Mumbai Court December 2004 Judgments

Murlimanohar S/O Gokuldasji Bhangde Since Deceased by His Lrs. Smt. Pu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR404; 2005(2)MhLj853

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.By this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, original tenant challenges order dated 9-4-1990 passed by Appellate Authority (Additional District Magistrate, Nagpur) in exercise of appellate powers under Clause 21(2) of C.P. and Berar Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rent Control Order'). The proceedings were initiated by present respondent for grant of permission under Clause 13(3)(vi) and (vii) before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller was pleased to dismiss the said application on 7-3-1989. The original tenant/petitioner has expired during pendency of the petition and his legal heirs have been brought on record. The provisions of Clause 13(3)(vi) are about bona fide need of the landlord while Sub-clause (vii) contemplates essential repairs or alterations which cannot be made without tenant vacating the house.2. The respondent in November, 1986 moved Rent Controller, Nagpur and sought permission to terminate ten...

Shobhatai Krishnarao Zoting and ors. Vs. Joint Charity Commissioner an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR237; 2005(2)BomCR560

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. By these four petitions arising out of order dated 11th March, 2004 passed by Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur upon application under Section 41-D of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 which came to be registered as Application No. 1 of 1999. By the said order the Joint Charity Commissioner has partly allowed the application. He has held that second part of charge No. 2 levelled against non-applicants 1 to 10 before him is proved and hence, has ordered their removal from trusteeship as per provisions of Section 41-D(1)(c) of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'Trusts Act'). He has further declared that their removal was not disqualification for next election. He has constituted a body of five per-sons as body of fit persons to administer the trust in the meanwhile and has directed the said body to complete the process for holding fresh elections as per 1996 voter's list of the trust within three months. This order is challenged by applican...

Raj Prasanna Kondur Vs. Arif Taher Khan and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR383

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the respondents. Perused the records. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, on 21st March, 2004 rejecting the revision application filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12th November, 2003 passed by the competent authority at Mumbai rejecting the Application No. 19 of 2003 which was filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte order of eviction of the petitioners from the suit premises.3. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the owners of the suit premises situated at Park View, 129 Carter Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai. The suit premises were permitted to be occupied and used by the petitioner for residential purposes since 1st April, 2001 and the agreement in that regard was executed by the parties on 3rd April, 2001. The said agreement was for a period of 11 months with an option to t...

Sandip Vasantrao Lahare Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR489; 2005(4)BomCR863; 2005(2)MhLj996

V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 56-B of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules' for the purpose of brevity) on the ground that the provisions of that rule are contrary to the provisions of Section 27(3-A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for the purpose of brevity).2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the questions raised in this petition stated in brief are :The respondent No. 3 Wakadi Vikas Karyakari Society Limited, Wakadi, Taluka Rahata District Ahmednagar is a notified society as contemplated by Section 73IC of the Act. It will be called as a notified society for the purpose of clarity and brevity. The petitioner became a Member of the notified society on 27-3-2002 and since then he is the member of the notified society.3. The last general elections to the Managing Committee of the notified soci...

Indian Lead Ltd. Vs. R.L. Dalal and Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ARBLR399(Bom); 2006(2)MhLj260

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. By the present petition, the petitioners are seeking to set aside an award dated 10-6-2004 passed by the arbitrator Justice S. C. Pratap (Retired Judge of this Court). Some of the material facts of the present case are briefly enumerated are as under :-2. Tenders were invited by the petitioners for carrying out civil and structural works for their factory building at Wada, Thane. On 31-1-1997, the respondent gave their quotation for the said work. The petitioners accepted the said offer of the respondents by their letter dated 31-4-1997 and released the letter of intent and appointed the respondent as the contractor. Under the terms of the contract, the contract value was Rs. 4,85 lacs and was required to be completed within a period of 9 1/2 months.3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 22-4-1997, the petitioner requested the respondent to deviate from the term and conditions of the contract and asked that the contract should be completed not in one stage but in...

Pukhrajmal Sagarmal Lunkad (Deceased Through L.Rs.) and ors. Vs. the M ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR271; (2005)107BOMLR685

A.P. Deshpande, J.1. The petitioners claim to be the owners of land bearing Survey No. 431/ B, admeasuring 2 acres, situated at Mehrun, within the municipal limits of Municipal Council, Jalgaon. The petitioner Nos. 5 to 7 claim to be the owners of adjoining land, bearing Survey No.431 /A-1, 2 and 3, admeasuring 2 acres. In the year 1974, the respondent No. 1, Jalgaon Municipal Council, had declared its intention to prepare a Town Planning Scheme No. 3 for development of an area, covering both the survey numbers, owned by the petitioners. Under the said scheme, the land bearing Survey No. 431 /B was allotted Plot No. 288 and earmarked as Reservation No. 107, for public purpose, namely 'Garden'. Plot No. 431/A-1, 2 and 3, was also reserved in the said Town Planning Scheme No. 3 for the purpose of Library, Maternity Home and Dispensary and was allotted plot No. 287 and earmarked as reservation Nos. 104 and 105. The lands in question were agricultural lands, at the relevant time.2. The Mun...

Damnet Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., N.J. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT225Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals against the same order, by the Company (herein after referred to DCPL for short) its Managing Director and an employee are being disposed by the common order.2.1 By an order dated 31/10/2003, Commissioner Central Excise, Mumbai - IV determined and demanded duty amounting to Rs. 79,25,316.80 by ordering confirmation of a total demand of duty made by thirteen notices issued from 12.02.93 to 3.04.2003 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 79,25,316.80 Under Rule 173Q on the appellants company (herein after referred to as DCPL for short). The land building plant machinery etc, and other things used in the manufacture and disposal of the goods were ordered to be confiscated Under Rule 173Q(2) and an offer to redeem the same was given to DCPL on payment of fine of Rs. 15 Lakhs ; 44 cans of 'CRC Acryform' found at the premises of M/s. Tri-Techno Services were ordered to be confiscated under Rule 173Q(1) with an option given to redeem the same on a fine of Rs. 10 Lakhs ; 15 cans seize...

Surendra Engineering Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC213

1. The assessee is in appeal aggrieved by the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs. Jawahar Customs House, Nhava Sheva, wherein he imposed fine of Rs. 25,000 on the assessee after ordering confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The appellant M/s. Surendra Engineering Corpn., is a recognized Export House, engaged in Export of various items, including Sugar Mill Machinery and part thereof. The appellant also undertakes repair of worn out sugar mill rollers by re-shelling them. This activity is confined not only within the country, but also for the purpose of export earning valuable foreign exchange. In May 1998, the appellant imported 8 Nos. of Shafts for sugar mill rolls from France for the specific purpose of repairing them by re-shelling and re-export back to France. In order to clear the goods through customs, the requisite Bill of Entry No. 03870 dated 29.5.1998 was filed in the Nhava-Sheva Customs alongwith all supporting docu...

Associated Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal under Section 129(A) of the Customs Act, 1962 filed by the appellant praying waver of pre-deposit of the duty amount of Rs. 1,53,051/- and its recovery, pending disposal of the appeal by granting Stay Order.2. The Dy. Commissioner of Customs, Appraising Group 2BI, has confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,53,051/- under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 being the duty short levied while rejecting the invoice price under Rule 10(A) of the Custom Valuation (Imported Goods) Rules, 1988, read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and ordered the value of the goods to be taken at USD-526 PMT, CIF Mumbai, for assessment to duty in. terms of Rule 8 of the Custom Valuation Rule 1988, read with Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.3. This Order is upheld by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), hence the appeal.4. It is observed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) that the appellants have failed to produce the manufacturer's invoice in spite of ample opportunity. H...

Needle Roller Bearing Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against Order-in-Original dated 30.11.1999 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Mumbai, wherein he confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 2,28,221.63 against the assessee under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposed penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1946.2. M/s. Needle Roller Bearing Co. Ltd., Thane, (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) holding Central Excise Licence for manufacture of goods falling under T.I.49 of the first schedule of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, inter alia, manufactured and cleared the needle roller and bushes as shown in their gate passes issued by them to the various customers during the period from July 1978 to 15.8.84 on the basis of the prices of the said goods declared in the price list part 1 of the Proforma.3. Assessee charged to the customers some extra value on account of carriage outwards and wooden cases packing materials, which was in th...