Mumbai Court March 2004 Judgments

Ramesh Baburao Devaskar Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004BomCR(Cri)928

V.G. Palshikar J. 1. The accused Nos. 1 to 11 in the original Sessions Case No. 155 of 1994 were prosecuted for offence under Section 302 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code for causing intentional death of two persons in Kolhapur city. The Sessions case was tried by II Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur who acquitted accused Nos. 4, 8 and 10 and convicted rest of the accused under Section 302 read with 149 of IPC. Accused No. 9 was also convicted under Section 302 simplicitor. All the accused being aggrieved by their conviction have preferred these various appeals.2. (a) The Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 1996 is filed by accused No. 5 who has been sentenced under Section 302 read with 149 of IPC.(b) Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1996 is filed by accused No. 7 who has been convicted under Section 302 read with 149 of IPC to suffer imprisonment for life.(c) Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 1996 is preferred by accused No. 9 challenging his conviction under Section 302 IPC and both accused Nos. 9 and 1...

Gangadhar Yeshwant Paranjape Vs. the Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corp ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR38; 2004(4)BomCR68; [2004(102)FLR309]; 2004(2)MhLj919

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. This petition has been placed before us in view of Reference made by a Division Bench of this Court [Coram: B.P. Singh, C.J. (as His Lordship then was) and Hon'ble Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.] on 29th June, 2001 in view of certain decisions of the Division Bench of this Court.2. To appreciate the point involved in the Reference, few relevant facts may now be stated:3. The petitioner herein was appointed as a teacher. He addressed a letter dated 27th November, 2000 to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court stating therein that he had resigned from service in July, 1977, after completing 24 years service. According to him, there was no scheme for grant of pension to a teacher at the time when he entered in service as also at the time when he resigned from service. The petitioner was accordingly paid all the dues payable to him in accordance with the existing Rules applicable viz. benefit of Provident Fund, etc. In the year 1988, however, Pension Scheme had been in...

State Bank of India Vs. Jairam P. Kamat and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR446; III(2004)BC319

N.A. Britto, J.1. The appellant/State Bank of India has filed the present appeal against the Judgment/Decree in Special Civil Suit No. 81/1981 passed by the learned First Additional Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa by which the Suit filed by the Bank against the defendant No. 3 has been dismissed.2. The said suit filed by the said Bank was earlier decreed against all the defendants by Judgment dated 16.7.1988, but only defendant No. 3 (Respondent No. 1) preferred an appeal to this Court, being First Appeal No. 111/1988, and the Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 26.11.1996 allowed the appeal and set aside the said Judgment/Decree dated 16.7.1988 only to the extent it related to the defendant No. 3 and directed the learned Civil Judge Senior Division to frame fresh issues in the light of the pleadings of the defendant No. 3 and decide the matter afresh according to law.3. Accordingly the learned First Addl. Civil Judge Senior Division framed as many as eight issues and af...

Deepak S. Gulalkari and ors. Vs. Pundlikrao C. Bangar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom318

S.T. Kharche, J.1. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this second appeal is filed by the original plaintiffs taking an exception to the judgment and decree dated 19-12-1989 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 477 of 1987, whereby the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 28-12-1987 passed by the learned 10th Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Amravati, in Regular Civil Suit No. 405 of 1986 was set aside and the suit seeking possession, declaration, injunction and damages was dismissed.2. Relevant facts are required to be stated as under :The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the owners of the suit plot described in para 1 of the plaint which is shown by letters A, B, C, D, E in the map annexed with the plaint. The suit plot was part of the field Survey No. 42/2 of mouza Rajapeth. Originally this field was owned and possessed by Ruikar family of Yavatmal district. Shri Ruikar ...

Godrej Industries Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(98)ECC25; 2004(171)ELT5(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. Validity of the public notices dated 30th March, 1992 and 17th September, 1997 issued by the Collector of Customs, Mumbai as well as the validity of the Circular dated 27th December, 2002 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs are challenged in these petitions. Under the said public notices/circular, the assessing authorities under the Customs Act are required to assess the imported bulk liquid cargo discharged from the vessel into the tank lorries as per the quantity determined under the ullage survey report irrespective of the quantity actually received by the importer.2. Since the issues raised in these two petitions are common, both these petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.3. Although, detailed facts are not necessary for deciding the issues raised in these petitioners, to appreciate the contentions of the parties, few facts enumerated in Writ Petition No. 1977 of 1992 (Godrej Industries Ltd.) are set out hereinbelow....

Kamal Virdichandji Garg Vs. Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom462; 2004(3)ARBLR589(Bom); 2004(4)BomCR744; [2005]126CompCas241(Bom); 2005(1)CTLJ225(Bom); 2004(4)MhLj233

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, inter alia, seeks relief that pending the hearing and final disposal of the arbitration proceedings and until enforcement of the award the respondent No. 1 should be restrained from in any manner invoking and/or realising and/or encashing the Bank Guarantee bearing No. 36/P/23 dated 4-10-2002 as extended by letter dated 29-9-2003.2. The aforesaid relief is sought on the facts which are briefly set out as under:--3. The firm of the petitioner M/s Ganesh Automobiles was appointed as a dealer of the 1st respondent company. The 2nd respondent is a Bank who has given bank guarantee which is the subject matter of the present petition. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as a dealer for promotion, sale and service of the Fiat branded car in the notified territory under an agreement dated 20-5-1999. The said agreement was initially for a period of three years with an option of renewal as per the mu...

Batliboi Employees Union Vs. Batliboi Ltd. and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)ILLJ471Bom

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith, by consent.3. As short question is involved, petition taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent.4. The moot question that needs to be addressed in this petition is: whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to decide the Reference in question? Indeed, the Labour Court formulated that question as Issue No. 1, and has answered the same by holding that the matter in issue was exclusively triable by the Industrial Tribunal, in view of the fact that the dispute pertains to one or retrenchment tailing under Item 10 of Schedule III of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioners have specifically challenged that finding before this Court, as can be discerned from grounds (c) and (d), to contend that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to decide the Reference in question. However, during the course of arguments, counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that the Court below has wrongly decided t...

Sterlite Industries (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the application for waiver of pre-deposit, we find that it was possible to decide the appeal itself; hence after waiving pre-deposit we take; up the appeal itself for hearing with the consent of both sides.2. The appellants herein who are engaged in the manufacture of jelly filled telecom cables purchased 8mm copper rod from their Silvassa unit for drawing into copper wire of 2.5mm. Sometimes when during the process of drawing, copper wire of the required quality is not drawn, the appellants send the copper wire under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules, for conversion into copper rods to Piparia unit. Show cause notice dated 02/05/2002 was issued for recovery of duty of rejected copper wire of 2.5mm sent to another unit for conversion into rods. Notice also proposed imposition of penalty; notice was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner who confirmed the demand of Rs. 18,72,649/-and imposed penalty of equal amount rejecting the pl...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Shree Jagdamba Polymers Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT287Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This application for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is filed by the Revenue. Heard the learned SDR and perused the records. None appeared for the respondent.2. The respondents got HDPE woven sacks manufactured through a job worker, M/s. Tirupati Packaging, who discharged the duty liability on the woven sacks. Consequent on a CESTAT's decision that the woven sacks are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, refund claims arose. Such claims were made by the said job worker which were rejected. The appeal against such rejection is pending with the Tribunal. Meanwhile the present respondents claim refund for the same amount on the plea that they have borne the incidence of duty. These claims were also rejected by the Assistant Commissioner inter alia on the ground that the job worker's claim for refund of the same amount is pending in appeal with CESTAT. The respondents went in appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the ap...

Qazi Shabbir Mustafa and Arif Haji Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT227Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. In the impugned order, the Commissioner rejected the invoice value, determined the assessable value of the goods as Rs. 18,64,176/- and the duty to be paid on the goods as Rs. 10,73,051/-. He confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) & (m) and allowed them to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 23,20,335/-. He further imposed penalties of Rs. 8,71,547/- on Shri Qazi Shabbir Mustafa under Section 114A/112(a) and an equal amount on Shri Arif Haji Gaffar under the same sections of the Customs Act.2. These appeals are filed by both the above mentioned persons.According to the Commissioner's findings, Shri Arif Haji Gaffer is the defacto importer who actually placed the order and was to gain financially from the import. The other person has only lent his name on receipt of some remuneration from Shri Arif. M/s. S.S.M. Traders is owned by Shri Kazi Shabbir Mustafa on record.3. The consignment described ...