Mumbai Court August 2003 Judgments

Rambilas Dinaram Shivlal Vs. (Smt. Shantadevi Sitaram Agrawal,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR248; II(2004)BC285; 2004(2)BomCR744

S. T. Kharche, J.1. In both these Second Appeal common questions of law are involved, and therefore, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.2.The plaintiff is a businessman carrying the business of bankers and brokers and he accepts the cheques from businessman and pays them in cash. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 are the businessmen and the defendant no.3 is a munim to defendant no.2. On 9th November, 1978 the defendant no.3 brought cheque of Rs. 4510/- issued by the defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 and obtained the amount of Rs. 4510/- by endorsing the cheque on its back in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant no.3 used to encash the cheque in this way previously also. This cheque was presented on 09.11.1978, by the plaintiff, but it was returned with an endorsement 'refer to drawer'. The fact of dishonour of cheque was informed by the plaintiff to the defendant nos. 1 and 2, and on their request it was again presented to the Bank on 24.03.1979, but it...

Mithusha Vessels and Engineers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(160)ELT1152Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants herein are inter alia engaged in the manufacture of "trailers and semi-trailers not mechanically propelled and parts thereof", namely, tanker trailer, whether or not fitted with pumps.They had filed a classification list effective from 01/04/1992 classifying the above product under CETA sub-heading 8716.00. On being informed that the goods attracted duty under CETA sub-heading 8704.00 as LPG tanks they started clearing the product under the above mentioned chapter discharging duty liability @ 15% ad valorem. Claim for refund for Rs. 1,22,625/-being the duty paid in excess of clearances between 20/10/1993 to 09/01/1994 was filed; which claim was proposed to be rejected by issue of show cause notice dated 14/08/1995, on the ground that duty was correctly paid under CETA sub-heading 8704.00. Notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the claim; the lower appellate authority upheld the Assistant Commissioner's order holding as under: "8. ..........I f...

Girdhari Ganeshnaryan Malpani Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides on the application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty imposed upon the Mill and upon its partner, we find that it is possible to dispose of the appeals themselves and hence proceed to do so after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit.2. On 24/11/1998 the officers of the Central Excise visited the Mill of the appellant and found that they had broken the chain of the sealed stenter No. 2 on their own and without intimation to the Central Excise department and had started production of processed manmade fabrics and production of 134 pieces of manmade fabrics valued at Rs. 2,42,875/- which was not accounted in the RGI register. The partner of the Mill admitted the above in a statement dated 25/11/1998. The adjudicating authority held that the Mill had contravened the provisions of Rule 173G(4) and Rule 53 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as they had failed to account for processed manmade fabrics and that they had illegally operated stenter with intent to e...

Mid East Port Folio Management Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)87ITD537(Mum.)

1. These two appeals were heard by the Special Bench as directed by the Hon'ble President, Tribunal. The events leading up to the reference may be briefly noticed.2. The appeal of the assessee M/s Mid East Portfolio Management Ltd. before the Tribunal involved several issues, one of which was whether the assessee was entitled to the depreciation amounting to Rs. 97.50 lakhs on the air-pollution equipments purchased from Rajasthan State Electricity Board, (hereinafter referred to as "RSEB") and leased backed to it. In the course of the hearing of the appeal, the Bench felt that in view of the complexity of the issue and its general importance the question should be considered and decided by a larger Bench. In the course of the arguments, several orders of various Benches of the Tribunal were cited on behalf of the assessee where the view had been taken that depreciation was allowable, On behalf of the Department, the main contention was that the documentation had been so created as to ...

The Icici Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit, Special Range 36

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. Those two appeals were heard by the Special Bench as directed by the Hon'ble President, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The events leading up to the reference may be briefly noticed.2. The appeal of the assessee M/s. Mid East Portfolio Management Ltd. before the Tribunal involved several issues, one of which was whether the assessee was entitled to the depreciation amounting to Rs. 97.50 lakhs on the air-pollution equipments purchased from Rajasthan State Electricity Board, (hereinafter referred to as "RSEB") and leased backed to it. In the course of the hearing of the appeal, the Bench felt that in view of the complexity of the issue and its general importance the question should be considered and decided by a larger Bench. In the course of the arguments, several orders of various Benches of the Tribunal were cited on behalf of the assessee where the view had been taken that depreciation was allowable. On behalf of the Department, the main contention was that the documentation had ...

Ravinbhushan Anant Datar and Shashibhushan Anant Datar Vs. Waman Datta ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR585; 2004(1)MhLj100

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The 4th Additional Judge of the Small Causes Court at Pune, decreed the suit for eviction filed by the Petitioners against the Respondent on 16th August 1985. The suit was decreed on the ground spelt out in Section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, namely, that the premises have not been used without reasonable cause for the purpose for which they were let for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the suit and under Section 12(3)(a) of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment in 1987, namely, that there was a default on the part of the Respondent in the payment of rent. The judgment and order of the Learned Trial Judge was reversed in appeal on 14th August 1989 by the Vth Additional District Judge, Pune. 2. The premises which form the subject matter of dispute consist of a property bearing House No. 715-B, situate at Sadashiv Peth, Pune-411 030. By a registered Lease Deed dated 1st June 1...

Smt. Ashalata Eknath Patil, (Sau. Sangita Vishwanath Mankar Name After ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR863; 2004(1)BomCR563; 2004(2)MhLj113

A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This writ Petition under Article 227 takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated October 7, 1989 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Bombay in Appeal Desk/Land-4448. The land in question is agricultural land bearing Survey No. 379 of Village Chargaon, Taluka Ulhasnagar. The land is owned by the Petitioner herein. The Additional Tahsildar initiated suo motu proceedings under the provisions of Maharashtra Restoration Act to Scheduled Tribe Act, 1974 on the assumption that the land belonged to the tribal and the transfer effected in respect of such a lang was prohibited. The proceedings were initiated for restoration of suit lands to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein. However, during the enquiry, inspite of notice, neither tribal nor the non-tribal transferor appeared. In the circumstances, no evidence could be recorded. The Additional Tahsildar, by the Judgment and Order dated July 20, 1979, however, found on the basis of the materials on r...

Anjuman-e-talim-e-jamhoor, Through the President, Anjuman Talee-e-jamh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR174; 2004(3)BomCR414

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Both these Writ Petitions can be disposed of together by common Judgment.2. The property involved in the present Petitions is bearing Survey No. 199/3 admeasuring 0.88 areas and Survey No. 200/2 admeasuring 0.64 areas (in Writ Petition No. 143 of 1990) and Survey No. 199/2 admeasuring 0.91 areas (in Writ Petition No. 1063 of 1990), situated at Village and Taluka Malegaon, District Nasik. The record indicates that these properties were originally held by private Respondents 1 to 6, as inferior Village Watan lands i.e. Bhil Inams. After abolition of Watan, the lands were re-granted to the Respondents on 2nd January, 1963. On account of resumption of land and re-grant in favour of Respondents, they have become absolute owners of the suit lands. The lands were agricultural lands at the relevant time. After the re-grant, the Respondents entered into agreement with the Petitioner on two different dates, first on 11th June, 1964 in respect of Survey No. 199/2 and the sec...

Bennett Coleman and Co. Vs. Bombay Union of Journalists

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR1; 2004(1)BomCR75; (2004)IILLJ130Bom

R.M.S. Khandearkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.2. The petitioners challenge the order dated October 20, 2000 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, answering the preliminary issues in favour of the respondent (No. 1). The preliminary issues relate to the locus standi of an unrecognised union to maintain a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter called as 'the MRTU & PULP Act' and regarding the non-maintainability of the complaint at the instance of the working journalists on the ground that they are not the workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called as 'the said Act'.3. Though the issue as to whether the working journalists are workmen within the meaning of the said expression under the said Act or not was resolved by the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in the matter of Bennett Coleman Co. Ltd. v. Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha : ...

Arti Nirmal Kumar JaIn and ors. Vs. Bharat Villa Chs Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR69

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Both these appeals seek to challenge the order passed by a learned Single Judge on Writ Petition No. 1332 of 2002 and Writ Petition Lodging No. 1665 of 2003. The learned Single Judge has dismissed both these petitions summarily by a common order passed on 1-7-2003.2. These two petitions sought to challenge the common order passed by the Co-operative Appellate Court in Appeal Nos. 32 of 2001 and 37 of 2001 dated 13-12-2001. That order had allowed those two appeals and set aside the judgment and order passed by the Co-operative Court No. 2, Mumbai on 20-1-2001. This order passed by the Co-operative Court in Case No. 209 of 1993 had allowed that dispute filed by the appellants herein. By virtue of the order passed by the Appellate Court the dispute had came to be dismissed and that order has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge.3. The short facts leading to these appeals are as follows:(a) The appellants claim to be members of the first respondent Co-operative Hou...