Mumbai Court October 2004 Judgments

Shri Ganesh Arjun Ghatwal (Since Deceased) by Legal Representatives an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR263; (2005)107BOMLR744

N.A. Britto, J.1. This appeal is filed by the defendants in Special Civil Suit No. 20/97/ A against the judgment/decree dated 8.7.2002, of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bicholim, by which the plaintiff's suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 23,67,260.42 and/or for accounts was decreed against the defendants in the sum of Rs. 19,39,015.02 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 1.2.1997.2. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the said civil suit.3. There is no dispute that late Arjun Ganesh Ghatwal is the husband of plaintiff No. 1 (since deceased) and father of plaintiff Nos. 2, 3 4, 5, 6 and 7 and defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 2 is the wife of defendant No. 1.4. The said late Arjun Ganesh Ghatwal was a tenant of some properties including paddy fields situated at Poira in Mayem Village which were acquired for the construction of new B G line between Roha and Mangalore for the Konkan Railway Corporation by virtue ...

Rajnikant Harlal Shah Vs. Rafiullabeg Ismailbeg and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR764

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. The petitioner-landlord challenges the orders dated 13-3-1989, 30-7-1990 and 23-1-1991 passed by the lower authorities rejecting his application for executing the oral order passed in his favour for restoration of possession. The necessary facts in this respect can be briefly stated as under :The petitioner is the owner of field survey No. 60, area 10 acres 39 gunthas of village Kolasa, Taluqa Balapur, District Akola. He initiated proceedings by filing an application against the original tenant Ismailbeg under Section 19 read with Sections 30 and 36(2) of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) and sought termination of tenancy and for possession of these fields, Ismailbeg expired and present respondents is his legal heir. The proceedings were ultimately decided in favour of the petitioner by this Court on 28-1-1976 in Writ Petition No 1802 of 1973. The petitioner thereafter moved applicatio...

Ganeshkumar Makhanlal Chandak and anr. Vs. Nagpur Urban Co-operative B ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR392; 2005(3)BomCR925

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. The petitioners are borrowers of respondent No. 1 bank and said bank initiated proceedings for recovery of loan amount from them before respondent No. 2-Deputy Registrar, The said authority has issued a recovery certificate on 29-6-1992 and the same is challenged before this Court in the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India.2. The petitioners are members of respondent No. 1 which is a Cooperative Society registered as such under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said society has filed application under Section 101 before respondent No. 2 for recovery of Rs. 1,11,059.05 from the petitioners jointly and severally with interest @ 19.5% per annum. The said case was registered as Dispute No. 1973 of 1992 before respondent No. 2 on 3-2-1992, the said authority directed the petitioners to appear before it and to file their say to deposit the amount within three days...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shashikalabai W/O Bhimrao Salone and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)MhLj928

D.G. Karnik, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23-3-1993 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Parbhani (for short, the Tribunal) in Claim Application No. 6 of 1989.2. The respondent No. 6 herein is the owner of the motor truck bearing registration No. MTT6521. At the relevant time, the said truck was being driven by the respondent No. 7. The respondents Nos. 1 to 5 are the heirs of Bhimrao Salone, who died in an accident involving the said truck bearing No. MTT 6521. The appellant is an insurance company with whom the said motor truck was insured.3. Deceased Bhimrao had gone to purchase vegetables at the market at Parbhani and was walking on the road. At that time, the respondent No. 7, who was driving the motor truck bearing registration No. MTT 6521 rashly and negligently, knocked down Bhimrao, who died on the spot. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 being the widow and the children of deceased Bhimrao, filed a claim for recovery of compensation agai...

Chellaram Jethanand Madhrani and Purshottam Jethanand Madhrani Vs. Mar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR816

ORDERR.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. None present for the petitioners. Perused the records. 2. Two points arise for consideration in the matter. They are :- (i) When the petition is filed against a dead person, whether the legal representatives of the deceased respondent can be allowed to be brought on record (ii) If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, then whose obligation it is to move for such an order, and if the answer is in the negative, then what are the consequences 3. This is a petition which has been filed admittedly against a dead person. When the matter was heard on the last date of hearing, it was sought to be argued by the learned advocate for the petitioners that the decree having been passed against the dead person, the same is nullity, and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to challenge the same in the present petition and in case the legal heirs of the deceased respondent have any grievance in the matter, they should themselves approach this Court w...

Musaji Mohamadali Master and Sons and anr. Vs. Mr. Gulamali Dadabhai A ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR320; (2005)107BOMLR179

A.B. Naik. J.1. One Gulamali Dadabhal, the original plaintiff, instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 438/1 978 against the petitioner/original defendant for possession of the shop premises situated at 1817, Polan Peth, Jalgaon, having an area of 13/ 1/2x20 1/2, The parties to the proceedings will be referred to as 'the plaintiff' and 'defendant' and the premises would be referred to as 'shop premises'. The plaintiff Gulamali Dadabhai died during the pendency of the suit and his heirs and legal representatives were brought on record and they are representing the estate and prosecuting the proceedings. It is not disputed that the suit premises are in possession of the defendant who is a partnership firm carrying on business in the name and Style as 'M/s. Musaji Mohammed Master and Sons. The plaintiff filed suit for recovery of possession of the shop premises under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), mainly on t...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sagar Steel Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. At the out set, it is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the respondent that the assessee has settled duos under the provisions of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme Rules, 1998 and they contend that the Revenue's appeal is also covered by such settlement. He has also drawn our attention to the circular dated 8/12/98, which is reproduced here below: "Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 - settlement of amount involved in Deptt's appeals. The constitutional validity of the MVS Scheme was recently challenged in a Public Interest Litigation in Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble High Court has upheld the provisions of the scheme except the provisions relating to Departmental appeals vide proviso to Section, 92 which denies the benefits of settlement for the amount of duties involved in such appeals under the KVS Scheme. It has been held by the Hon'ble Court that this proviso cannot be sustained and in their view, no distinction should be made whether the assessee is in appeal or the Depa...

Kargwal Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai. The appellant imported rough marble blocks. The import of rough marble blocks is restricted in terms of entry 2515.12 in ITC(HS) Policy of Export and Import 2002-2007. The impugned goods are not permitted unless the importer has a specific licence. The appellant in this case does not have one. The Commissioner held the goods liable to confiscation and after determining the margin of profit, allowed the goods to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 20 lakhs Under Section 125 of the Customs Act. The MOP has been worked out on the basis of a market survey. The CIF value of the consignment is worked out to be Rs. 35,47,557/-. The Commissioner also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the importer Under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. Hence this appeal.3. The appellant's main contention is that their unit is located at Silvassa which is a backward area; that they are a small scale industrial...

Skd Commercial Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT84Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants imported 132 units of old and used Photocopier Machines of various brands totally valued at Rs. 17,29,667/- and filed the Bill of Entry dated 24.10.2003 for clearance. After first check examination by the Customs staff it was found that the Model number & description were incomplete and the goods were found to be old and used as declared.On the basis of certain values in the report obtained from DRI Kolkatta the correct value of old and used copier machine was taken as :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Model Declared C (FOB) Prices Ascertained Oty (No & F Price suggested by Value (20% of pcs)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Olivette 175/- - 210/- 47147 125/- - 150/- 97141 175/- - 210/- 88030 325/- - 390/- 38040 375/- - 450/- 158130 325/- - 390/- 98521 250/- - 300/- 127047 125/- - 150/- 1Canon 4050 375/- 425/- - 10Canon 3050 375/- 425/- - 2Ca...

Ashok India Engg. Works and ors. Vs. Commissioner Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Appeal Nos. 3241, 3242 and 3243/98 - Ashok India Engg. Works, Bhagwan G. Ranglani, Deepak G. Ranglani 1. M/s. Ashok India Engineering Works (M/s. AIEW) were manufacturers of fuses distribution boards etc. bearing a brand name 'Ashok India' which for all intents and purposes belonged to M/s. Chimandas Ashokkumar Engg. Works. M/s. AIEW was a partnership firm at the material time, S/Shri Bhagwan Gangaram Ranglani and Deepak Gangaram Ranglani were its partners. M/s. Chimandas Ashokkumar Engg. Works, the brand owners, manufacture electric motors, pumps mono blocks and pump sets. The department's contention is that in terms of para 4 of notification 1/93 the appellants are not eligible for concessional rate of duty/nil rate of duty as they manufactured goods with a brand name belonging to another person who is not eligible for SSI exemption.There is no dispute that the brand name used by the appellants belonged to another person who is not eligible for SSI exemption. The dispute however exi...