Mumbai Court September 2003 Judgments

Ciby John D'Mello Vs. Rajashree Electric Corporation

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR93; 2004(4)BomCR445

D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. A suit for eviction filed by the petitioner on the ground of default in the payment of rent has been dismissed. The suit was instituted in 1978. The judgement of the learned Civil Jude, Junior Division, Thane, which was delivered on 15.10.1986 has been confirmed in appeal by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Thane, on 20.9.1989.2. The petitioner is the owner of a shop bearing shop No. 1, admeasuring 12' x 12' on the ground floor of a building known as 'Agness Ray', situate at Bhayandar in the district of Thane. The agreed rent of the shop was Rs. 70/- per month. The rent was in arrears since 1.7.1977. By a notice dated 31.3.1978, the petitioner terminated the tenancy and demanded the arrears of rent as well as possession of the suit premises. A suit for eviction came to be instituted under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Both before the learned trial Judge and the...

Sajjan Narayanrao Salunke Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR893; 2004(2)BomCR713; 2004(1)MhLj43

A.P. Deshpande, J.1. Heard. Application for intervention is allowed. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, taken up for final hearing.2. The elections of the Municipal Council, Tuljapur were held in December 2001 and the petitioner came to be elected as Councillor from a seat reserved for O.B.C. A crime came to be registered against the petitioner at Police Station Tuljapur bearing No. 16/2002 on 18-2-2002 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. After registration of the crime on 18-2-2002, the petitioner came to be arrested on 22nd February, 2002. From 22-2-2002 till 24-2-2002, the petitioner was in police custody and from 24-2-2002 to 10-10-2002 the petitioner was detained in magisterial custody. The petitioner came to be released on bail on 10-10-2002. As the petitioner was in jail from 24-2-2002 to 10-10-2002, he could not and he did not attend any meeting of the municipal council. It is the case of the petitioner that because of the ...

Jekuma Tools and Gauges Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT395Tri(Mum.)bai

The appellants were heard in the matter on 15/1/97, wherein they were represented by Shri Rajhans, Consultant and others. The appellants submitted that they had produced CNC Vertical Milling Machine valued at Rs. 13,22,100/- and paid Central excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,32,210/-. The same machine was received in their factory on 10.06.94 under the cover of Transporter's copy of invoice of company having proper Central Excise duty paid on it. Since the machine was not in working condition and requires lot of repairs, it was finally installed on 2.11.94 and put to use in the manufacture of excisable goods like gauges, jigs, fixtures etc. When the machine was brought in the factory at that time they were within the exemption limit of Rs. 30 lakhs as per Notification 1/93. They started paying Central Excise duty from 24.2.95 and filed a declaration under Rule 57Q on the same day. An intimation under Rule 57T(2) was submitted on 10.04.95. Since the declaration was not filed within the pr...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. N.R.C. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue has filed for stay of operation of order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds:- "In the invoices issued by the assessee it is observed that a composite value is arrived at by multiplying the "rate & quantity" and that the invoices bears a note to the effect that "Invoice value does not include the Excise Duty amount since the cinder are Non-Excisable commodity. However duty paid under protest has not been recovered from the party." On scrutiny of the invoices it is seen that the quantum of Central Excise duty paid by the assessee is already included in the composite value, by inflating the composite value to the extent of duty element, which proves that the assessee has recovered the duty element form their customers and any refund on this count would amount to unjust enrichment. Thus, the Order-in-original passed by the Assistant Commissioner, crediting the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare fund is legally correct. On verification of the Pr...

Techno Engineering and Rubber Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The applicant is absent and unrepresented. No request for adjournment has been received. The matter has once been adjourned before by the applicant.2. After reading the stay application, memorandum of appeal and other papers and hearing the departmental representative on the stay application, we have decided to take up the appeal itself.3. The appellant filed an appeal on 1.4.2002 before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the order of the Asst. Commissioner communicated to it on 3.1.2002. Consequent on an amendment on 12.5.2001 Section 35E of the Act required an appeal to be filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) within 60 days of communication of the order the decision impugned in the appeal, empowering the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone a delay of up to 30 days in filing an appeal. In the application for condonation of delay that was filed, the appellant claimed that a delay of 27 days in filing the appeal was caused by consultant who advised him that the period for filing th...

Opal Fabrics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT441Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 49,91,915/- and penalty of equal amount arises out of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat. In addition, there is a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The brief facts necessary for appreciating the dispute are that the applicants herein are engaged in the manufacture of Polyester grey fabrics. They are 100% EOU holding licence for the private bonded warehouse under Section 58 of the Customs Act. They had cleared polyester grey fabrics under six in-voices/AR.3As to M/s. Sapana Syntex (P) Ltd., A.P. during the month of June, 2000. Since re-warehousing certificate in respect of these from the removal of the goods, enquiry was conducted and it was found that the goods were not accounted for in the statutory records. It was also found that CT3 certificates were not issued by the Central Excise Authorities at Hyderabad [under whose jurisdiction M/s. Sapana Syntex (P) Ltd. ...

Shiva Bharath Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(157)ELT440Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 2,74,863.25 confirmed against the applicants herein as a result of classifying the product in dispute viz. Textile padding solutions under Central Excise Tariff Sub-heading 3909.10 as against the assessees' claim for classification under-Heading 3809.00 and a penalty of Rs. 20,000/-imposed upon them, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. The period of dispute is 1-3-97 to 31-5-98.2. We have heard both sides. We find that the classification has been done by the department on the basis of chemical analysis of the product which has been found to be "aqueous solution of condensation of product of urea/organic amino compound and aldehyde" and has been found to be pre-polymers having characteristics of other amino acids. Therefore, it cannot be said that a strong prima facie case for total waiver has been made out by the applicants. We, therefore, direct pre-deposit of Rs. 1,35,000/- (Rupe...

Gajanan Nagu Patil Vs. Nama Laku Ughada and Assistant Collector

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR477

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 Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai dated January 24, 1990 in Appeal No. Revision Tribunal 16 of 1989. The land in question admeasures about 2 acres 10 gunthas situated at Village Dhamani, in Tahsil Panvel. The land was originally owned by Mr. M.E. Amir and Mr. A.K. Amir. Proceedings under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act were initiated in respect of the suit land on the assumption that one Rama Kanu Ughada was lawfully cultivating the suit land as a tenant on the tillers day. On that basis, the Tenancy Authority by Judgment and Order dated 24th January, 1990 declared that the said Rama Kanu Ughada is entitled to purchase the suit land by determining the purchase price. However, it is not in dispute that Rama Kanu Ughada did not pay the purchase price determined by the said order, so as to obtain Certificate...

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Satish Vasant Sobalka ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR140; 2004(4)BomCR249; [2004(101)FLR413]; 2004(1)MhLj835

ORDERD.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Respondent waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The Respondent was appointed as a driver with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation in 1993. On 1st March, 1997, a bus laden with passengers was being driven by the Respondent and, as is not uncommon, was packed to capacity. Two persons were also allowed by the Respondent to sit inside the driver's cabin contrary to regulations. While negotiating the ghat section which the bus was ascending, there was a 'U' turn. A dumper was descending the ghat and an accident took place as a result of which the bus turned turtled thrice and fell down into the ghat to a distance of 150 feet. Five passengers died and sixty five passengers were injured. A disciplinary enquiry was held against the Respondent, in which several witnesses including passengers who were travelling in the bus were examined. The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the R...

Shri. Laxmi Vividh Karyakari Sahakari (Vikas) Seva Sanstha Ltd. Vs. Ko ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(1)ALLMR97; 2004(4)BomCR400

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Counsel appearing for the respective Respondents waive service.2. As short question is raised, Petition taken up for final hearing forthwith, by consent.3. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai Bench, Pune dated August 1, 2003 in Appeal No. 108 of 2003. The Petitioner Society filed dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the said 'Act') before the Co-operative Court No. 1, Kolhapur being CCS No. 5001 of 2003. The background in which the said dispute has been filed is that the Respondent No. 2 Society has been permitted to be registered as a Co-operative Society, whose area of operation would be overlapping with the area of operation of the Petitioner Society. The Petitioner has challenged the said decision of the Compete...