Mumbai Court November 2004 Judgments

F.A. Picture International Vs. Central Board of Film Certification and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom145; 2005(2)ALLMR777; 2005(1)BomCR5; 2005(2)MhLj869

Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. 'Chand Bujh Gaya' is a feature film produced by Faaiz Anwar. The film dwells on the travails of a young couple -a Hindu boy and a Muslim girl - whose friendship and lives are torn asunder in riots in the State of Gujarat. The Central Board of Film Certificate ('CBFC') refused to certify the film for exhibition. The Film Certification Appellate Tribunal affirmed that order. The producer is before the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. For the reasons that we now proceed to record, we have come to the conclusion that the reasons which weighed with the CBFC and the Tribunal constitute a clear infringement of the fundamental right of the producer under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. We hold that the reasons are unsustainable and that certification for the film could not lawfully have been refused.II2. Besides 'Chand Bujh Gaya', Mr. Faaiz Anwar states that he has been associated with the production of several films, among them 'Dil Hai ke Manta Nahi',...

Saquib Abdul Hameed Nachan Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR895; 2005(1)MhLj771

V.G. Palshikar, J.1. Writ Petition No. 1742 of 2004 is filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the judgment and order passed by the Special Court under Prevention of Terrorism Act 2002 (hereinafter referred to as POTA 2002 for the sake of brevity) rejecting the application of the petitioner for directing inquiry into the encounter dated 29-03-2003 for reasons mentioned in the order dated 13-05-2004.2. Writ Petition No. 1650 of 2004 is also filed by the same petitioner challenging the framing of charges by the Special Court in POTA Special case No. 2 of 2003 pending before the Special Court. It also prays for directions regarding investigation into recoveries made under the panchanama dated 12th April and 19th April 2003 in C.R. No. 21 of 2003 in POTA Special Case No. 2 of 2003. 3. Criminal Appeal No. 983 of 2004 is also filed by the same petitioner, who is original accused No. 1 in the trial, challenging the order passed on 14th July 2004 in POTA Special Case No. 2 of 2004 by the ...

Union of India (Uoi), Through the General Manager, Western Railways an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR422

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By the present petition, the Union of India has questioned the order dated 25.4.2003 of the Mumbai Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has held that the respondent, Naresh K. Gupta's promotion should not have been deemed as if in a sealed cover in terms of para 6 of the Railway Board's letter dated 21.1.1993. Therefore, since he was already empanelled, he is entitled to be promoted from 14.6.2002 i.e. the date on which his junior has been promoted to the post of principal Head of the Department in the Railway. 2. The respondent was appointed in the Indian Railway as an Engineer in the year 1972. On 15.2.1996 he was promoted to Senior Administrative Grade of Rs.18,000 Rs.22,400.3. The present case arises out of the petitioner's claim for promotion from the Senior Administrative Grade to the next higher grade i.e. Principal Head of the Department grade of Rs.22,400 -- Rs.24,500. This promotion is on merit. A Departmenta...

Kacharu Keshav Kurhe and ors. Vs. Agricultural Produce Market Committe ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)IILLJ668Bom; 2005(2)MhLj161

A.P. Deshpande, J. 1. As a common question of fact and law is involved in these petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. All the petitioners are agriculturists and are engaged in the production of agricultural produce. The agricultural produce is to be sold in the market area of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee constituted under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the A.P.M.C. Act'), and the rules made thereunder. The Director of Marketing is the controlling authority of all the Market Committees for the entire State of Maharashtra. The State Government has made applicable the provisions of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Mathadi Act'), to the Markets established under the A.P.M.C. Act.By issuing different notifications sometime in the year 19...

Raviraj Re-rolls Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC350

1. These appeals arouse out of the order of the Commissioner (A) who in the impugned order dismissed the appeals of the company M/s Ravi Raj Rerolling Mills (P) Ltd and its Director, on merits in so far as the company's appeal is concerned and on non maintainability of the appeal of the Director in as much as the latter has not signed the appeal memorandum.2. The facts in brief are that the Central Excise officers intercepted two vehicles in which excisable goods belonging to the appellants were being carried without payment of duty. Subsequent investigation revealed that there was shortage of finished goods in the factory. Duty involved on the goods was paid by the appellants even before the Show Cause Notice was issued." 3. In the appeals before me the appellants contend that penalty and interest under Section 11 AC & 11 AB respectively is not imposable as the appellants paid the duty demanded even before the issue of Show Cause Notice. There is no dispute about the duty demande...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Shri Jagdamba Polymers Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC34

1. The issue involved in these two appeals filed by the Revenue is whether the refund of Central Excise Duty claimed by M/s. Shri Jagdamba Polyers Ltd. is hit by the time limit specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.2. Shri Hitesh Shah, ld. S.D.R., submitted that the respondents had filed refund claims on the ground that they had got manufactured HDPE woven sacks from M/s. Tirupati Packaging on job work basis; that the job worker had paid duty under protest on the goods manufactured by them; that after the matter was finally decided by the Tribunal, they had filed the refund claims. He further submitted that the claims are time barred as they have been filed beyond the period of six months specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act; that the customers cannot take the benefit of protest filed by the manufacturer as held by the Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E., Mumbai-II v. Allied Photographics India Ltd., 3. On the other hand, Shri Hardik Modh, ld. Advocate, subm...

Sanjay Insecticides Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are manufacturers of Pesticides falling under Chapter 3808.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The visit by the Central Excise officers to their unit on 21.8.2000 revealed that the appellants have removed a total of 58 consignments on the strength of delivery challan without the support of Central Excise invoices. The appellants also did not make entries in the RG 1 Register in respect of these consignments. The total duty evaded is Rs. 4,06,13/- (as in the original order: the figure should be Rs. 4,06,135/- editor) The explanation given is that the excise clerk who has been working with the appellants has suddenly resigned and therefore the Central Excise invoices were not made. In so far as non-maintenance of the R.G.1 register the appellants plead that even though the statutory register was not maintained they kept the record of production. It is also pleaded that they would have discharged the duty involved at the end of the fortnight. It is further pleade...

In Re: Sharp Industries Limited

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2005]123CompCas60(Bom); (2005)3CompLJ221(Bom); [2005]60SCL297(Bom)

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. For convenience I will refer to the applicant in Company Application No. 339 of 2004 as the company and to the applicants in the other company applications as the applicants.2. Company Application No. 338 of 2004 was taken out by the company, seeking directions for holding meetings of equity shareholders and secured creditors to consider and approve a scheme of compromise/arrangement proposed by it. In that company application, an order dated August 27, 2004, in terms of the minutes of the order was passed directing the meetings to be held. Other usual directions regarding holding and convening of the meetings were also passed. The company took out Company Application No. 339 of 2004 in Company Application No. 338 of 2004 seeking a stay of the hearing and final disposal of all the proceedings pending against the applicant-company, its directors, officers, civil/criminal in any court or Tribunal in India or abroad and that the plaintiff/appellant/complainant/ claiman...

In Re: Scheme of Compromise/Arrangement Between Sharp Industries Limit ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2005)BC373; 2005(1)BomCR13

Vazifdar S.J., J.1. For convenience I will refer to the applicant in Company Application No. 339 of 2004 as the company and to the applicants in the other Company Applications as the Applicants.2. Company Application No. 338 of 2004 was taken out by the Company, seeking directions for holding meetings of equity shareholders and secured creditors to consider and approve a scheme of compromise/arrangement proposed by it. In that company application, an order dated 27th August, 2004 in terms of the minutes of the order was passed directing the meetings to be held. Other usual directions regarding holding and convening of the meetings were also passed. The company took out Company Application No. 339 of 2004 in Company Application No. 338 of 2004 seeking a stay of the hearing and final disposal of all the proceedings pending against the applicant company, its directors, officers, civil/criminal in any Court or Tribunal in India or abroad and that the plaintiff/appellant/complainant/claiman...

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Bharat Refineries Ltd. Vs. Anil ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR672

V.M. Kanade, J.1. By order dated 26/04/2001, the learned Single Judge of this Court felt that there was a conflict of decisions between the two learned Single Judges regarding the interpretation of the provisions of Section 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(g) read with section 13(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (For short 'Bombay Rent Act'). Therefore, the learned Single Judge by order dated 26/04/2001 directed that the matter be placed before the learned Chief Justice for placing the matter before the appropriate Division Bench to resolve the conflict in the two decisions of the learned Single Judges of this Court. Accordingly, the matter has been placed before the Division Bench. The other connected matters are also placed along with Writ Petition No. 1751 of 2001. Since the issue involved in both these Petitions is identical, all these matters are decided by a common judgment.2. The controversy which falls for consideration before this Court is as to which ...