Mumbai Court August 2003 Judgments

Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd. Vs. Bindu Synthetics Ltd. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom1; 2003(4)ALLMR613; 2004(4)BomCR377

ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. By this Chamber Summons, the Applicant prays that the warrant of Attachment dated 7th December, 2001 issued by this Hon'ble Court in Execution Application No. 626 of 2001 in respect of residential flat situated at B-14, Vasant Mahal, Marine Drives, C-Road, Mumbai be raised and/or stayed. The Chamber Summons was originally filed by the applicant's mother Mrs. Bindu Amar Sheth, as the Applicant was minor at the relevant time on 19th July, 2002. During the pendency of this Chamber Summons, the Applicant has become major in February, 2003, and therefore, formal amendments have been carried out on 7th August 2003, whereby, the Applicant himself is now pursuing the present proceedings,2.. The Warrant of Attachment was issued by this Court on 7th December, 2001 in Execution proceedings taken out on the basis of Award passed against the Respondents on 10th June 2000 in Manipal Arbitration Petition No. 120 of 1999. The Respondent No. 2 is the father of the Applicant. ...

Jairam Son of Govind Vyawahare Vs. Shri Vithal Son of Piraji Patil

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR480

S.T. Kharche, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Yavatmal in Civil Appeal No. 84 of 1985, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 15 of 1982. The trial Court had granted decree and directed the defendant to pay Rs.4010/- to the appellant / plaintiff with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the suit till realisation, with costs. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.2. Brief facts are as under :The plaintiff is the owner of the cloth shop in the name of 'Jairam Govind Vyawahare Cloth Business' in Pusad. The defendant had kept account with that shop and purchased cloth on credit since the year 1974. It is the case of the plaintiff that, at the end of the year 1978-79, amount of Rs. 2374/- was outstanding. The defendant on 09.03.1979 had acknowledged debt which was outstanding against him as per the entries made in the books of account, by executing a ...

Gopichand Ana Baviskar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR239

P.B. Gaikwad, J.1. Appellants-original accused Nos. 1 to 3, being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner dated 10-1-1996 in Sessions Case No. 13/91, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under section 304-II read with 34 of I.P.C. and directing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for three months, filed the present appeal.2. The facts in nutshell are that :Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are father and son while accused No. 3 is the brother-in-law of accused No. 1. All of them resides at village Vele, Talqa Chopada, District Jalgaon. Complainant Bhikan Khandu Pandav also resides in the same village along with his father and other family members i.e. his mother Gangubai, sister Sarubai, wife Asha. House of present appellants is in front of the house of Bhikan Pandav the complainant. The alleged incident took place on 11-5-1990. On that day, at about 4.00 p.m. approximat...

Gangaram S/O Bhika Bhuriwale and ors. Vs. Deokabai W/O Rupa Ahir

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR761; (2004)106BOMLR689

S.T. Kharche, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Akola in Regular Civil Appeal No. 295/1982, dismissing the appeal and upholding the finding of the Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 185/1981, dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff, seeking possession of the suit property and permanent injunction.2. None appears for the respondent/defendant, though served.3. On hearing Mr. Palshikar, the learned Counsel for the original plaintiff, the substantial question of law involved in this appeal is, since the Gangaram and Chinnu are brothers having ancestral property in question, and Chinnu having died on 17.2.1923 his widow, deceased Premabai had no share in the ancestral property and that she had only a right of maintenance. Her possession of the premises in question was only that of licensee and she could not become the owner of the property, by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.4. Brief facts...

Fresh Labs. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Adj.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ECC141

1. Shri V.S. Nankani, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of M/s. Fresh Labs, Shri B.J. Shah, M/s. Prakshal Exports, M/s. Alpine Chemicals, M/s. Amee Agency and M/s. Ratilal Hemraj. Shri J.C. Patel, Ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of M/s. Orbit International. Shri Anil Balani, Ld.Advocate appeared on behalf of Shri Yogesh Korani, M/s. Mahavir Export & Import Co. and M/s. Nikita Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Shri Virag Gupta, Ld.JDR appeared for the Revenue. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that M/s. Fresh Labs are engaged in the business of manufacture of tooth paste (TP) and shaving cream (SC) which the appellants export either directly or sell the same to merchant exporters. The appellants inter alia, entered into contracts to manufacture TP/SC with merchant exporters' viz. U.K. Paint Industries Ltd., Vam International Ltd., Dolphin International Pvt. Ltd. and Phoenix Overseas Ltd., (the Licensees). The Licensees were issued six Advance Licenses as under: The Licensees completed the e...

Gangapur S.S.K Ltd., Krishna Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above applications for waiver of pre-deposit of balance duty of Rs. 17,78,023/- and penalty of Rs. 25,78,050/- imposed upon the Sugar Mill and penalties of Rs. 2 lakh each on its Chairman, Ex-managing Director and Managing Director and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh upon the Proprietor of the Merchant Exporter arise out of the orders of the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad.2. The duty liability arises as a result of failure to export sugar cleared by the manufacturer to the Merchant exporter without payment of duty. Prima-facie the Sugar mills do not dispute the liability to pay the duty, as admittedly the sugar cleared to the Merchant exporter was not exported. However, they plead financial inability, bringing to our notice the fact that company has an accumulated loss of over Rs. 28 crores as on 31/03/2003 and that the unit has been closed since March 2003. The argument of time bar is raised before us in this manner - Show cause notice dated 19^th April 2002 was issued...

Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT849Tri(Mum.)bai

1 The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 32,34/300/- and penalty of equal amount arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune. The issue in dispute is as to whether the applicants herein are entitled to take credit of the differential duty paid by M/s. Mutual Mecaplast Limited.2. We have heard both sides. We find that the connected appeal of M/s.Mutual Mecaplast Ltd. against the imposition of penalty had come up before the Tribunal which vide order Nos. C-I/56-57/WZB/2001, dated 8-1-2001 held that M/s. Mutual Mecaplast Ltd. acted in the bona fide belief that the cost of the moulds was not includible in the value of the components. The question before us is as to whether the short-levy is on account of suppression or fraud on the part of the Mutual Mecaplast Ltd. We, therefore, see, prima facie, force in the submission of the applicants that the acceptance by the Tribunal's in its earlier order that M/s. Mutual Mecaplast Ltd. acted bon...

Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1.Three appeals have been filed by the appellant company and its Vice President and Senior Manager. The 4th appeal is by the department.These appeals are against a common order involving the duty liabilities in regard to:- (1) Inclusion of value of scrap in the assessable value of goods manufactured on job work basis. (4) Reversal of modvat credit availed on inputs taken out of factory.2. The major demand of Rs. 1,90,70,826/- in respect of the issue at (1) above. The appellant Company manufactures motor vehicle parts on job work basis out of raw materials supplied by M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra.The question that has been raised concerns as to whether the assessable value of the motor vehicle parts should include the raw-material cost plus job charges and in addition, the value realised by the appellant company from sale of scrap arising out of such job work. The learned D.R. cites the case of Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad - 1997 (93) E.L.T. 4...

Hemantkumar Narayan Bali, Non Medical Supervisor, Health Department Vs ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR582

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. Rule. Mr. R.D. Rane, learned Additional Government Pleaders, appears and waives services of notice of rule on behalf of the first respondent. Mr. S.S. Pakale, learned counsel, appears and waives services of notice of rule on behalf of respondents NO. 2 and 3.2. In the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.3. This petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside an order dated December 31, 2002 passed by respondent No. 2 to terminate the services of the petitioner after a period of one month from that date.4. The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to Mahadeo Koli, and a certificate to that effect was issued by the Sub Divisional Officer on February 18, 1998. On the basis of the said certificate, and after holding necessary inquiry, the petitioner was appointed as Non Medical Officer in the Office of the district Health Officer, Raigad Zilla P...

Shri Janardan Krishnaji Kulkarni Vs. Shri Vishnu Ganapati Ghorapade,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)BomCR66; 2004(1)MhLj115

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, Pune, dated 13.4.1989.2. The land in question is an agricultural land bearing survey No. 66, gat no. 352.4.28A admeasuring 4 acres and 28 gunthas at village Matyapur, taluka and dist. Satara. The petitioner is the owner of the suit land whereas the respondents herein claim to be tenants in respect of the suit land. It is common ground that the petitioner had taken out proceedings under Section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in which the petitioner was held to be entitled for issuance of a certificate. In other words, the petitioner was certified landlord. On the basis of that certificate, the petitioner filed an application for possession of the suit land against the respondent No. 1 who was his tenant. That application was decided in favour of the ...