Mumbai Court February 2004 Judgments

Patel Engg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)BomCR898; [2005]127CompCas645(Bom); [2004]52SCL603(Bom)

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This order will dispose of the application preferred by M/s. Patel Engineering Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Applicant') being Company Application No. 405 of 2002 and all reports of the Official Liquidator concerning the issue regarding the steps to be taken in respect of the premises in question, which were originally occupied by the company in liquidation on lease.2. The above numbered Application has been filed by the applicant praying that the Official Liquidator be directed to hand over quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of the premises described in Exhibits 'A' and 'C' to the affidavit in support of that application and also for further relief of payment of a sum of Rs. 7,24,03,372 (Rupees Seven Crores Twenty-four lakhs Three thousand Three hundred Seventy-two), together with interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the principal sum of Rs. 59,20,411 (Rupees Fifty-nine lakhs Twenty thousand Four hundred Eleven) from the date of filing o...

Bapu Tatoba Ahiwale Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004CriLJ2364

P.V. Kakade, J.1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 8-3-2000 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Sessions Case No. 227 of 1998 wherein the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default to undergo R.I. for 5 months.2. The facts giving rise to the present case, in brief, are thus--Complainant Prakash Patil was running a factory under the name and style as 'Rubber Plast Industries' in M.I.D.C. Kupwad, since 1991. In the year 1998, there were 9 workers in the factory of the complainant. It was being run in two shifts. The deceased as well as PW-3 Balasaheb Umdale were also the workers in the factory in the year 1998. On 1-8-1998, the deceased, accused and PW-3 Balasaheb Umdale were working in the second shift. At about 7.30 a.m. Balasaheb Umdale informed the complainant about the quarrel between the accused and the deceas...

Ratansi Morarji (P.) Ltd. Vs. Kirti D. Morarji

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR800; [2004]55SCL310(Bom)

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. This notice of motion has been taken out by the Applicants/original Defendants for a direction to the original Plaintiff to pay damages in the amount of Rs. 18,37,579 with interest.2. The facts (that are necessary and material for deciding this notice of motion) as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the motion are:(i) One Manibai R. Morarji (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased' was during her lifetime the owner of, inter alia, 182 shares in the Applicant /company.(ii) The deceased died sometime in May, 1968, leaving a will dated 1st July, 1961;(iii) In the said will, the deceased did not make any provision whatsoever either with regard to the said 182 shares or with regard to her residuary estate. The said 182 shares would, therefore, have devolved on her heirs as if in intestacy;(iv) One of the executors of her will, her son, Pratapsinh Morarji, filed a Petition in this Court, being Testamentary Petition being No. 233 of 1969 in order to obtain proba...

Dr. Shrinivasa Rao S/O Sitaramaiah Gunmadidala Vs. Dean and Chairman, ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR392; (2004)106BOMLR193

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Kaptan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Manohar. learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 29, 31, 33, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 46 and 48 and Shri Kapgate, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 13, 22, 26, 30, 34, 35, 39, 42 and 44.2. Shri Kaptan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that petitioner belongs to reserved category (Other Backward Class). The petitioner completed his M.B.B.S. course in the year 1999 from Sewagram Medical College and also one and half years' rural service. At the relevant time, petitioner was eligible for getting registration in the post graduate course and applied for the same for the academic session 2003-04 pursuant to notification dated 13.11.2002 issued by the respondent No. 1. It is contended that a common merit list was prepared and displayed by the respondent No. 1 in which petitioner was shown at serial No. 26. The petitioner in his application for regi...

Bhaskar Bhimrao Atalkar Vs. Janta Education Society Through Its Secret ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR190; (2004)106BOMLR182

S.T. Kharche, J.1. By invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/employee has challenged the order dated 6.7.1991 passed by the School Tribunal rejecting the appeal of the employee holding that his termination was legal as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short the M.E.P.S. Act).2. Relevant facts are as under :The petitioner was appointed as assistant teacher in the respondents' school by virtue of the appointment order dated 26.10.1987. The employee joined the secondary school as assistant teacher on 2.11.1987. The appointment was temporary for the period of one year commencing 31.10.1987 to 30.10.1 988 and with an option that the appointment would be continued for one year on probation. The employee continued to work in the school even after 30.10.1988 and the Education Officer/respondent No. 5 accorded approval to the appointme...

Hmg Packagings Pvt. Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These applications for waiver of predeposit of duty and penalties imposed by the Commissioner and stay recovery thereof arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise Raigad.2. Briefly the facts are that the applicants arc manufacturers of excisable goods falling under Chapter heading 48 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They filed a classification list claiming exemption, on printed corrugated boxes and cartons manufacturing by them under Notification No. 59/88 dated 1.3.88 on the ground that printed boxes/cartons were made out of paper and paper board falling under Chapter sub-heading 48.04 and 4805.30. The Department's contention is that the appellants manufacture printed corrugated boxes out of printed paper board and such printed paper board falls under Chapter Subheading 4811.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act and that the printed corrugated boxes are not entitled for exemption under Notification No. 59/88 for that reason. The basis for such c...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Neco Centricast

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is revenue's appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (A), whereunder the order-in-original passed against the respondents was set aside. Vide the order-in-original the refund claim of the respondents for Rs. 1,09,268/- was rejected holding that the payment was not under protest hence the claim was time barred. The said amount was paid by the respondents vide debit in RG 23 Pt-II on 26.9.95.3. It is noted that the refund arose consequent to a favourable order dated 10.2.99 obtained by the respondents from Commissioner (Appeals), The amount was claimed on 9.4.99, which is within the period of 6 months from the date of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The departmental authorities however held that the claim ought to have been filed within 6 months from the date of payment.4. The logic advanced by the department is somewhat intriguing. In the event the respondents were to file such a claim, the lower authorities were bound to reject it on the grounds ...

Kishor Pumps Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(167)ELT522Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The request is to waive the pre-deposit of duty and penalty.2. Since the export is against a bond executed by the merchant-manufacturer, executed before the Maritime Collector, the merchant-exporter is accountable to the Maritime Collector and not the appellants. Prime facie the appellants have a strong case. Hence, the pre-deposit of the entire amount of duty and penalty is waived and their recoveries stayed till the disposal of appeal....

Century Textiles and Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These three appeals are taken up for disposal by this common order.After hearing both sides and considering that issues involved in these appeals are inter-related and relate to the inclusion/exclusion of these charges from the values to be determined. The charges are explained as - (i) MUKADAMI CHARGES which related to transport of goods from godown outside the factory to railway yards or transport company godowns/trucks. (ii) GODOWN RENT for storage of goods outside the factory, which is charged, as rent, if the buyer does not lift the material in stipulated period of time. On a question from the Bench, the Ld. Advocate could not specify the period after which such godown rent charges were recovered and this important fact is required to be established. (iii) BANK CHARGES are charges after goods are cleared and what bank recovers from the appellants. (iv) INSURANCE CHARGES are charges for insurance of the goods from godown to customers' premises. (v) LOADING CHARGES which were su...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Lloyds Steel India Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT224Tri(Mum.)bai

Though revenue's appeals have been the assigned separate numbers by the registry, I note that it is only a single appeal, against order-in-Appeal No. PKA/751/M-III & NGP/2001 dated 31.8.2001.Consequently I dismiss the subsequent appeal E/3721/01-Mum. as being infructuous.2. As regards the appeal E/3663/01-Mum is concerned, the facts are as under:- The appellants brought back to their factory certain finished goods which were previously cleared from their factory on payment of duty. It is an admitted position that, the duty which was initially paid was under provisional assessment basis. The appellants filed necessary intimations in form D-3, which were verified by the concerned Central Excise officers in charge of the factory. It is admitted that the sheets in coil form were subjected to cutting to obtain cut lengths, which did not amount to manufacture. It is also admitted fact that no duty was required to be paid on the subsequent removals as the goods could be identified with t...