Mumbai Court October 2004 Judgments

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Madho Singh Samant and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR146

Rebello F.I., J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith. The petitioner aggrieved by the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. II, dated 3rd June, 2003 has preferred the present petition.2. A few facts may be set out. The respondent No. 1 was initially appointed on 19th January, 1996. His services came to be terminated by notice dated 31st March, 1997. The notice reads as under :-The services of Shri Madho Singh Samant, Substitute Bungalow Peon S.D.G.M., in scale Rs. 750-940 (R.P.S) are terminated with immediate effect. A cheque for Rs. 3,319/- (Three thousand three hundred and nineteen), is enclosed herewith being payment towards retrenchment compensation and one month's wages in lieu of notice period as detailed below: This has the approval of the competent authority .The contention of the respondent-workman was that his services were illegally terminated. Pursuant to that a reference came to be made to the Industrial Tribunal. The subject-matter of the reference was whether the s...

Champalal Bansilal Parate (Dr.) and ors. Vs. Additional Commissioner a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR825; 2005(2)BomCR640

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. The petitioners by this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India challenge the order dated 30-8-1990 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur in revision under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. In the said order, the Additional Commissioner has found that while effecting the partition by metes and bounds, Tahsildar has not considered the valuation of lands involved in the partition, as one of the facts governing the grant of shares. The Additional Commissioner has further found that said order also does not indicate the consideration of other relevant aspects like fertility and locational advantages. The Additional Commissioner has, therefore, remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar for fresh inquiry and order regarding carving out of shares for allotment to parties. The parties to this petition are descendants of one Bhagwandin Parate. He dies intestate leaving behind him four sons viz., Bansila...

State of Maharashtra and Etc. Vs. Sahebrao @ Navnath Sopan Kale

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ2788

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The present confirmation ease has been referred by the Additional sessions Judge, Pune, in pursuance to the provision of Section 366 of Cr. P. C., as appellant -accused No. 3 in criminal appeal No. 999/2004 has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death.2. The appellant accused No. 3 has also preferred the appeal against the order of conviction and sentence, whereby, he was convicted under Section 449, 460, 392, 201, 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, along with appellant-accused No. 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 889/2004. The learned Judge has sentenced to (undergo) imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code to the appellant -accused No. 2. However, for the same offence the appellant No. 3 has been sentenced to death. Original accused No. 1 Bhagwat could not be tried as he is absconding. The operative part of the impugned judgment and ord...

Mangala W/O Sanjay Salunke and ors. Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transpo ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)MhLj31

D.G. Karnik, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 17-8-2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur (for short, 'the Tribunal'), dismissing the Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 115/1991, filed by the appellants.3. The facts relating to the claim are stated below.The appellant No. 1 is the widow and the appellants numbers 2 to 4 are the children of deceased Sanjay Salunke, who succumbed to injuries arising out of a motor accident, which took place on 16-4-1991. The appellant numbers 5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased. On 16-4-1991, deceased Sanjay was travelling on a two wheeler 'Spark' on Ausa-Tuljapur road near Manohar Tanda between 9.30 pm to 10.00 pm. The deceased along with his three friends, namely, Navnath, Venkat and Ram Khanderao had gone to Tuljapur on two 'Spark' two wheelers. All of them started their return journey at about 5 p.m. As the air pressure in rear tyre of one of the two S...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Veerapa Naidu S/O G. Basavaiah an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR224

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This appeal arises from the award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (North) at Mapusa in Claim Petition No. 48/1997 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.2. The Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Nicolletta Rohtagi and Ors. : [2002]SUPP2SCR456 has held that under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an insurer has the right to file an appeal before the High Court on limited grounds available under Section 149(2) and the appeal being product of the Statute it is not open to the insurer to take any plea other than those provided under Section 149(2) of the said Act. In view of this ratio, this appeal filed by the insurance company cannot be entertained.3. However, in the case of Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., and Anr. : [2003]1SCR567 the Supreme Court further held that the right of appeal is a statutory right and where the law provides remedy by filing an app...

Micropure Parentrals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT349Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The issue involved in the above case is demand of duty on the basis of Notification issued by the Ministry of Health, on certain medicaments manufactured by the appellants, viz. Aneudox-12 Forte Injections and Tablets consisting of fixed dose combination of Vitamins B1, B6 and B12. These goods are registered and made under the licence and control of Drugs & Cosmetics Department as patent and proprietary medicaments and were claimed for classification under Sr. No. 3003.10 of the Tariff. However, proceedings were initiated by issue of show Cause Notice in the month of September 2001, by which it was proposed that the said Injections and Tablets consisting of fixed dose combination of Vitamins B1, B6 said B12 were classifiable under SH No.2936.00 and not under SH No. 3003.10 of the Tariff, because the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had issued a Notification dated 14.10.1999 under Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, thereby prohibiting manufacture, sale or dis...

Markas Engg P. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. All the stay petitions are being taken up together as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise Pune vide which duty of Rs. 18,57,661 was confirmed against M/s Markas Engineer Pvt Limited along with imposition of personal penalty of identical amounts. In addition personal penalty of various amounts have been imposed upon the other appellants under the provision of Rule 209 A of the Central Excise Rules 1944. The impugned order has been passed in denovo proceeding, when the matter was earlier remanded to him by the Tribunal vide order dated 21.10.2004.2. We have heard Shri Rohan Shah Ld advocate for the appellant and Shri Vimlesh Kumar Ld SDR for the revenue. The appellant M/s Markas Engineering Pvt Ltd are engaged in the manufacture of PVC Pipes and fittings. Their factory was visited by the Central Excise officers and various records were seized and investigation conducted. The demand was confirmed on the allegation and findings of Clandest...

Sagar Auto Works Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC116

1. The appellant had imported a consignment of second hand Diesel Engines on as is where is basis for reconditioning. These 157 old and used auto diesel engines were sought to be cleared on Bill of Entry No.287 dated 23.10.97 at declared valued of Rs. 11,58,568/-. Matter was adjudicated by the Commissioner, an offer of redemption on fine of Rs. 12 lakhs in lieu of confiscation under Section 111(d) was arrived at along with a penalty of Rs. One lakh, imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act 1962.2. The order has been arrived at, ignoring inter alia, the following written submissions on post import costs, filed vide letter dated 24.10.1997. "The barest costs involved in importation are as under and all the expenses stated below will have to incurred by us:- 1) PROCUREMENT EXPENSES :- which have to be incurred in foreign countries which include locating such products from markets overseas selecting the suitable cargo through the foreign vendors to suit our requirements for the variou...

Bloom Dekor Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT707Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue pertains to availment of modvat credit on the strength of Bills of Entry wherein the importer availed of the benefit of Notification No. 34/97-Cus dt. 7.4.97, which exempts duties of Customs (Basic and Additional Duty) when the duty leviable on the goods is debited to DEPB scrip. Under this scheme credit is given to an exporter in the duty entitlement passbook by the DGFT authorities when he exports goods. We are not discussing the nuances of the scheme here.Suffice it to say that such credit obtained by an exporter can be used to discharge import duty liability on the goods imported. In the present case the appellant has used such credit to pay CVD on the goods imported by him. The scheme is basically a brainchild of the Commerce Ministry. In order to facilitate importers to avail of the scheme Government of India in Ministry of Finance has issued Notification No.34/97 which exempts duties of customs leviable on the imported goods provided such duties are debited from th...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Globe Enterprises

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. A consignment of old & used Diesel Engines was imported at Pune, BE dated 28.8.99 was filed. The goods were ordered to be confiscated under the provision of Section 111(d) 111(m) & redemption fine of Rs. 12,00,000/- imposed after the assessable value was raised & a penalty of Rs. 1,20,000/- was imposed. i) The Tribunal in case of Shehla Enterprises (1995 (80) ELT 360 had arrived at a value of such engines imported in 1993 to Rs. 15,692 per engine, while the present valuation arrives at is Rs. 6864/- per engine. The assessabke value upheld by CEGAT in that order is further supported by quotations obtained in the month of march 2000. Therefore the Commissioner has grossly issued in relying on a purported market enquiry. ii) Imposition fine & penalty has not deterred the import of Diesel Engines. They do not pass the test of emission norms laid down by the RTO & vehicles fitted with such engines are not approved for. Registration in Maharashtra. Euro Emission norms...