Mumbai Court November 2004 Judgments

Sterlite Optical Technologies Vs. C.C. and C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT367Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This application is for modification of Stay Order Nos. C-I/2431 to 2437/WZB/2003, dated 10-10-2003 [2004 (165) E.L.T. 467 (T)] passed by the Tribunal. The Bench, in the interim order cited supra, allowed the stay applications taking note of the fact that the applicant's bank guarantee for Rs. 11.00 crores executed in terms of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay's order, is alive and goods worth approximately Rs. 37.60 crores which were confiscated in the impugned order of the Commissioner are under department's custody. The Bench noted that the department's interests are sufficiently safeguarded.2. In the present application, the applicant pleads that the stay order be modified to allow the confiscated goods to be released on execution of a further bank guarantee, if need be, on the grounds : (a) The applicant has an export order for the said goods, and (b) the goods would become outdated if they remain confiscated during the currency of the appeal. The learned SDR vehemently objecte...

Punjab National Bank Vs. Tata Infotech Ltd.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: II(2005)BC16

1. This Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellant/original applicant Punjab National Bank being aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai on Exhibit No. 7 in Original Application No.65/2003. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer held that the amount which was sought to be recovered by the applicant Bank from the defendants, did not amount to "Debt" within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and, therefore, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the original application filed by the Bank. Holding this, he ordered the original application to be returned to the applicant Bank for being presented before appropriate forum. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the bank.2. I have heard Mr. D'lima for the appellant Bank and Mr. Purohit for the respondent. I have also gone through the proceedings including ...

Satvantkaur Harjitsingh Vig and ors. Vs. Aarti Jayant Lalwani and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005ACJ255; 2005(2)BomCR687

S.A. Bobde, J.1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the widow and two children of the deceased Harjitsingh Vig against the refusal of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, to grant the compensation on no fault basis as contemplated by Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. One Harjitsingh Vig, a taxi driver, died in the following circumstances:On 12.1.1999 he was admitted to Sion Hospital and then to Mahalaxmi Hospital since he was suffering from high fever. He was also said to be suffering from diabetes. On 13.1.1999 the doctors advised that he be removed to Leelavati Hospital. His widow, therefore, engaged an ambulance bearing registration No. MMK 4119 for taking him to Leelavati Hospital.3. The ambulance proceeded towards Leelavati Hospital at Bandra with the siren on. When it was negotiating Mahim junction, a car collided with it. According to the petitioners, the deceased who was on...

Haribhau Baliramji Wankhede Vs. Additional Commissioner, Amravati Divi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR615; 2005(2)MhLj593

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. In all these petitions somewhat identical questions arise and hence, all can be conveniently disposed of together as the facts are also similar. The orders which are challenged are the orders dated 13-1-1989 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Daryapur and the order dated 20th March, 1992 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. Both these orders are common in all these writ petitions.2. In all these writ petitions lands were allotted by the State Government to the petitioners either on 16-11-1987 or on 2-5-1988 and thereafter have been withdrawn on 13-1-1989 by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The said withdrawal has been challenged by the respective allotters/petitioners by separate revisions before the respondent No. 1 Additional Commissioner and on 20th March, 1992 the Additional Commissioner has upheld the order of S.D.O.3. I have heard Advocate Shri Pardhy for the petitioners in all these cases and learned A.G.Ps. Shri Kankale, Shri Th...

Shri Gokuldas Rama Gaude and ors. Vs. V.G. Quenim, a Proprietary Conce ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR376

N.A. Britto, J.1. This is defendants' appeal filed against the judgment/decree dated 29.12.2003 of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Bicholim decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement dated 5.7.1996 for sale of the property surveyed under No. 50/1 of 'Sonus Vonvoliem' alongwith houses existing therein bearing V. P. House Nos. 61/ 1, 61/2, and 61/3 alongwith their appurtenances.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 the defendants by deed dated 6.10.1995 had purchased four properties from Jesus Venceslau Antonio Santano Mesquita Botelho bearing Survey No. 40/1, 41/3, 48/1 and 50/1 of village 'Sonus Vonvoliem'. The plaintiff had a mining lease bearing No. T. C. 16 dated 26.4.1990 and the said properties were included within the said mining lease. By an agreement dated 5.7.1996 the defendants agreed to sell to the plaintiff the said properties fo...

Hariyana Metals Ltd., Shri Harish Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These are 4 applications for waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty and penalties as under: - 1. M/s Hariyana Metal Ltd Rs. 12,76,579/- duty and Rs. 25,26,579/- penalty. 3. M/s Prabhu Steel Inds. Ltd. Rs. 29,63,822/- duty and Rs. 34,63,822/-penalty.2. Shri Jerry Lewis, Id. Advocate, submitted that duty of Rs. 7,84,494/-has been confirmed against the applicant No. 1 on account of shortage of inputs noticed by the Central Excise officers at the time of visit of the factory; that the shortage has not been determined after actual weightment of the inputs; that however as per ISI specification there could be difference in weight to the extent of 0.5% due to adoption of sectional weight method. He further mentioned that duty amounting to Rs. 1,27,801/- has been confirmed on account of shortage of finished goods which has already been deposited by the appellant No. 1, finally lie mentioned that duty amounting to Rs. 3,64,284/- has been confirmed on account of clandestine manufacture...

Fattechand Dharamchand Mehta Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR700

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the land owners are challenging the order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Darwha, dated 31-1-1986 in Ceiling Case No. 1/60-A(5)/70-71 and the order dated 11-4-1988 delivered by the member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, in Ceiling Appeal No. A/c.A.71/86 by which the deceased land owner Shri Fattechand was held to be surplus holder of land to the extent of 235.09 acres and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal had remanded matter back to Sub-Divisional Officer for obtaining the choice of said land holder about retention of lands and to de-limit the surplus land.2. I have heard Shri Madkholkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners who are legal representatives of the deceased Fattechand and Shri Kankale, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents No. 1 and 2.3. The necessary facts in brief can be summarised thus:Upon report of Tenancy Revenue Inspector, a case under Section 12 ...

Block Development Officer and ors. Vs. Narayan Nagorao Nege

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR201; 2005(3)BomCR293

Daga V.C., J.1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 15th January, 2000 passed by the District Judge, Nagpur in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 274 of 99 whereby the order dated 4-2-1998 passed by the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kalmeshwar directing the respondent herein to pay an amount of Rs. 68,264/- came to be quashed and set aside.2. The facts in nut-shell are that when the respondent was in the employment of Panchayat Samiti, Kalmeshwar in 1991, he was allotted suit premises. In the year 1992, he was transferred to Panchayat Samiti, Ramtek and subsequently, on his own request, he was re-transferred to Kalmeshwar after a period of about 10. All along he was occupying the suit premises. In 1996, when the respondent was transferred to Panchayat Samiti, Katol, the applicant issued him letter asking him to pay damages quantified in the sum of Rs. 68,264/- for unauthorised use and occupation of the Government premises. Applicant No. 3 was asked to deduc...