Mumbai Court October 2004 Judgments

Kusumkant T. Nagda Vs. Mariam Bi Wd/O Ebrahim

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR255; 2005(3)BomCR340; 2005(2)MhLj67

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This appeal from Order has been filed against the Order of the trial Court returning the plaint to the plaintiff, the appellant herein, Under Order 7, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for presenting the same before the proper Court. The trial Court has held that the suit was not maintainable and the jurisdiction to decide the issues raised was only with Small Causes Court under section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act.2. The suit has been filed for the following reliefs:(a) that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare the defendant and her family members as the trespassers in respect of structure admeasuring 6.75 metres x 1.6 metres equivalent to 10.8 sq. metres equivalent to 108 sq. ft. or thereabouts, so made unauthorisedly in the compound of Nagda Niketan, situated, lying and being at Hansoti Road, Cama Lane, Ghatkopar, Bombay - 400 086;(b) That defendant, her family members be directed by an Order and decree to remove themselves along with all other goods, thing...

Dilip Haribhau Wakchaware Vs. Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR770

Kamdar S.U., J.1. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging an order dated 16-8-2002 passed by Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur.2. The petitioner was appointed on 10th of July, 1990 and was subsequently promoted and presently holding the post of Live Stock Supervisor Zilla Parishad, Bhandara. The provisions of Zilla Parishad District Service Post Recruitment Examination Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules') as amended by Zilla Parishad District Service Post Recruitment Examination (Amendment) Rules, 1999 governs the issue of seniority and promotion of the employees of Panchayat Samiti. Thus, the petitioner as well as respondents Nos. 4 to 8 are governed by the said Rules.3. An unamended Rule 4 of the said Rules inter alia provided for post recruitment examination. Thus every employee after being selected as Zilla Parishad employee required to pass the said qualifying examination as provided under the Rules. Under an unamended Rule it was...

Dnyaneshwar Dadaji Waradkar Vs. Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR120; 2005(2)BomCR748

Sinha D.D., J.1. Heard Shri Agnihotri, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. The petition is directed against the orders dated 13-3-1990 and 4-9-1990 passed by the respondent whereby petitioner is dismissed/removed from service after departmental enquiry. The controversy in issue, in nutshell, is as follows:The petitioner was appointed as apprentice by the respondent Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation on 25-1-1975. After completion of apprenticeship, the petitioner was appointed as junior grader by the respondent in 1976-77. The petitioner was promoted to the post of senior grader in the year 1979. In the year 1984, the State Maharashtra decided to register respondent Federation as its Chief Agent for purchase of raw cotton and as per direction of the State Government, the petitioner and other State employees were taken on deputation by the respondent federation and thereafter were absorbed in service of the responde...

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Bhaskar Krishnaji Rau ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)MhLj677

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, has challenged the order dated 27-1-1992 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur, in Revision (ULPA) No. 5 of 1990. The facts giving rise to the present petition can be briefly stated as under :The present respondent was working as a Conductor on 5-9-1984 and his bus came to be checked at about 1830 hrs. Out of total 65 1/2 passengers, total 19 1/2 passengers were found travelling without tickets. It was found that he received fare amount from all these passengers but tickets were not issued to them. Similarly tickets having advanced punch were seized from five passengers. M.S.R.T.C. cash with respondent was checked and it was found less by Rs. 119.05 paise. On the basis of this checking and facts, a charge sheet of misconduct falling under Clauses 7A, 7C of Schedule A of Disciplinary and Appeal Procedure an...

Burns Philip (i) Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT343Tri(Mum.)bai

1. As per the facts on record, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of "Fresh Compressed Yeast" felling under Chapter 21 and during the relevant period was selling the same to two different wholesale buyers M/s. Continental Stores, Mumbai and M/s. Cyrus Yeast, Mumbai. The price at which the goods were being sold to the above two buyers was slightly different.2. The appellants was served with a show cause notice proposing to confirm the demand of duty of Rs. 1,29,193/- in respect of the yeast cleared to M/s. Cyrus Yeast, Mumbai, during the period April 96 to May 99 at a lower price than the price charged from M/s. Continental Stores, on the alleged ground that both the said buyers were working from same business premises and the proprietor of both the said buyers was the same. The appellants took a stand that both the buyers were different classes of buyers inasmuch as M/s. Continental Stores, Mumbai, cater to the market situated outside the Maharashtra and M/s.Cyrus Yeast sells...

Prakash Chandrappa Channur Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ1085

V.M. Kande, J.1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.2. The appellant is challenging the judgment and order passed by Addl. Sessions Judge for Gr. Bombay in Sessions Case No. 1440 of 1995 dated 20th December 2002. The accused appellant was convicted under the provisions of Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo RI for one month.2. The prosecution case is that the accused and his family were residing in the adjoining hut of the complainant and her husband. In fact, there was a common partition wall made of tim sheets between two houses. There was a quarrel between the wife of the accused and the complainant. The wife of the accused had assaulted the complainant and therefore, a N.C. Complaint was lodged against her. In the evening when the accused and the husband of the complaint returned home, the complainant and her husband went t...

Pradhan S/O Murlidhar Potdar Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)MhLj226

Naresh H. Patil, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.2. The petitioner is facing prosecution in Special Case No. 7 of 2000 for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution examined the complainant Ashok Ramrao Awad. After his examination-in-chief was over, the defence started cross-examining him. At a stage, the Public Prosecutor declared the witness as hostile and requested the Court to grant permission to cross-examine him. The Special Court granted the request made by the Public Prosecutor in the following manner.'(At this stage, the learned Public Prosecutor declared the witness hostile and requested to cross-examine the witness. Considering the evidence of witness coming in examination-in-chief and admission in cross-examination particularly admission given by the witness today, permission for cross-examination is granted.)'There...

Manohar @ Walmik S/O Narayanrao Kable Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR588; (2005)107BOMLR193

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges order dated 15.10.1991 passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur (for short 'M.R.T.') in appeal under Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 thereby confirming the order dated 28th August, 1991 passed by Tahsildar, Chandrapur ordering restoration of the land in favour of the respondent No. 2 Smt. Manjulabai who is widow of original tribal owner Ragho, The facts in brief are as under:2. The present petitioner on 17.9.1987 has purchased fields Khasra Nos. 64 and 65 (now Gat No. 9 area 2.35 acres of village Lohara, Tan. and Distt.- Chandrapur) from one Deorao Pandurang Makode, who is respondent No. 3 in the present petition, and he purchased these fields on 18.12.1973 from deceased Ragho for Rs. 1,900/- and sold it for Rs. 7,000/ - to the present petitioner.3. It appears that suo motu proceedings was started for restoration of the land in...

Commissioner of Customs, Vs. Century Pulp and Paper

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT999Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In a consignment of waste paper / envelope cutting declared as Grade 31 P-S-94 of Waste Paper Specification, and on the finding of Custom that sheets in the return of serviceable paper were also under import, by this actual user, was not impugned but was found to be permissible, as Import of waste under heading 4707 of Custom Tariff by this Commissioner (Appeal). Therefore the change of misdeclaration etc was not upheld and the orders of the Lower Authority were set aside with consequent relief. i) despite the fact that the entire import was in compressed bales, the fact of 10 bales contained serviceable white sheets of paper which was not bonafide waste and was to be considered as import not covered under heading 4707.90 of the Customs Tariff. i) despite the fact that the entire impost was in compressed bales, the facts of 10 bales contained serviceable while sheets of paper which was not bonafide was to be considered as import not covered under 4707.90 and misdeclaration was to b...

Nirlon Limited, Kunal Sagar and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These appeals arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai V. In the impugned order the Commissioner confirmed Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 5,31,59,960/- (BED), Rs. 77,03,618/- (AED TT), Rs. 79,555/- (AEDST), totaling to Rs. 6,09,43,133/-, imposed an equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q (1) of CE Rule, 1944, ordered recovery of interest under Section 11AB, appropriated an amount of Rs. 5,08,449/- paid by the company, imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Rule 209A on the Executive Vice Chairman of the Company and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under the same Rule on the Manager Marketing of the Company.2. Briefly the facts are that the company manufactures, amongst others, tyre cord yarn and tyre cord fabric falling under Chapter 54 and 59 of Central Excise Tariff Act, at their Goregaon Factory. The said goods are sold at the factory gate and also removed for captive consumption to the appellant's Tarapur factory. At Tarap...