Mumbai Court February 2004 Judgments

Jaikisan S/O Jaynarayan Bhaiyya Vs. United Western Bank Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR705; 2004(2)MhLj755

A.S. Oka, J.1. By an Order dated 20th January, 2004 it was directed that the present petition shall be decided finally at the admission stage. I had called for the report of the Office for confirming that the present petition pertains to the jurisdiction of the Single Bench. Accordingly, the Office has submitted report. The petition was finally heard and the counsel for the Parties argued at length. The petition is taken up today for dictation of the judgment.2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner for challenging the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) and the judgment and Order passed by the learned Chairperson of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal).3. The respondent Bank filed an Original Application No. 413 of 2001 against M/s S. N. K. Overseas Limited and six others incl...

Bajirao S/O Suryabhan Kadam and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2004)DMC445; 2004(3)MhLj165

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. Both the appellants were put on trial in Sessions Case No. 15/95 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Beed for the offences under Section 498-A, 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (the Code for short) and by judgment and order dated 29th January 1996 the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to convict both the accused for an offence punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of the Code, whereas the accused No. 1 has been in addition convicted under Section 302 of the Code and accused No. 2 has been acquitted for the same offence. Accused No. 1 is sentenced to undergo R. I. for life for his conviction under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and both the accused have been sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of the Code. The Sessions Court recorded that accused No. 2 was arrested on 12-1-1994 and she was in jail till 19-1-1994 and therefore, for the said period she was...

Bhalchandra Anandrao Kango and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)ALLMR330; 2004(3)MhLj402

B.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. All these three petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, raise a common question viz. the power of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 - the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra (CIDCO) to levy and collect service charges from the residents of New Aurangabad and hence they are being decided by this common judgment.2. In the first petition, the petitioners are residents of New Aurangabad who were allotted residential plots by CIDCO for construction of residential dwellings, whereas in the second petition a co-operative housing society is the petitioner. The third petition has been filed by a public trust registered for the purpose of welfare activities in the N-5 sector of CIDCO, Aurangabad. In the first petition the respondent No. 3 had issued, sometimes in February/March, 1990, bills for service charges and called upon the plot owners to pay the same at the rate of Rs. 4/- per square meter for residential plots [built up area] and Rs. 6/...

Lachhobai Wd/O Gopal Yadao and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)MhLj142

S.T. Kharche, J.1. By invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this writ petition challenges the order dated 29-12-1990 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) in Revenue Appeal No. 162/B-109/88 whereby the learned Tribunal confirmed the order dated 17-12-1983 passed by the Tahsildar in revenue case No. 6/LND-31/82-83 holding that the respondent No. 2 tribal-transferor is entitled for restoration of the land which is in possession of the non tribals i.e. Kashiram Laxman and Tukaram Daji and also directing them to deliver possession to the tribal, by exercising powers under Section 3(4) of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (for short the restoration Act).The relevant facts are as under :2. Respondent No. 2 Chindhu Halbi belongs to tribal caste and he owned agricultural land gat No. 31/1 area 3.00 acres (i.e. survey Nos. 94 and 95 of mouza Salaitola, Tahsil Salekasa, District Bhandara). He trans...

B and C Kamgar Sanghatana Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Works Divisio ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR112; 2004(4)MhLj187

S.T. Kharche, J.1. By invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, this petition is directed against the order dated 5-9-1991 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Amravati, whereby he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Resident Deputy Collector (for short R.D.C.) in Eviction Proceedings bearing No. R.C. No. MRC-81/EVI/Amravati-2/90-91, directing the petitioner to vacate the government premises on the ground that the said premises were required for Government purposes as contemplated under Sub-section (c) of Section 4 of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 (for short the Eviction Act).2. Relevant facts are as under :Respondent No. 1, The Executive Engineer of P.W.D., Amravati, and respondent No. 2, The State of Maharashtra, own a premises at Amravati, out of which the petitioner was inducted into the possession of one room for the purpose of running its union office. The resp...

Jaichandra Dyandeo Tyade Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through Its Sec ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR107; (2004)106BOMLR134

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Shri Mardikar. learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Puranik, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, and Mrs. Bhandarkar, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.8.2003 passed by the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to 'Koli Mahadeo' (Scheduled Tribe).3. Shri Mardikar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that the impugned order passed by the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee is violative of principles of natural justice since petitioner was not given opportunity to put forth his say on the report of Police Vigilance Cell and objections raised by the petitioner were not considered. It is contended that during the course of home enquiry, Inspector, Vigilance Cell recorded statements of two persons, namely, Shaligram and Samadhan. However, these two persons are not at all related to peti...

Abbot Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed upon the applicants herein who had imported analysers used for diagnostic blood testing arises out of the order of fee Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai who has held that the import of these second-hand equipments was restricted in terms of the Exim Policy, that they are not Capita] goods, import of which was permissible and that although they are equipment and instruments for testing they are not used for research and development and according to him only testing equipments, used for research and development, come within the purview of the definition of capital goods.2. The applicants' contention is that the instruments and equipments for testing fall in a separate category by themselves and it is not that only such instruments and equipments for testing used for research and development would fall within the definition of capital goods, and that a very narrow interpretation has been made by the adjudicating ...

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Mukut Plastics Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is a revenue appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the impugned order-in-appeal, the department's case of duty evasion has been rejected. In the order-in-original passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, it has been held that, the respondents have wrongfully availed the modvat credit amounting to Rs. 6,74,082/-. The ground for recovery of modvat credit of the aforesaid amount was that, on the basis of stock verification of modvat records and physical stock, a shortage of 1 MT of HDPE granules was noticed. The statement of one Shri Ashok Halwai, Accountant & Excise-in-charge of the respondents, was recorded wherein non-receipt of the material of 1 M.T of HDPE granules vide invoice No.843 dated 22/12/98 from M/s. Silver Plastochem Pvt Ltd., a registered dealer, was admitted. The credit equivalent to Rs. 8224/- was reversed.It is also stated that the virgin HDPE granules were in fact sold in the open market and the same was sub...

Jagadamba Lamps (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT170Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Vide the impugned order the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 16,35,727/- on the appellants and imposed penalty equal to duty upon them on the ground that they had wrongly availed small scale exemption under Notification 1/93 dated 28/02/1993 during the period 01/04/1994 to 30/11/1995 on headlamp assemblies, for the reason that they were affixed with the brand name 'RAVI' owned by another unit, namely, Patodia Glass industries Limited and were hence hit by the embargo contained in paragraph 4 of the notification above named. The extended period of limitation has been applied against the appellants as the show cause notice is dated 31/12/1996.3. On merits the appellants have no case in view of the fact that there is no dispute that the brand name 'RAVI' is the brand name of M/s.Patodia Glass Industries Limited and indeed has been so accepted and that the goods manufactured by the appellants herein, namely, headlamp assemblies (on which product...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Bobsons Corporation

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Revenue has filed this application for stay of Commissioner (Appeals)' order on the grounds that . (i) Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not appreciating that 50% of the goods were clearly serviceable in nature and not scrap and that 50% of the goods were not serviceable and is admitted by the respondent; (ii) The Commissioner (Appeals) should have held that respondents' admission of 50% goods of serviceable nature clearly established the misdeclaration since the goods were declared as scrap; 2. After hearing both sides, and considering the materials, it is found that the Commissioner (Appeals) has come to the following conclusion: "5. In the above report, it has been stated that the High Speed Steel Scrap contains mainly broken, damaged and rusted parts of used drilling components and that most of the parts are broken bits/pieces of used drilling machinery which is mostly damaged and unusable. Having said that, the valuers further say ".... However being on the conservative side, I ...