is represented the buyer, indicates that the appellant shall insure the vehicles during transit. The appellant...

Bombay Burmah Trading Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT313Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is the liability to deduction from the sale price of the goods manufactured by the appellant of an element towards interest receivable. The Appellant sells its goods for payment within 35 days during the part of the period and 45 days during the remaining period of sale of delivery of the date of the invoice. Its claim for deduction on account of interest has been denied on the ground that interest was not separately shown.Counsel for the appellant relies upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Gomti Carbon Dioxide v. CCE - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 565 in which it has been held that there is no requirement in law that the interest element in such a situation must be shown separately and that it will form part of the sale price. The departmental representative is not able to say why the ratio of this decision should not be followed.We, therefore, apply that ratio to the facts before us....

Virat Ispat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is taken up for disposal with consent of both sides after waiving deposit.2. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of mild steel ingots.Prior to 1.8.97, these ingots were subject to ad valorem duty. The appellant was availing of modvat credit procedure. On 1.8.97, it became mandatory for such manufacturers as the appellant to pay duty not on the assessable value of the goods but according to the installed capacity of value in terms of Section 3A of the Act. Simultaneously, by amendment to Rule 57F & 57S, it was provided that the credit of duty both in terms of Rule 57A and 57Q "shall lapse and shall not be allowed and utilised for payment of duty on any excisable goods whether cleared for home consumption or export;" The assessee thereupon ceased utilising the modvat credit on its account towards payment of duty on the finished goods.3. Notice issued to the appellant proposed recovery, in terms of amendment of Rule 57F and 57S of the credit taken on the inputs...

Bhagat Exports Vs. Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT383Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of duly of Rs. 22,66,704/- and penalty of Rs. 22,50,000/- 2. The applicant is a 100% export oriented unit engaged in the manufacture and export of twisted yarn and grey fabrics out of the material that is sometimes procured and sometimes imported. The duty has been demanded on the ground that it was not entitled to the benefit of the exemption contained in Notification 2/95 for rejects and waste that it sold for the clearance in the domestic tariff area. The Commissioner finds that the condition contained in Clause (b) of the third proviso to the notification has not been complied with because there was no export made of any goods by the applicant and all the clearances made by it were only "deemed" export, and not requiring export physically.3. The contention of the representative of the applicant is that if that is so, if the departmental representative's contention is accepted, it would follow that the goods are not permitted to be sold i...

Shri Shashikant S. Pujari Vs. Shahaji Law College, Through Its Princip ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR809; 2003(5)BomCR137; 2003(3)MhLj429

D.Y. Chandrahud, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. LearnedCounsel for the Respondents waive service. Byconsent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The petitioner before the Court is a teacher in Political Science engaged by the FirstRespondent. The First Respondent is a Collegewhich imparts education in law at Kolhapur. Thepetitioner has pursued and completed courses ineducation leading up to the conferment of thedegrees of Bachelor of Arts, Master of Arts andMaster of Philosophy (B.A. ; M.A. and M.Phil.).3. During the Academic Year 1983-84, theFirst Respondent started imparting instruction inthe 5 year LL.B. degree course. The petitionerwas appointed as a Lecturer in Political Science ona clock hour basis and his appointment was approvedas a temporary employee on that basis by theShivaji University in a communication dated 27thJune, 1984. During the year 1984-85, the chart ofapprovals of the University reflected the name ofthe Petitioner as a full timer. The appointmentwas appro...

Rohidas Shankar Patil Vs. Smt. Mayra Gilbert Mendosa, the Hon'ble Mayo ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALLMR792; 2003(5)BomCR600; 2003(4)MhLj520

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside a decision of respondent No.1 dated November 20, 2002, recognising respondent No.4 as the 'Leader of Opposition' in the Municipal Corporation of Mira Bhayandar.2. The petitioner has approached this Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution stating therein that he is leader of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the Municipal Corporation of the City of Mira Bhayandar, respondent No.2 herein. Respondent No.2 is a Corporation created and established under Section 5 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Respondent No.1 is Mayoress of respondent No.2, elected under Section 19 of the Act. Respondent No.1 has recognised respondent No.4 as the Leader of Opposition. The said decision is challenged by the petitioner being unlawful an contrary to law as the petitioner ought to have been recognised as the Leader of Opposition.3. The case of th...

Mrs. Sucheta Dilip Ghate and Ms. Sneha Dilip Ghate Vs. Dilip Shantaram ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2003Bom390; 2003(2)ALLMR848; 2003(5)BomCR822; 2003(4)MhLj445

D.B. BHOSALE, J.1. The appellants have challenged the order dated 7thFebruary, 2002 passed by the Family Court, Pune, belowExhibit '1' in Petition No. PC-76/2000. The family courtby the aforesaid order has returned the said petitionfiled by the appellants, who are wife and daughter of therespondent, for its presentation in proper court holdingthat it has no jurisdiction to entertain the same.2. Appellant No. 1 married to the respondent on 27thDecember, 1991. The marriage was solemnized under theprovisions of the Special Marriage Act, at Pune.Appellant No. 2 is a daughter of appellant No. 1 from herfirst husband. Admittedly, the marriage of appellant No. 1with the respondent is her second marriage. Aftermarriage appellant No. 1 had gone to Ahmedabad and startedresiding with the respondent in the matrimonial house.After marriage the respondent adopted appellant No. 2 atPune and she also started residing at Ahmedabad withappellant No. 1 and the respondent. Initially, for fewmonths they le...