Mumbai Court December 2004 Judgments

Vijaykumar Ramrang Chaudhar Vs. D.K. Soonawalla and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom174; 2005(4)ALLMR138; 2005(5)BomCR842; 2005(2)MhLj467

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff inter-alia seeking an order and decree against the Defendants to hand over vacant possession of the flat No. 1B in the building known as Jawaharabad in Hawaharabad Co-operative Housing Society at Plot No. 35, 9th Road, TPS (IV) Bandra, Bombay. Further reliefs are also sought as and by way of damages and various other interim reliefs. 2. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was in use, occupation and possession of the premises under a leave and licence agreement dated 1.11.1972 and he has been physically dispossessed from the suit premises sometime or about in November, 1995 by the Defendant. In view of the unlawful dispossession, the Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of possession of the premises under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is the case of the Plaintiff that a prior suit in the Small Causes Court is pending which was filed by the mother of the Defendant No. 1 and the...

Franco Indian Research Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Unichem Laboratories Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(30)PTC131(Bom)

D.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. This notice of motion is taken out by the plaintiffs. By this notice of motion, the plaintiffs seek various interim reliefs to restrain the defendants from using the word mark 'EVACAL' in relation to their product. The registered trade mark of the plaintiffs is 'EVACUOL'.2. According to the plaintiffs, in the year 1963, one Michel Postel had adopted this word mark 'EVACUOL' and applied for registration as trade mark in class 5 of Fourth Schedule under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959. The said mark was registered on 1st October 1963 in clause 5 in respect of pharmaceutical preparations being laxatives. The registration of trade mark has been renewed from time to time. This mark was assigned by the registered owner from time to time to Griffon Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. In the year 1994, the said trade mark was assigned in favour of plaintiff No. 1 alongwith goodwill by deed of assignment dated 10th October 1994. According to the averments in the plaint, the ...

Vasant S/O Pandhari Shripad Vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scru ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR178; 2005(3)BomCR173; 2005(2)MhLj224

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.2. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.3. The present writ petition is directed against the interim order dated 16-10-2004 passed by the respondent No. 1 - Scheduled Tribe Caste Certification Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, whereby the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Halbi - Schedule Tribe came to be invalidated.4. Mr. Bhangde, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the instant case the petitioner received the complete copy of the Police Vigilance Cell Report on 9-8-2004 and was called for hearing on 6-9-2004. It is submitted that on 6- 9-2004 the petitioner requested for 15 days time to file reply to the Police Vigilance Cell Report as well as to produce evidence. This request of the petitioner was rejected by the Scrutiny Committee on 6-9-2004 itself in view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Addl Comm...

Prabhakar S/O Sadashiorao Talatule Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR451; 2005(2)MhLj390

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges Order dated 9-9-1992 passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Ceiling Appeal No. 59 of 1992 thereby upholding Order dated 13-7-1992 passed by Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Parsheoni (S. L. D. T.).2. It appears that in proceedings Under amended Ceiling Act 67.5 Acres of land of the petitioner was declared as surplus and the matter came before this Court in Writ Petition No. 560 of 1989. On 27-1-1992 the said petition was disposed of by permitting the petitioner/land holder to make choice. It appears that thereafter the petitioner appeared on 27-2-1992 before the S. L. D. T. and as records were not received the matter was taken up on 1-4-1992 on which date the petitioner submitted Form No. VII and VIII giving his choice. On 6-4-1992 the petitioner submitted an application therein pointing out that in view of consolidation proceedings his holding is reduced by 8.89 ac...

Warana Project Circle and anr. Vs. Hanmantrao Vasantrao Bagal

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2005(105)FLR1115]

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Two contentions have been raised by the learned Asstt. Government Pleader appearing in support of this petition impugning the order passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Kolhapur in Complaint (ULP) No. 561 of 1994.The first, submission is that the Warana Project Circle, Warana Bhavan, Kolhapur and the Doodhganga Canal Division No. 1, Kolhapur is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The second submission is that the Court below ought to have taken into consideration the fact that there is no reversion in the instant case at all.2. The respondent was appointed as a typist in 1974. At his request, he was posted as a tracer which is equivalent to the post of typist. In 1994, it was brought to the notice of the petitioner that the change as made is contrary to the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules, 1981 and therefore by a communication dated 12th December, 1994 the petitioners repatriated respondent to the post of...

Commissioner of Customs (P) Vs. Shri Dinesh Raysoni and Shri

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(192)ELT565Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Revenue had earlier filed an appeal in the same matter against previous Order-in-Appeal No. 48/2002.BP dated 17.05.2002, which were remanded back to the lower authority to decide afresh the case taking into account goods covered Under Section 123 of the Customs Act and on hearing both sides vide its Order C-III-253 to 256 WZB/2003 dated 31.01.2003.2. Revenue did not challenge the Order of CEGAT dated 31.01.2003 and also did not appear before C.C. (Appeals). The C.C. (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. 09/2004/APTS dated 24.02.2004, upheld the order as regards confiscation of wrist watches in appeal No. S/49-01/2004 TS worth Rs. 1,39,000/- and in case of appeal No. S/49-2/2004 IS worth Rs. 1,44,000/- and ordered to be released on payment of fine of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 35,000/- respectively. The remaining goods were found to be non-notified and the Order of confiscation of the same was set aside. Personal penalty was reduced from Rs. 14,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-and from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs...

Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT137Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants herein, during the relevant period had taken on lease a refinery plant for refining of De-gummed Soya Oil for the period 15-5-2000 to 14-10-2000. For the said purpose, they were importing Crude Soya Vegetable Oil of edible grade on concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 16/2000-Cus., dated 1-3-2000. During the lease period the appellants had imported a total quantity of 5123.206 MT of Crude Oil. However, it was found that they had utilized only 4989.421 MT of oil. Inasmuch as the entire oil was not utilized for refining, the benefit of concessional rate of Customs duty under Serial No. 30 of the said notification was sought to be denied to them in respect of the balance quantity of 133.785 MT. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 30-3-2001 was issued to them proposing to confirm differential duty to the tune of Rs. 5,85,826/- under the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The notice also proposed imposition of personal penalty.2. During adjudi...

Raj Petroleum Products Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC153

1. M/s Raj Petroleum products Ltd. the appellant are assessed under Central Excise Act, 1944 at their factory in Mumbai herein after referred to RP-M for brevity), where they are engaged in the manufacture of petroleum specialty products falling under CETA 1985 tariff heading 2710.90 & 271010. In other factory of their own at Panoli Gujarat (referred herein after as RPP for brevity) they are also manufacturing the same goods.2. RP-M and RP-P are availing Modvat cedit on inputs. The officers of Central Excise Preventive Mumbai, on 19.11.98 conducted checks at the Mumbai factory, ie RP-M and found that huge quantity of imported oil was received without any corresponding entry in Central Excise Record maintained by RP-M. They made inquiries, searches of RP-M, RP-P. Raj Lubricants (Madras), Raj Petroleum Agency Hyderabad premises were conducted, further inquires made and show cause notice dated 24.5.1999 was issued to iii) Shri Kalubai, & Shri D.R. Choth and employees of M/s Raj P...

B.V. Jewels Vs. the Commissioner of Customs,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant is a 100% EOU set up in the Santacruz Electronic Export Processing Zone (SEEPZ). The appellant hold a licence for manufacture of studded gold jewellery for which purpose they import standard gold and semi precious/precious stones and mountings for studded jewellery. The import is made either directly or through MMTC.The exemption was claimed under the provisions of Notification No.196/87-Cus and 177/94-Cus for the purposes of import of gold and stones. The appellant's factory was visited by the revenue authorities on 11/11/95, who conducted the stock taking of the gold and concluded that there was certain shortage of the same. It was also believed that inasmuch as the appellants have failed to maintain proper accounts showing wastage of gold, they cannot claim wastage to the maximum of the limit prescribed under the said notification.2. Subsequently, on 21/11/97 a show cause notice was issued alleging that the appellants had imported gold through MMTC in terms of the ...

Hindustan Platinum Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT407Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These applications for waiver of pre-deposit of defy and penalties arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-IV.2. Briefly the facts are that applicants M/s Hindustan Platinum Private Limited were engaged in refining and manufacturing of precious metals -Platinum, Palladium, Rhodium and products thereof falling under Chapter 71, 84, 38 and 28 of Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. The goods falling under Chapter 84, 38 & 28 of CETA were cleared on payment of duty and those falling under Chapter 71 were cleared without payment of duty. The Officers of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) on intelligence that the applicants were manufacturing certain dutiable compounds of precious metals at an intermediate stage during the course of refining precious metals but were not discharging duty thereon carried out investigations. Based on these investigations show cause notice was issued asking the applicants to show cause as to why the compou...