Mumbai Court April 2003 Judgments

Perfect Forging and Fabricators, Vs. Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Sai Super System Controls (hereinafter referred to as the importer) imported and cleared in 1997 a second hand horizontal boring machine.The appellant satisfied the condition in the import policy permitting only actual users to permit such second had machine, being engaged in machining and fabrication of metals. The officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence being in possession of some information received on 18.11.1998 seized this machine which was in the premises of Perfect Forging & Fabricators, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as Perfect).After investigation that has been spread over a period of three years, the statement of Gurmeet Singh, partner of Perfect was recorded on 27.12.200, it issued a notice to the importer and perfect proposing confiscation of the machine under Clause (o) of Section 111 of the Act, and penalties on both importer and other party. The basis in the notice was that, since the machine had not even been used in the premises of the importer, a...

Morarjee Brembana Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. By Order dtd. 07/01/2003 the Hon'ble High Court, Bombay, has directed the appellants to make pre-deposit of Rs. 30 Lakhs within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the order and also furnish a Bank-Guarantee of balance amount of Rs. 30 Lakhs of Nationalised Bank within a period of 12 weeks from the date of the order.2. The appellants vide their Letter dtd. 27/03/2003 have informed that they have submitted to the Commissioner, Central Excise, Nagpur a bank guarantee of Rs. 30 Lakhs and have also deposited a sum of Rs. 30 Lakhs from Cenvat Credit account under RG23 A Part II vide Entry No. 416 dtd.03/03/2003 in compliance of the directions of Hon'ble High Court. Shri.Prakash Shah, learned Advocate states that the debiting of Cenvat Credit account is permissible in view of the Karnataka High Court decision in the case of U.O.I. and Ors. v. Vikrant Tyres Ltd. reported in 1999 (35) R.L.T. Page 427 (Kar.) and decision of the Tribunal in the case of Swil Limited v. C.C....

isinox Steels Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this batch of six appeals arising out of the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals) total modvat credit of Rs. 24,092/- has been disallowed on PVC armoured cable wires on the ground that these were used for general wiring of the factory and hence were not capital goods within the meaning of the explanation to Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and a total penalty of Rs. 12,000/- has been imposed on the appellants who are engaged in the manufacture of wire drawings.3. The authorities below have found that the function of the cable was to carry electricity from the transformer to the switchboard and cables were not used for producing or processing any goods or bring about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final products; on the basis of the diagram of the Range Superintendent which is annexed to the show cause notice.4. I have gone through the diagram which clearly shows that armoured cables are used between the transformer and the electrical control p...

Shri S.L. Kalvitkar Vs. the Secretary/Chairman, Mahatma Phule Educatio ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR915; 2003(6)BomCR141

C.K. THAKKER, C.J.1. Admitted, Mr. Shashi Jain appears and waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the Respondents. In the facts and circumstances. the matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. This appeal is filed against an order passed by the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal, Bombay in Appeal No. 32 of 1995 dated 29th July, 1997 refusing relief of reinstatement of the appellant and confirmed by the Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3720 of 1997 decided on 10th June, 2002.3. Certain facts are not in dispute. Admittedly, service of the appellant came to be terminated by the management by an order dated March 28, 1995. According to the appellant, the said order was illegal, contrary to law and was not in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'). The appellant, therefore, approached the School Tribunal.4. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal record...

Ashok Ravji Vadodriya, Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom8; 2003(3)ALLMR464; 2003(4)BomCR28; 2003(3)MhLj1003

D.B. Bhosale, J.1. Heard Mr. Walawalkar, learned counsel for theappellants and Ms Modale, learned counsel for therespondent.2. These three Appeals from order arising fromcommon judgment and order dated 19th October, 2002 passedby the City Civil Court, Bombay, in Notice of Motion No. 374of 2002 in L.C. Suit No. 1047 of 1999, Notice of MotionNo. 375 of 2002 in L.C. Suit No. 1049 of 1999, and Notice ofMotion No. 376 of 2002 in L.C. Suit No. 1050 of 1999, can beconveniently disposed of at the motion hearing stage.Admit. Ms Modale, learned counsel, waivesservice for respondent. By consent of learned counsel forthe parties, matters are taken up for final disposal.3. All three notices of motion were filed forrestoration of the suits which came to be dismissed byseparate order dated 4.12.2001, 29.11.2001 and 29.11.2001respectively. Though, the appellants in all three suitsare different, the defendant is common. The facts leadingto the appeals are similar and, therefore, they are beingdisposed ...

Transasia Bio-medicals Ltd. Vs. Revijay Clinical Laboratory and Hospit ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2003Bom331a; 2003(3)ALLMR467; 2003(6)BomCR136; 2003(4)MhLj155

D.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. Appellant in all these Appeals is the same, the question that arises for consideration in all these Appeals is the same, therefore, all these Appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.2. The facts that are relevant and material for deciding these appeals are that the Plaintiff/ Appellant filed summary suit No. 2385 of 2000. M/s. Revijay Clinical Laboratory & Hospital was the Defendant in the suit. According to averments in the plaint, the Defendant had placed an order with the Plaintiff in Mumbai for supply to the Defendant certain goods. A copy of the invoice dated 30th August, 1997 was filed with the plaint at Exh.A. According to the Plaintiff, goods were supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant vide despatch note dated 20-6-1997, which were duly received by the Defendant. The Defendant also paid part of price of the goods, but the balance amount of Rs. 4,15,000/- was not paid by the Defendant. Therefore, demand notice dated 22nd September, 1999...

Bombay Fire Fighters Services Union Vs. Registrar of Trade Unions

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)IILLJ1100Bom

R.J. Kochar, J. 1. Heard both the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the proceedings. The appeal is admitted and by consent is heard finally at this stage itself. The appellant is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and was also accorded the status of a recognised union by the Bombay Municipal Corporation. From the nomenclature of the appellant, it appears to represent the employees of the fire fighting department of the Corporation.2. From the averments in the appeal, it appears that the Trade Union has been functioning for a long period, bearing Registration No. 6019 having its registered office at A/7, Girgaum Terrace, Girgaum, Mumbai 400 004. This was the address given by the appellant union at the time of its registration. It is undisputed case that in the year 1970 the address of the appellant union was changed and it shifted its registered office at Byculla Fire Station, B.J. Marg, Mumbai 400 008. According to the appellant this change in th...

Smt. Rukhamabai W/O Vithobaji Badwaik (Dead) Through L.Rs. and ors. Vs ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR1061; (2003)105BOMLR757

V.M. Kanade, J.1. The Appellants are the original defendants and the respondents are the original plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as plaintiffs and defendants.2. Facts in brief are as under :Umabai who was the original plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit. She was the mother of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The defendant No. 3 is the son of predeceased daughter of the plaintiff and defendant No. 4 is the nephew of the plaintiff. 3. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint is that due to old age she had become weak and, therefore, the defendants came to her residence on or about 30th May, 1953 and took her thumb marks on some papers. Subsequently, she came to know that her thumb impression was obtained on a partition deed (Farkatnama) whereby the lands which were owned by the plaintiffs were divided between the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiff that alongwith the Farkatnama, the defendants had taken her thumb mark on the will whereby sh...

Shri Dinesh Mahadev Parmar Vs. Mr. M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003BomCR(Cri)915

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Mr. Tripathi, the learned counselfor the petitioner detenue and the learned A.P.P.for the respondents.2. The petitioner is detained by the detentionorder dated 25.10.2002 under Section 3(1) of theM.P.D.A. Act 1981 (Amendment 1996). The detentionis challenged on number of grounds, however, Mr.Tripathi restricted himself to ground (C).According to him, the detention order was passed on25th October, 2002. Gujarathi version of thedetention order and the grounds of detention and thedocuments were served upon the detenue on 27thOctober, 2002 because the detenue was incapable ofunderstanding English language and in the Gujarathiversion of the grounds of detention it was notbrought to his notice that he has 'right' (emphasisadded) to make the representation to the StateGovernment. He, therefore, contended that thedetenue had to seek legal advise and only thereafterhe could send the representation on 25.11.2002. Thedelay caused in sending the representation is onaccou...

Ashok Kumar Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary to the ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)92; 2003BomCR(Cri)920

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard Smt. Ansari for the petitioner and Mr. Mhaispurkar, APP, for the State.2. The petition has been filed by the brother of detenu and the name of the detenu is Naresh Kumar Jagdish Lal. He has been detained by an order dated 19.9.2000 under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (herein after referred to as 'the COFEPOSA Act']. The detention order was served upon him on 5.10.2002.3. The detention has been challenged on number of grounds. However, Smt. Ansari restricted herself to Ground Nos. (v) and (vii) jointly as they lead to one aspect only; Ground No. (vi); Ground No. (ii) and Ground No. (xi).4. Ground Nos. (v) and (vii), in short, are about delay in passing the detention order and serving the detention order. The detention order was issued on 19.9.2000. It was served on 5.10.2002 after a lapse of about two years. According to the petitioner, assuming without admitting that the detenu was not av...