Mumbai Court June 2003 Judgments

Shri S.S. Shah, Shri S.P. Dabir and Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Shri V.S. Nankani, learned advocate appeared on behalf of Shri J.Bhuta. Shri M.L. Grover, learned advocate appeared on behalf of Shri S.S. Shah. Shri S.P. Dabir appeared in person. The learned counsel, Shri Nankani submitted that a penalty of Rs. 10 Lakhs has been imposed on Shri J. Bhuta under Section 112(a) and 114 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962, He contended that the applicants are in noway concerned with obtaining the advance licences or with the alleged acts and omissions of M/s. ASD International other than for providing financial assistance to a person who were in a need of such assistance. There is no charge of any collusion by the applicant with the importers or with the foreign buyers with reference to the exports made under the licences in question. He also contended that the applicant has not been supplied the copies of the relied upon documents. The goods in question are freely importable. There is no charge of conspiracy in show cause notice. Neither there is a finding ...

Smt. Vimalabai Keshav Gokhale Vs. Avinash Krishnaji Biniwale and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR884; 2004(1)BomCR839; 2004(1)MhLj540

Ranjana Desai, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged in this petition judgment and order dated 28.3.1991 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Pune in Civil appeal No. 293 of 1989 filed against the order dated 21.2.1989 passed by IV Additional Small Causes Judge Pune, being Exhibit-17 and 29 in Darkhast No. 90 of 1988. The fact of the case may be shortly stated as under:2. Respondents 1 to 7 filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1445 of 1980 for possession of the suit premises. In that suit it was contended that one Keshav Gokhale was the original tenant of the suit premises and after his death Arun Keshav Gokhale became the tenant of the suit premises. The suit was filed inter alia on grounds of default, bonafide requirement as well as acquisition of alternative accommodation.3. The suit was decreed on 8.10.1986. An appeal carried therefrom was dismissed. I am informed that the matter travelled up to the Supreme Court and the decree passed by the trial court was confirmed.4. Respondent fi...

P. Ramachandran Nair Vs. Smt. Suparna Tapan Das

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2003Bom457; 2003(3)ALLMR638; 2003(6)BomCR35

ORDERJ.A. Patil, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 280 of the Indian Succession Act and prayed for grant of probate of the last Will and testament of deceased Ajit Baran Pal, a Hindu, resident of Bombay, who died on 5-12-1994, leaving behind him a married daughter by name Suparna (defendant) and a son by name Alok. According to the petitioner, the deceased had made his last Will on 26-11-1994 and appointed him as the sole executor. The deceased owned three tailoring shops on ownership basis and one shop on tenancy basis, all situated in Kamal Kunj Co-operative Housing Society building at Bandra, a residential flat and bank accounts as described in Schedule 1 annexed to the petition. Under the Will the deceased purports to have bequeathed all his estate to his son Alok only. 2. The defendant filed her caveat opposing grant of probate to the petitioner. In view of the objection, the petition was converted into a suit. In the affidavit filed in support of the cavea...

Parekh and Co. Vs. S.M. Valvi and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)BomCR265; 2003(4)MhLj903

1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.The petitioner challenges the order passed under Section 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as 'the said Act') and the certificate of recovery issued pursuant thereto on 16-11-2002. The first ground of challenge relates to non-consideration of the issue of non-maintainability of the application under Section 33(1) as the application was filed on 4-7-2001 in relation to the execution of the award passed in 1993 and clarified in 1996. Second ground of challenge relates to failure of the authority to consider the objection to the maintainability of the proceedings under Section 33(1)) of the said Act in view of the bona fide dispute as regards the entitlement of the workmen to the amount claimed as due and payable to them under the said application. The third ground of challenge relates to the absence of power to the concerned officer to pass the impugned order on the day on which it was passed. Re...

Maharashtra Rajya Vij Pathbandhare Kamgar Sangh and anr. Vs. State of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ955Bom

1. Heard parties. Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation (M.K.V.D.C) was established under the Maharashtra Act XV of 1996 for promotion and operation of Irrigation Projects, Command Area Development and Schemes for generation of Hydro Electric Energy to harness water of Krishna river allocated to the State of Maharashtra under the Krishna Dispute Tribunal Award.2. The jurisdiction of the Corporation extends over the irrigation works in 8 districts in Maharashtra State. The Corporation started functioning with the establishment comprising of 2 Regional Chief Engineers, 13 Circles, 69 Divisions and 358 Sub-divisions for carrying out its objectives. In first five years funds were made available to the Corporation by the State Government. However, the State Government has now decided to curtail establishment expenditure of the Corporation. The Central Government has also issued guidelines to restrict establishment expenditure upto 20% of the total cost. It appears that from 200...

Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd. Vs. Shiv Kapooria and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2003Bom496; 2003(4)ALLMR133; 2003(5)BomCR5

1. This is a judgment-debtors Notice of Motion to set aside the decree passed against them. Rule 4 of Order XXXVII reads as follows :--'4. Power to set aside decree,-- After decree the Court may, under special circumstances, set aside the decree, and if necessary stay or set aside execution, and may give leave to the defendant, to appear to the summons and to defend the suit, if it seems reasonable to the Court so to do, and on such terms as the Court thinks fit.'Thus, the real question for determination is whether there are special circumstances to set aside the decree.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money after obtaining leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. In this suit, the plaintiff took out a summons for judgment which was served on the defendants on 18-4-2001. They were served with a writ of summons under Order XXXVII on 24-2-2001.3. The defendant applied for revocation of this leave under Clause 12 on 27-9-2002. Having done so, they applied for stay of th...

Maharashtra Rajya Padvidhar Prathmik Shikshak Sabha Through Its State ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)MhLj802

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the decision as reflected in the communication dated 7th/13th June, 1991 addressed by the Zilla Parishad, Jalna to the Deputy Secretary in the Rural Department of the Government of Maharashtra regarding the fixation of pay scales of the trained teachers in primary schools based on the Government Resolution dated 2nd September, 1989 i.e. implementation of the Chatopadhyaya report pursuant to the directions issued by the Government of India.2. The petitioner claims that it is a registered association of teachers and has been recognised by the Government of Maharashtra vide communication dated 16th November, 1988 as a representative of graduate teachers in primary schools all over the State. The pay scales of the primary school teachers were originally set out under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981 (the Rules, for short) and the said rules are applicable to the teachers in aided as well as unaided primary schoo...

Laxmibai Ramrao Patil Since Deceased Through Lrs. and ors. Vs. State o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)MhLj904

Naresh H. Patil, J.1. This petition is directed against the communication-cum-order dated 29-7-1977 issued by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad informing the petitioner that as the petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal against the order of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal which was confirmed in appeal, the revision application was not tenable under Section 45(2) of the said Act.2. Deceased petitioner - Laxmibai Ramrao had filed a Return under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'). She had shown her total acreage of holdings as 78 acres 07 gunthas. As regards land Sy. No. 47 admeasuring 27 acres 17 gunthas, it was stated that respondent No. 4. Trimbakrao Govindrao, was tenant from the year 1969 and was in possession of the said land. The issue was taken up by the Surp...

Niranjan Singh Rahi Vs. Narendrasingh B. Divan,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004CriLJ844; I(2004)DMC306

J.G. Chitre, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties at length.2. The State of Maharashtra did not challenge the judgment and order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions case No. 822 of 1982 by which the learned Judge acquitted respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (original accused) of the charge framed against them for offences punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC alongwith charge for committing offences punishable under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, the present petitioners filed this revision application for assailing the said judgment and order of acquittal. It has been admitted for final hearing.3. The prosecution case in brief can be mentioned as mentioned hereinunder.4. The deceased Gurujeetsinghkaur was the daughter of Niranjansing. She was married with Respondent No. 1 in the year 1992. In the month of June, some days prior to incident in question 'Gauna' ceremony was performed and deceased Gurujeetsinghkaur starte...

Shri Pradeeprao @ Virgonda Shivgonda Patil, Minor by Guardian, Smt. Sh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)MhLj75

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Camp Kolhapur dated 18th December 1987 in Revision No.MRT-KP-62/1985.2. The land in question was originally Survey No. 107/1, and after consolidation, the same was split up into two gat numbers; namely, Gat Nos. 453 and 454. In the present proceedings, we are concerned with the Gat No. 454, situated at Village Dattawad, Taluka Shirol, District Kolhapur. The land was originally Patilki Watan lands not assigned for remuneration in Kolhapur State. It is common ground that Eksali ordinary tenancy of Patilki Watan land in the Kolhapur State was permissible. Accordingly, the Respondent was inducted as tenant in the suit land sometime in the capacity of tenant on 1st April 1957 i.e. the tillers day as per the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tenancy Act')...