Mumbai Court March 2004 Judgments

India Farmers Private Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR790; 2004(5)BomCR231; 2004(3)MhLj112

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard counsel appearing for the parties. There is chequered history which has led to the filing of this petition. However, suffice it to observe that the Additional Collector had sent a communication dated 23rd March, 1981 to the petitioners purported to be an order of eviction. That was challenged before this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 1975 of 1985. That Writ Petition was allowed on 31st July, 1991. This Court directed the Collector to re-examine the matter by treating the said communication dated March 23, 1981 as show cause notice and pass necessary orders after affording fair opportunity to the petitioners. Consequent thereto, the Collector proceeded with the inquiry against the petitioners and passed order on 26th April, 1993 terminating the lease of the petitioners. That order was, however, challenged by the petitioners before the Additional Commissioner which appeal was allowed on 30th March, 1994 by setting aside the order passed by the Collector. A...

Smt. Carlota Fernandes Vs. Mukund Shamba Naik and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2004)BC269

N.A. Britto, J.1. This appeal is filed by the defendant No. 1 in Special Civil Suit No. 156/1991/A against the judgment dated 30.9.1996 of the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa by which the said learned Civil Judge Senior Division dismissed the counter-claim filed by the defendant No. 1 and decreed the Suit filed by the plaintiffs.2. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose of the present Appeal and for that purpose the parties hereto shall be referred to by their names as they appear in the cause title of the said Civil Suit.3. The plaintiff Nos. 1, 3, 5 and along with the defendant No. 2 in the said Civil Suit were brothers who purchased a property known as 'Gharbhat' bearing Survey No. 110/2 by Sale Deed dated 8.11.1990 from one Maria Belmira Lourdes Alda de Rocha and others.4. The defendant No. 1 as plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 2/88/A for recovery of a loan given to defendant No. 2 in the sum of Rs. 85,075.20 and the said Suit came to be decreed by judgme...

The Sangli Bank Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator, High Court and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2005]128CompCas653(Bom); (2004)3CompLJ398(Bom); 2005(1)MhLj916

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. This appeal by a scheduled bank seeks to challenge the order passed by a Single Judge (Radhakrishnan, J.) on 12 February 2004, on a company application moved by the appellant herein in a winding up petition bearing Company Petition No. 412 of 1985 which has already been disposed of. This Company Application No. 386 of 2003 moved by the appellant herein sought a review of the order dated 22 August 2003 passed by the learned Judge on the liquidator's report confirming the sale of three lots of immovable properties. The application came to be rejected by the impugned order and, hence, this appeal.2. The short facts leading to this appeal are as follows:2.1 One Madhavnagar Cotton Mills Ltd. of Sangli is in liquidation and with respect to which winding up order has been passed in the above-referred Company Petition No. 412 of 1985 in January 1977. The assets of the company are in possession of the Official Liquidator since March 1997. Thereafter, on the liquidator making ...

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhayyasaheb S/O Bhauraoji and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR115; 2005(1)MhLj471

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the parties.2. First Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order, dated 3rd May, 2003, passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 16 of 1998 by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yavatmal, whereby the compensation in respect of the land in question was enhanced from Rs. 3,41,214-00 to Rs. 29,22,820-00.3. Mr. Sundaram, learned Counsel for the Appellant states that the land acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Land Acquisition Officer, Darwha, for acquiring the land of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 admeasuring 41 Ares for the Appellant. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award of Rs. 3,41,214-00 on 21st October, 1997. It is contended that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 made an application for Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on 11th December, 1997 before the Civil Court. Mr. Sundaram, learned Counsel, states that on 12th December, 2000, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted an application (Exh.16) before the Civil Court...

Danzil Oscar S. Dias Vs. Jose J. Cutinho and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2005)ACC207; 2006ACJ2130; 2005(2)ALLMR254

D.G. Karnik, J.1. By this appeal, the appellant claims enhancement in the compensation awarded to him in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 109 of 1993.2. On 17.10.1992, appellant was traveling on a motor cycle bearing registration No. GA-02 5867 from Vasco-da-Gama to Margao via Cortalim. While said motor cycle was ascending the slope, a minibus bearing registration No. GDA 2458 came from the opposite direction at a very fast speed, came to the right hand side of the road and gave a dash to the appellant. The appellant was overthrown along with the pillion rider off his motor cycle and sustained grievous injuries including fracture of three ribs and multiple fractures of the upper right tibia fibula (shin-bone). The appellant had to undergo a bone grafting surgery on his right leg for upper tibia fibula by removing the bone from his pelvic region. The appellant suffered permanent disability of the right knee and lost his job. The appellant, therefore, claimed compensation of Rs. 12,56,9...

Kalpesh JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The present appeal arises out of Order dated 29-1-2003 of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) rejecting the Appellant's appeal against Order dated 16-10-2001 of the Joint Commissioner of Customs, Preventive by which the Joint Commissioner had absolutely confiscated 1080 Pieces of "Phillips Semi-Conductors (Integrated Circuits)" under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act 1962 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 6000/- on the Appellant: under Section 112 of the said Act.2. The goods in question were dispatched to the Appellant by rail from Chennai by Eletronika Sales Corporation and the same were seized on their arrival at CST Railway Station, Mumbai. In his statement dated 1-3-2001 recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962, the Appellant stated that the said goods had been purchased by the Appellant from Electronika Sales Corporation, Chennai and produced Invoice No. 053582 dated 21-12-2000 of the said supplier. A copy of Bill of Entry under which the said Electronika are said to h...

Systronics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT485Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants herein imported a consignment of Silicon Photocell vide Bill of Entry dt. 12.8.1986 and sought clearance of the same under OGL Appendix 6(1) of AM 1985-88 Policy. The revenue was of the view that the goods were Photovoltaic Cell covered under Entry No. 555 of Appendix 3-A of the Policy and by required valid import licence for their clearance. On these the show cause notice was issued to them on 29.8.86 proposing confiscation and penalty. The Additional collector of Customs upheld the charge in the notice and hence confiscated the goods; however, the allowed redemption of the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 20,000/- as the goods were raw materials imported by actual user for manufacture of sophisticated electronics instruments. He held that the goods should be classified under Heading 85.41 of the Customs Tariff Act, for assessment purpose, and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the importers. hence this appeal.2. The appellants have asked for decision on meri...

Dipas Engineering Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case vide Interim Order No. 1188/88 WRB dt. 4.8.88 the Bench directed the appellants herein to furnish a bank guarantee for the differential duty amount or Rs. 2,81,500.20 within four weeks.Subsequently, they moved the miscellaneous application seeking release of the imported goods namely stainless steel sheets for utilization in the manufacture of chemical process equipments stating that they were not in a position to comply with the requirement of furnishing of bank guarantee due to refusal of the bank to give the guarantee. This application was disposed of vide Order No. 436/90 WRB dt. 2.4.1990, vacating the stay granted but Fixing the appeal for hearing on 30.4.1990, after waiving the condition of pre-deposit for furnishing the bank guarantee. By order No. 632/90/WRB dt. 30.4.1990, the bench directed the Court Receiver appointed in Lavad Case No. 837/88 to file an Affidavit giving the time frame and the measures proposed to be taken for ensuring the end use of the impor...

Vivekanand Silicate Industries Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT99Tri(Mum.)bai

(a) Appellants admit that the goods not accounted in production record viz RG-1 were in bulk form and are delivered in containers, of the buyers, as per the practice. The practice was to fill in barrels/tankers and thereafter weigh and enter in the RG-1 record. The goods are not accounted is established. The appellants rely upon the Central Board's instruction No. 14/4/64-CX-III, dated 12-8-64 as regards sodium silicate to be accounted as soon as it is filled in containers to claim that RG-1 stage is not reached. When the appellants, as per the admitted position, are supplying/selling sodium silicate in loose form or and in containers of the customers, they cannot be heard to say that RG-1 form stage has not reached. In any case RG-1 Register has column for such entries i.e. unpacked form. The entries not made in this case are in violation of the rules and the appellants are required to be penalised. (b) Since no infirmity is found in the order of the lower authorities, the penalties ...

Nova Petrochemicals Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT95Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The brief facts are that M/s. Nohva Petrochemicals Co. Ltd. had exported five consignments stated to be of 100% Polyester printed fabrics vide shipping Bills dt. 23/5/94 under the DEEC Scheme, as per the provisions of which the exempted materials required for manufacture of export product are permitted to be imported duty free in accordance with standard Input Output norms published in the Hand Book of Procedure Volume-II under Export Import Policy AM 1992-97. Export of polyester fabrics was under the category of Quantity Based Advance Licensing under DEEC Scheme where quantity of raw material that could be imported duty free is directly proportionate to the quantity of export fabrics.2. Pursuant to information that exporters including the appellants herein were obtaining advance licences for import of raw materials under the DEEC Scheme by falsely showing on records, exports of processed synthetic fabrics made out of 100% Polyester Filament Yarn, Central Excise Officers resumed th...