Mumbai Court March 2004 Judgments

Waman Madhav Sakharkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR848; 2004(6)BomCR907; 2004(3)MhLj787

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for the respondents waiveservice.By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. The petitioner was engaged in the Army as a Signalman in the Corps of Signals between 13th February 1963 and 28th August, 1969. He came to be discharged on medical grounds. The Certificate of service that was issued by the Army authorities contains an endorsement that the Character of the petitioner is 'Very Good'; that he has been awarded the Sainya Sewa Medal and had rendered War Service, in the theaters of operation in Jammu and Kashmir between 5th May 1964 and 9th April 1968. The petitioner was certified as fit for civil employment. After a relatively short break in service between 29th August 1969 and 11th March, 1970 the petitioner came to be employed as a clerk in the office of the Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. Thereafter, with another break of two days, the petitioner came to be engaged in the service of the Police, as a Sub-Inspector with effect fr...

Shamrao Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2005)DMC364

P.S. Brahme, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant original accused challenging the judgment dated 1.6.2000, passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, in Sessions Case No. 173 of 1999, by which he is convicted for offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months, respectively.2. On the night of 6.4.1998, at about 9.00 p.m. the victim Sangita, the wife of accused, committed suicide in the house in the presence of accused by pouring kerosene on her person. The appellant tried to extinguish the fire in his bid to save his wife Sangita. She suffered 100 per cent burns. She was brought to the hospital and while she was undergoing treatment, Police Head Constable...

Air India Ltd. Vs. D.G. Patil

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)BomCR826; (2005)107BOMLR761; [2005(104)FLR782]

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This writ petition takes exception to the Judgment and order passed by the National Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, dated March 3, 1999, in Approval Application No. NTB/42/1995. Briefly stated, respondent No. 1 was working as senior master technician in Equipment Facility Department. He was transferred by order dated 7th February, 1992 from Cabin Repair section (Sahar Side) to fabrication section (Santa Cruz Side) within the same airport in Mumbai. Respondent No. 1 did not comply with the said transfer order; instead, absented himself from service. Since respondent No. 1 had to his credit privilege leave, his absence from 7th February, 1992 till 25th July, 1992 was regularised by the petitioner by adjusting the said privilege leave. In other words, respondent No. 1 remained on unauthorised leave from 26th July, 1992. It is the case of the petitioner that since 26th July, 1992, respondent No. 1 did not attend work and was unauthorisedly absent. However, according to r...

Commodore Narinder M. Pandit S/O Late Munshi Ram Arjundas Pandit Vs. t ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)BomCR814; (2004)106BOMLR98

A.S. Oka, J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties.2. The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the Court Martial proceedings initiated against the petitioner.3. The petitioner was granted permanent commission in Indian Navy in January, 1971 and in January, 2000, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Commodore. On 20th October, 2003, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet and connected documents including notice of trial and was called upon to present himself before the Court Martial. The charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has committed various offences under Navy Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Navy Act') as well as certain offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Prevention of Corruption Act'). On 28th October, 2003, the Court Martial assembled which was adjourned to 13th November, 2003. On 13th Novemb...

Kadarbhai J. Vora Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT555Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant was penalised in a Custom case relating to alleged smuggling of foreign made gold biscuit of 10 Tolas, valued at Rs. 64,400/-. The appeal against imposition of penalty was rejected by Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal before the Tribunal.2. The appellants are not present. They have furnished written submissions. Heard the Id." D.R. who supports the order of the lower authority.3. In this case the said gold was seized by Porbandar Police from one Shri Shantilal Paida. The same was handed over to Customs Authorities for further investigations. Investigations revealed that Shri Shantilal named Shri Kadarbhai Ismailbhai Vora (the appellant) as the owner of the gold. The appellant in his statement before the Customs Authorities stated that the appellant had purchased the said gold from Bombay from Sudha Jewellers. He also produced a bill of Sanghvi Enterprises. He also admitted that the pretase was partly framed by Shri Shantilal.4. The data of seizure by the polic...

Ace Glass Containers and P.A. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 43,88,274/-and penalty of equal amount imposed upon the company as well as penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on its Executive arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, who has confirmed the demand on the ground that it represents transitional credit wrongly availed by the assessee as credit was availed on inputs contained in finished goods which was cleared from the factory of the appellants prior to the filing of the declaration under Rule 57G.2. We have heard both sides. Prima facie no case for total waiver has been made out on the merits of the case in the light of the clear language of Rule 57H(1)(b) which provides that transitional credit is available in respect of inputs/finished products provided that such inputs are used in the manufacture of final products which are cleared from the factory after filing the declaration made under Rule 57G.Regarding the applicability of the extended period of limitation the conte...

Tirupati Steel and Sardar Steel Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The delay of 43 days in filing of the above appeal by M/s. Tirupathi Steel is condoned on the ground that the unit was closed and that in identical circumstances the delay was condoned in the case of similar other assessees.2. Now we take up the applications for waiver of pre-deposit by Tirupathi Steel and Sardar Steel Industries Ltd. as the issue is common in both the cases. After hearing both sides for some time on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 4,66,900/- by Tirupathi Steel and Rs. 18,50,593/- by Sardar Steel, we find that the issue in dispute is covered by the decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal in Mohinder Steels ltd. Vs. CCE 2002 (145) ELT 290. The issue in dispute, namely, recovery of amount consequent upon determination of annual capacity of production under the Induction furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 has been decided by the larger bench holding that the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be invok...

Uni-sankyo Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT195Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal of the appellant is directed against the impugned order-in-appeal, whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected their appeal against the order-in-original passed by the Additional Commissioner Customs.2. The facts in brief are that the appellants imported a consignment of diagnostic chemicals through courier mode under the Courier Import Export (Clearance) Regulations 1998. The import of the said chemicals through courier mode was not permitted without an appropriate import licence. Hence, such import was treated as a violation of the Exim Policy. Therefore, the goods under importation were confiscated with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 30,000/-, besides penalty of Rs. 15,000/- was also imposed on the appellants. The appeal against the order was rejected. Hence the instant appeal before the Tribunal.4. The appellants have invited my attention to the fact that, the instructions to the overseas suppliers were to send the goods by air and ...

Exide Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.7,01,342/- arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), the demand stands confirmed on the ground that the applicants were required to pay duty on clearance of rejected inputs at the rate and price prevalent on the date of clearance in terms of Rule 57AB(1)(b) of the Central Excise rules, rejecting the contention of the applicants that the duty required to be paid on such removal is duty equal to modvat credit/cenvat credit taken. The period of dispute is July, 2000 to May, 2001.2. On hearing both sides we see prima facie force in the submission of the applicants that the issue is covered in their favour, for the period up to March, 2001 by the larger bench decision in the case of CCE, Vadodara Vs. Asia Brown Boveri Ltd. 2000 (120) ELT 228 wherein the Tribunal interpreted the provisions of Rule 57F(1)(ii) [Rule 57AB(I)(b) explanation was identically worded ] and for the subsequent period by Board's ...

Annarao Baloba Gaikwad Vs. the Solapur Municipal Corporation and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR601; 2004(6)BomCR456; 2004(3)MhLj101

V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') on the ground that the acquisition of his land is unsustainable under the provisions of the act. Further proceedings were stayed when Rule was granted. Replies have been filed and the matter was heard. Both the parties advanced their respective submissions in this regard. The contention of Shri Kumbhakoni, Advocate was that there has been violation of provisions of Section 5A as the petitioners were not heard or their objections to acquisition were not properly considered. We are unable to accept this contention for the reason that the notification under Section 4 which is Ex. H at page 35 itself stipulates that the objectors would be heard by themselves or through their lawyers. Then there is unequivocal statement made on affidavit that interested persons were heard after due notice as contemplated by Sect...