Mumbai Court May 2003 Judgments

B.R. Industrial Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. When the matter was called, none appeared for the appellants. We proceed to decide the issue since the matter is pending for long. The D.R. was heard and matter on record considered.2. The appellants imported certain goods in running length upto 20 Mtrs. which could be used as wave guide, only after further processes like cutting to definite lengths etc. was undertaken after import. They claimed classification under heading 8510.10 while department classified them under 8307.90 for the following reasons:- (i) The impugned goods in running length cannot be treated as parts relying on CEGAT judgment in the case of Collr. Of Customs, Bombay v. Hydranautics Membrane (India) Ltd., reported in 1994 (71) ELT 711 (Tri.); (ii) End use not relevant for customs classifications relying on judgments in the case of Tata Export Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1985 (22) ELT 73 (M.P.) & Dunlop India v. U.O.I. reported in 1983 (13) ELT 1566 (S.C.) (iii) The goods to be assessed in th...

Sadulla Shakur Sonde Vs. the Collector, Dist. Raigad (Alibaug),

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR523; 2003(4)BomCR491; 2003(4)MhLj695

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Both these petitions have been filed by the petitioners for quashing and setting aside Notification dated March 11, 2003 and a public auction held in pursuance of the said Notification on March 19, 2003 and an Order/Agreement issued in favour of respondent No. 5 by directing the respondent-authorities to hold fresh auction in accordance with law.2. The case of the petitioner in the first petition (Writ Petition No. 2612 of 2003) is that a Notification was issued on March 11, 2003 by the authorities for holding public auction for excavating sand from Savitri River and Bankot Khadi. Illegal auction was held and with a view to oblige respondent No. 5, his bid was accepted by the State Authorities in contravention of provisions of law and the petitioner and similarly situated persons were illegally deprived from participating at the auction. Several conditions which ought to have been observed before holding public auction were totally disregarded and ignoring public i...

Jindal Drugs Limited, a Company Incorporated Under the Provisions of t ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR9; 2003(4)BomCR14; (2002)2BOMLR888; 2004(1)MhLj87

V.D. Daga, J.1. The petitioners have raised pure question of law in this petition. The petitioners contend that credit in the Duty Entitlement Pass Book ('DEPB' for short) issued under the Export Import Policy 1977-2002 ('said Policy' for short) cannot be treated as 'goods', as such not classifiable under Schedule 'C' of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. FACTUAL SCORE2. The first petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the manufacture, sale and export of pharmaceuticals, dugs, dyes and dye intermediates. The first petitioner is a trading house as contemplated under the said Policy. 3. If one turns to the aforesaid policy, the said Policy (Chapter-VII) provides for the Duty Exemption Scheme consisting of Duty Free Licence and Duty Entitlement Pass Book. The objective of the DEPB is to neutralise the incidence of basic customs duty on the import content of the export product. The neutralisation is to be provided by way of grant of duty credit against t...

Devichand Chunilal Ranavat, Vs. Malti Madhav Dandekar,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR1; 2003(4)BomCR1; 2003(4)MhLj110

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this Appeal, the original Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 challenge the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Notice of Motion No. 3194 of 1997 dismissing the said Notice of Motion. That Notice of Motion was taken out by Defendants Nos. 1 to 4.2. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this Appeal are, the present Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 filed Civil Suit No. 589 of 1980 principally claiming a decree of declaration that Defendant No. 15 by name Khanderao Balkrishna Dandekar is not the signatory to the deed of mortgage dated 23rd August, 1973 and further charges dated 10th September, 1974 executed by the deceased Madhav V. Dandekar and Defendant No. 15 in favour of Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 creating the mortgage on the suit land are void and ineffective. The Plaintiffs also claimed a decree of damages against the Defendant No. 5 and Defendants Nos. 5A to 5E. It may be pointed out here that Defendant No. 5 is a partnership firm of which Defenda...

Lalabi W/O Mankhan Vs. Dhelullakhan Imamkhan Lodhi

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR332; 2003(3)MhLj544

V.M. Kanade, J.1. The appellant is the original defendant and the respondent is the original plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as 'plaintiff and 'defendant'.2. Brief facts are as under :The plaintiff is the owner of Municipal House No. 288 situated in ward No. 37. The case of the plaintiff was that he purchased that property by a registered sale deed dated 10-11-1980 from one Karimabi Bismillakhan. The defendant is the daughter of Karimabi and as such she was given one room for her residence. She was occupying the said room as a licencee. She did not pay any licence fee to Karimabi. The plaintiff purchased the property in the year 1980 but the defendant continued to reside in the said room as a licencee. The defendant did not pay any licence fee to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, asked the defendant to vacate the room and hand over the possession. The plaintiff issued notice to the defendant on 25-4-1984 and revoked the licence by the sai...

Pandurang Gomaji Wakode Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)MhLj927

S.T. Kharche, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. 2. Heard Mr. Jaiswal, learned counsel, for the petitioner and Mr. Doifode, learned A.P.P., for the respondent/State. 3. Brief facts are as under : This petition has been filed by the petitioner for grant of furlough. The petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad, and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life vide order dated 13-8-1993. The petitioner is undergoing the sentence at Central Prison, Amravati. The petitioner had filed an application on 18-11-2002 for grant of furlough which is rejected on 3-3-2003 by the Competent Authority/Respondent No. 3. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Competent Authority has committed an error in rejecting the application for grant of furlough on the sole ground that the petitioner surrendered late on earlier occasions. He contended that the pet...

Smt. Jancy Nelson D'soza, Vs. Mr. Nelson D'Souza and

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004CriLJ1690

1. Petitioners are hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order of taking cognizance of the compliant filed by respondent No. 1 in the Court at Ulhasnagar passed in Criminal Case No. 148 of 1995, as well as summons issued in that context for the offences punishable under provisions of Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 of Indian Penal Code. A complaint was presented in the said Court against the present applicants alleging that on 19/5/1995 they visited the house of respondent No. 1 (original complainant) between 8.30 p.m. and 9.30 p.m. which happens to be Room No. 301, 3rd floor Crist Apartment, Vandrapada, Ambarnath. 2. As indicated by the said complaint itself and submitted by Shri Joshi that the respondent No. 1 and present applicant No. 1 happens to be husband and wife. Their relations are strained. Already before filing of the present compliant, a complaint was filed by applicant No. 1 against respondent No. 1 alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sect...

The Goa Mrf Employees Union, a Registered Trade Union, Represented by ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)ILLJ379Bom

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The petition raises an interesting question of law of considerable importance. Does the Industrial Tribunal have the power to grant interim reliefs, including in the nature of injunctions, in a complaint filed before it under section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2. The petitioner is a registered Trade Union. Its members are workmen employed by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal who passed the impugned Order. 3. The settlement arrived at between the parties on 20th November, 1991, was due to expire on 30th September, 1995. The petitioner had served a notice of termination dated 29th July, 1995, on respondent No. 1. By a letter dated 15th February, 1996, the petitioner as the sole bargaining agent of the workmen of respondent No. 1 served its Charter of Demands on respondent No. 1. The Charter of Demands was in respect of conditions of service of the workmen of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 in turn ...

Dayashankar Chandrashekhar Tiwari and ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR1095; 2003(6)BomCR689

R.S. Mohite, J.1. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.3. This petition is a tale of a sordid and unfortunate drama which unfolds in two acts at two meetings of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, held on 25.3.2003 and 29.3.2003, for the purpose of electing 16 members to the Standing Committee of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The dramatis person and the main protagonists in this drama are 30 member Corporators who belong to the B.J.P. group (main opposition group) 28 of whom are the petitioners and the Mayor of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Shri Vikas Thakre, who is arraigned as Respondent No.2 in this petition. Minor parts were played by the Commissioner of Nagpur Municipal Corporation, who is Respondent No.3 and other Corporators who were supporting the Congress group, which formed the ruling party group in the Nagpur Municipal Corporation.4. The brief chronological sequence of facts wh...

Mahadeo Ganpat Sawarkar Vs. Shakuntalabai Vishwasrao Gawande

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR456

V.M. Kanade, J.1. The appellant is the original plaintiff and the respondents are the original defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as 'plaintiff' and 'defendants'.2. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of his ownership and for possession of the suit property which consisted of suit fields and a house and for mesne profits. The trial Court partly decreed the suit and directed the defendants to deliver the vacant possession of the suit house to the plaintiff. However, his claim in respect of the field property mentioned in Schedule 'A' of the plaint was rejected. Both the plaintiff and defendants preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge. However, both the appeals were dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. Two second appeals were filed, one by the plaintiff and other by the defendants. It is an admitted position that the second appeal filed by the defendants was summarily rejected. The second appeal filed by the plaintiff ...