Mumbai Court April 2003 Judgments

Ramesh Sawant Vs. the State of Maharashtra,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR458; 2003(4)BomCR494

Nishita Mhatre, J. 1. This Petition challenges the orders dated 24.8.1998, 25.11.1998 and 27.9.1999 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The Joint Registrar, Co-op. Societies (Appeals) and the State Government respectively. These orders had been passed pursuant to a show-cause notice being issued to the Petitioner under Section 78 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act (for short, 'the Act') calling upon him to show cause as to why his name should not be removed as Managing Committee member since he was not a member of the Society from 4.6.1996 and, therefore, could not have been a Managing Committee member.2. The Petitioner was a member of Respondent No. 5-Society occupying flat No. A-205 in the building belonging to the society. Some time in May, 1966 when the Petitioner was the Chairman of Respondent No. 5-Society, he decided to gift the flat to his three children and executed gift deeds accordingly. The Society was informed by the Petitioner that he had by t...

Subhash Trimbakrao Inamdar and ors. Vs. Pandurang Tansingh Savner and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)MhLj131

J.N. Patel, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellants out of whom the appellant No. 1 is the original non-applicant before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Amravati is impugning the decision dated 3rd April, 1996 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 76 of 1993, by the Joint District Judge, Amravati upon an application filed under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Trust Act') which application came to be rejected under the said order. The appellants had preferred an application under Section 72 of the Trust Act, before the District Judge, being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner dated 3rd June, 1993 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Amravati on the application made by the respondents under Section 50-A of the Trust Act, for framing scheme.3. The subject-matter of the dispute relates to Shri Shukleshwar Deosthan of Wathoda Shukleshwar. The indisputable facts are that the ancestors of t...

Padmara(Sic) Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Vs. Mrs. Kaumudi Rames ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2003Bom344; 2003(3)ALLMR460; 2003(5)BomCR119

1. This Petition challenges the order of the Cooperative Court as also the Cooperative Appellate Court regarding maintainability of the dispute before the cooperative Court. Both the Courts below are of the view that a dispute relating to forced resignation as member of a co-operative society is maintainable under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:Respondent No. 1 was a member of the Committee of Petitioner No. 1 Society. On 3.8.1996, Respondent No. 1 alongwith other members tendered their resignation as members of the society. On 7.8.1996, the Petitioner informed Respondent No. 1 and other members that their resignations were accepted. In November, 1999, a dispute application was filed by Respondent No. 1 before the Cooperative Court for a declaration that the resignation submitted by her was null and void as the same was tendered by her under coercion. The Petitioners filed a written statement objecti...

Abdul Hamid Aboobakar Coatwala Vs. Board of Trustees, Port of Bom.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(162)ELT93(Bom)

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. By this petition, the circulars issued by Respondent No. 1 on 10-7-1985 and 12-3-1986 have been impugned. The petitioner is carrying on business as a sole proprietor and is engaged in the manufacture of shoddy yarn used for making low priced blankets for the weaker section. The petitioner claims to be an actual user and regular importer of premeditatedwoollen and synthetic rags as raw material for the shoddy yarn. Eight consignments of woollen and synthetic rags were imported by the petitioner and, accordingly, eight bills of entry were filled for clearance by the Customs authorities. The allegation of the petitioner is that because of two internal circulars, which are impugned in this petition, Respondent No. 1 is not allotting space for destuffing of all consignments of the importer together, as aresult of which demurrage charges had to be paid by the petitioner unnecessarily. The contention is that these circulars 'permit allotment of space for destuffing of onl...

Tulshiram Bhumayya Shriram and ors. Vs. Akbarkhan Mujafarkhan and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR279; 2004(2)BomCR389

Marlapalle B.H., J.1. This letters patent appeal arises from an order summarily rejecting Writ Petition No. 1545/1994, by the learned Single Judge. We proceed to state the undisputed facts germane for the present purpose.2. Appellants are the tenants of residential property bearing Municipal House No. 3914 (City Survey No. 5234) and admeasuring about 17 x 23 fts. (i.e. 391 sq.ft.). The monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 7/- and, thus, the tenancy was on monthly basis (as per English calender). Notice dated 18-1-1983 (Exhibit 30) was served on the tenants by the plaintiffs (landlords) for recovery of arrears of rent for the period from 13-8-1981 onwards. The tenants did not pay the arrears of rent or the monthly rent within one month even after receipt of the said notice and, therefore, the plaintiffs (landlords) moved Regular Civil Suit No. 150/1983, in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Ahmednagar, on or about 4-3-1983, for recovery of rent as well as possession of th...

In Re: Kaveri Entertainment Ltd.; in Re: Zee Telefilms Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)3CompLJ357(Bom)

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. Admit.1.1 Heard finally by consent of parties.2. The facts that are relevant and necessary for deciding these two appeals are that Kaveri Entertainment Ltd., which is the appellant in Appeal (L.) No. 314 of 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'Kaveri') is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, and so in Zee Telefilms Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Zee Telefilms') which is the appellant in Appeal (L.) No. 313 of 2003, Kaveri is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Zee Telefilms. The authorised, issued, subscribed and paid up capital of Kaveri as on 31 March 2002, i.e., the date of the last audited balance-sheet is as under:Share capital Rs.Authorised 50,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each 5,00,000Issued, subscribed and paid up 50,000 equity shares ofRs. 10 each fully paid up 5,00,000 2.1 The authorised, issued, subscribed and paid up capital of Zee Telefilms as on31 March 2002, i.e., the date of the last audited balance-sheet is as under:Share capital Rs.Authorised...

Gem Nuts and Produce Exports Co. Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Gem & Nuts and Produce Exports Co. Pvt. Ltd., the appellant before us was by virtue of the ownership shares of Free Press House, owner of Office No. 125, Nariman Point, Mumbai, admeasuring 2165 square feet. On 17.7.1997, it entered into an agreement with Utopian Financial Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai for sale of these premises. The agreement prescribed the sale price to be Rs. 4.54 crores. The earnest money of Rs. 9.93 lakhs paid by the intending purchaser to the vendor and the agreement provided for adjustment of this amount towards sale price. It also provides that in the event of the purchaser committing the breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement, the vendor (the appellant) shall, without prejudice to its other rights in law be entitled to forfeit an amount of Rs. 45,46,500/- out of the earnest money and forthwith refund the balance amount to the purchaser. While the proceedings preliminary to the completion of the sale such as obtaining clearance from the Income...

JaIn Manufacturers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

The application for waiver of predeposit of Rs. 3,75,378/- and penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Credit of Rs. 81,229/- has been denied as it was taken on the strength of part endorsed G.P.1; credit of Rs. 1,82,690/- has been disallowed on the ground that this amount was availed on the strength of invoices issued by M/s. Gujarat Small Industries Corporation Limited; and an amount of Rs. 98,229/- has been disallowed on the strength that it was availed on the strength of invoices issued by M/s.Kesari Steels which were not valid duty paying documents.2. I have heard both sides. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the applicants that credit of Rs. 81,229/- cannot be denied as the ground for denial by the authorities below is lack of co-relation, while the applicants have established co-relation, is prima facie acceptable.Similarly the submission the modvat is admissible on endorsed challans issued by M/s. Gujarat Small Industries Corporatio...

Nutan Chemicals Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeal arises against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who has upheld the confiscation of certain chemicals lying in the appellant's factory in fully manufactured and packed condition but not accounted for in the RGI register on 22/09/1993, when the Central Excise Officers visited the factory, with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 60,000/- and has imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,000/-.2. None appears for the appellants in spite of notice; hence I heard the learned DR and perused the records.3. It is clear that the confiscation arising as a result of non-accountal and not as a result of attempted clandestine removal. In these circumstances the ratio of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Bhillai Conducts Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur 2000 (125) ELT 781, wherein it has been held that confiscation is not attracted merely because non-accountal of goods in RGI, is directly applicable. In the light of this decision, I set aside the confisca...

S. Kant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J) 1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of medicaments falling under Chapter 30 of the schedule to the CETA, 1985. They filed classification declarations classifying their products as P or P medicaments under CETA sub-heading 3003.10 attracting duty @ 15%. The Assistant Commissioner classified the medicaments as generic products under CETA sub-heading 3003.20 attracting 'nil' rate of july. The Range Superintendment issued nine show cause notices-cum-demand notice alleging contravention of the provisions of Rule 173B and Rule 57A read with Rule 57C by clearing the goods under CETA sub-heading 3003.10 after paying duty @ 15% advalorem for export after availing modvat credit instead of under CETA sub-heading 3003.20 at 'nil' rate of duty without the benefit of modvat credit. The notices were confirmed the reversal of credit of Rs. 4,19,650/- was ordered. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the ...