Mumbai Court June 2003 Judgments

Dr. Ramchandra Vishnu Paranjape Vs. Smt. Sharayu Jugalkishore Gupta

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(3)ALLMR810; 2003(5)BomCR16; 2003(4)MhLj966

Ranjana Desai, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 17th October, 1989 passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Pune, in Civil Revision Application No. 59 of 1987 from the order dated 26th June, 1987 passed by the IV Additional Small Cause Judge, Pune, in Misc. Application No. 387 of 1984, the original applicant has approached this court. Initially the petition was filed against Smt. Shailaja Pant, Smt. Sharayu Gupta and Smt. Vijaya Ghaisas (respondents 1 to 3 respectively). By order dated 26th July, 2001, the name of respondent 2 Smt. Sharayu Jugalkishore Gupta was retained as the respondent and the names of respondents 1 and 3 have been deleted from the array of the parties.2. The petitioner preferred an application in the Small Causes Court at Pune for fixation of standard rent of the premises being ground floor of House No. 200, Narayan Peth, Pune - 30 (for short the suit premises). In the said application, one Dr. Smt. Chaplabai R. Khadilkar was opponent 1 and h...

Sia Gems and Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sia Fashion

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom10; 2004(1)BomCR859; 2004(1)MhLj424; 2003(27)PTC227(Bom)

S.A. Bobde, J.1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Plaintiffs for an injunction restraining the Defendants from passing of, in the course of trade, their goods as those of the Plaintiffs by the use of the trade mark SIA. The plaintiffs grievance arises mainly because it uses the word SIA which is prominently displayed on its shop and also on its invoices. The Plaintiffs trade in costume jewellery i.e. imitation jewellery which is sold under the trade name SIA, which is also the names given to their shop. The Defendants sell dress materials and sarees in a shop bearing the name SIA. The plaintiffs claimed to have started using the name SIA from the year 1995 and the Defendants adopted sometime in December, 2000. The photograph of the Plaintiffs shop is at Exhibit 'H' to the Plaint and the photograph of the Defendants shop is at Exhibit 'K' to the plaint. In both shops the name SIA is prominently displayed. 2. The Plaintiffs application for registration of the trade mark SIA is p...

Shivaji Janaba Patil, Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2004)DMC647; 2004(1)MhLj411

J.G. Chitre, J.1. Both of them have been bear at length.2. The petitioners are hereby taking exception to the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur at Kolhapur who dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1990 by confirming the judgment and order convicting and sentencing the petitioners for the offences punishable under provisions of Section 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC by which the petitioners have been sentenced to undergo various terms of sentence of imprisonment for respective offences. The petitioners are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer further RI for three months. They have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC read with Section 34 and sentenced to undergo RI for five years.3. The prosecution case in brief is that the petitioner No. 1 Shivaji was married with Prabhavati, daughter of PW Rahu Pa...

Jyotsna Krishnakumar Tarkar Vs. Krishnakumar Sadanan Tarkar and the St ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2004)DMC672

J.G. Chitre, J.1. The petitioner is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the order passed by Family Court, Bandra in Petition No. E-558 of 1993 so far as quantum of alimony is concerned and she is making a prayer that the quantum of alimony awarded to her and her children be increased from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 500/- each, per month.2. Few facts need to be stated as mentioned below for understanding the matter in the proper tone. The petitioner and her husband respondent No. 1 Krishnakumar Sadanan Tarkar married with each other on 7.2.76 according to Hindu religious rites at Mumbai and lived as husband and wife for considerable time. Three children were born out of that wedlock. First one was born on 4.12.76, second one was born on 25.5.85 and third one was born on 21.10.86. Their names are (1) Reena, (2) Prathmesh and (3) Omkar. The petitioner alleged in the petition that after marriage she started residing with respondent No. 1 at Kurla along with his father. Before...

Blue Star Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(6)BomCR652

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. This petition challenges the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay dated 9-3-1989, wherein the Collector has confirmed the demand raised against the petitioners vide show cause notice dated 31st July, 1986 for recovery of excise duty amounting to Rs. 48,40,347/- under section 11-A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 ('Act' for short) and has also levied penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 ('Rules' for short). The aforesaid recovery is on accent of 208 cabinets of walk-in-cooler manufactured and said to have been cleared by the petitioners during the period from July 1981 to 7-2-1986 without payment of excise duty.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of the present petition are that:---The petitioner company at the relevant time inter alia manufactured walk-in-coolers which are used for preservation of medicines, food and other perishable articles. The said walk-in-coolers were of varying sizes depending upon...

Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. Vs. the Custodian and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR491; III(2004)BC352

A.B. Palkar, J.1. This is a group of 32 petitions filed by different parties most of which are Banks or financial institutions. However, there are also few private parties. The petitioners in all the petitions impugn order passed by the Custodian under Section 4(1) of the Special Courts (TORTS) Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), cancelling the contract and calling upon the petitioners to pay a particular sum of money with interest to the Custodian representing that notified party by making payment in the attached account of the notified party and in all these petitions the only one notified party included is Hiten P. Dalai.2. All these petitions were heard as a group on certain common points of law, by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, with a view to decide common points of law first and thereafter, if necessary, to hear each of the petition separately on facts. Facts in almost all the petitions are similar although not common and give rise to sim...

Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeals by common appellant relating to availability of modvat credit are being disposed of by this common order.3. Appeal 2724/98. The credit has been denied of the additional duty of Customs stated to have been paid on inputs that the appellant imported by post, on the ground that it had not been shown that the inputs had been received. No entry was made to the receipt of the goods in RG23A Part I register, when the goods were received and it is stated to have been received and entry was made in RG 23 A Part II when the duty paying documents were received later. I accept in principle the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the entry in the register does not by itself justify denial of credit. However, when such entry is made it is a presumption that the goods are not received and it is up to the manufacturer to show receipt and payment of duty upon it and intended use in the final product. This, the appellant is unable to do. A perusal of the copy of internal sto...

Gem Nuts and Produce Exports Co. Vs. Commr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT165Tri(Mum.)bai

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. 90.93 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 Tax a...

Shri Duryodhan Mahadev Kale, Vs. Election Returning Officer, Grampanch ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR912; 2003(6)BomCR216; 2004(2)MhLj861

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. This petition is field by the Petitioners against an interim order passed by Civil Judge (J.D.), Indapur on 25th March, 2003 below application Exhibit-5 in Election Petition No. 1 of 2002.2. Certain facts which are not in dispute may now be stated;3. On 22nd November, 2002 election of Gram Panchayat, Redni, Taluka Indapur, District Pune, was held. after exclusion of invalid votes, petitioner No. 1 as well as respondent No. 5 obtained 267 votes each. Since both the candidates obtained similar number of votes, no result could be declared. In such circumstances, the provisions of Bombay Village Panchayat Election Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') were required to be followed. Rule 34 of the Rules contemplates declaration of result in certain cases. It reads as under:'34. Returning Officer to declare result of election.--(1) On completion of the statement showing the number of votes recorded, the Returning Officer shall from amongst the candidates qu...

Shri Vasant Krushnaji Kamble Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through the ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR396; 2003(4)MhLj606

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur, respondent No. 2 herein, dated 2nd November, 2000 by which the period between September 12, 1986 and July 1, 1996 for which the petitioner was under suspension, was ordered to be treated 'as such'. The grievance of the petitioner is that he ought to have been treated 'on duty' and ought to have been held entitled to salary and all other consequential benefits.2. The case of the petitioner was that he was appointed as a primary teacher in 1960. He was served with a show cause notice on August, 19, 1986 inter alia alleging therein that he had issued forged passing certificates in favour of certain students who had in fact failed and received certain amounts from them. The petitioner was, therefore, called upon to give reply. The petition admitted the charge levelled against him. He was also placed under suspension. No departmental...