Mumbai Court March 2004 Judgments

Hrishikesh Industrial Fabrics Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(169)ELT163Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The present application seeks condonation of the short delay involved in the filing of the appeal. No representation for the applicant despite notice. Nevertheless, I am inclined to take up this application. Having examined the grounds stated in this application and heard the D.R., I am satisfied with the explanation of the delay and accordingly I allow the application.2. After careful examination of the records, I find that the appeal itself can be deposed of at this stage. The appeal is against an order Passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in an appeal filed by the present appellant. That appeal was directed against certain proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner (Tech) of Central Excise, Thane-II, whereby an application of the party for remission of duty in respect of certain stolen goods was rejected. The Deputy Commissioner had conveyed his decision to the party in a letter dtd. 06/05/2003, which reads as under:- In this connection, your request for remittance of duty on stolen...

Orbit Pharma Laboratories Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The instant appeal is directed against the confirmation of demand of duty of Rs. 1,18,264/- and penalty of equal amount imposed under Section 11AC of the Act. The order of the adjudicating authority has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the instant appeal to the Tribunal.3. The duty has been demanded on account of shortages noticed in the stock of inputs on which the appellants had taken credit under modvat.Though in the statement recorded it has been admitted that the missing inputs have been removed in a clandestine manner in the adjudication proceedings a defence was taken that certain consumption which had occurred during the months of January 97 and February 97 had remained to be debited. The appellants are claiming that if this quantity of consumption was to be taken into consideration, the actual duty on the shortages remaining unexplained will work out to Rs. 35,549.96 and not the amount of 1,18,264/- as worked out by the department. This aspect has been d...

Mipco Seamless Rings (Guj) Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The brief facts are as follows.2. The appellant succeeded in obtaining a favourable order from the Commissioner (Appeals) inasmuch as, out of the denial of modvat credit to the extent of Rs. 97,149/-, by the original authority, the Commissioner (Appeals) had accepted the admissibility of credit to the extent of Rs. 90,000/- and inadmissible amount was reduced to Rs. 7,149/-. However, while passing the said order, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not disturb the penalty of Rs. 60,000/- imposed by the adjudicating authority. This penalty of Rs. 60,000/- retained by the Commissioner (Appeals) in that order was never challenged by the appellants. The said amount of Rs. 60,000/- was recovered from the appellants by appropriating the same from the amount of Rs. 90,000/- sanctioned as refund to the appellants. The appellants had moved an appeal against such appropriation to the Commissioner (Appeals). T...

Belley Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and ors.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: II(2005)BC143

1. This Misc. appeal is filed by the appellants/original objectors Belley Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and Another being aggrieved by the order dated 18.9.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai in Appeal No. 34/2002. The said appeal was filed against order of the Recovery Officer dated 5.12.2002 in Recovery Proceeding No. 39/2002. By the said order, the Recovery Officer rejected the application of the appellants dated 4.9.2002 (Exhibit 34) in which they had prayed that the attachment ordered by the Recovery Officer with respect to the property namely 4th floor of Wembley Building, Nehru Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai be lifted and that warrant of attachment be quashed. When the appeal was filed against that order passed by the Recovery Officer to the learned Presiding Officer under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the learned Presiding Officer partly allowed the said appeal and substituted the...

Maharashtra Power Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Dabhol Power Company

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)BomCR317; (2004)3CompLJ58(Bom); [2004]52SCL224(Bom)

R.M. Lodha, J.1. The Maharashtra Power Development Corporation (MPDC) is the appellant; which we shall call 'the petitioner'. The company petition for diverse reliefs was filed by the petitioner under Sections 397, 402, 403 and 406 of the Companies Act, 1956. In view of the events that had taken place subsequently, the company petition was permitted to be amended. In the amended company petition the petitioner prayed that it be declared that the affairs of the Dabhol Power Company (for short 'the company') were being conducted in the manner oppressive to the petitioner and prejudicial to the public interest; that it may be considered whether it was just and equitable that the company be wound up or any provision be made with regard to the conduct of the affairs of the company in future, that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 be restrained from acting and representing as directors of the company; that respondent Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 be restrained from acting, representing or holding themselves ...

Akhil Bhartiya Shramik Kamgar Union Vs. Buildtech Constructions and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR23; [2004(101)FLR915]; 2004(3)MhLj142

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent.2. The learned Counsel for private contesting respondents waives notice. The respondent No. 4 is a formal party, hence, notice to that respondent is dispensed with.3. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent.4. This Writ Petition takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated August 11, 2003 passed by the Industrial Court; Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No. 1026 of 2002. The Industrial Court has held that it had no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint as filed by the petitioners under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') because of the contentious issue of employee-employer relationship.5. Briefly stated, the petitioner Union filed the above numbered complaint before the Industrial Court, alleging commission of unfair labour practice by the respon...

The State of Maharashtra (Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR459

F.I. Rebello, J. 1. First Appeal 757 of 2003 is preferred by the State against the Judgment and order dated 12.1.2000 passed by Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Panvel, Raigad. Civil Application 514 of 2003 is for stay. First Appeal No. 1782 of 2002 is preferred by the Claimants before the Land Acquisition Officer. The Claimants have also taken out Civil Application No. 1078 of 2004 for leading additional evidence. These are basically to bring on record certain judgments which have been passed after the award has been passed and arising out of the same notification and for the very same public purpose.2. In this appeal we propose to discuss and dispose of the major issues. The discussion herein is to be adopted in respect of the batch of other Appeals which are on board and which arise out of the same notification and in respect of lands which are located in Panvel, within Panvel Municipal Council. A few facts may be noted. The notification under Section 4 on Land Acquisition Act was publish...

Ashok Gajanan Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR223; 2004(5)BomCR825

C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. The petitioner by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution as pro bono publico has prayed for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order for grant of benefits of Development Control Regulations and of incentive additional Floor Space Index ('FSI' for short) to all owners, occupiers and cooperative societies. Other reliefs also have been sought.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a public spirited citizen and has been prosecuting the cause highlighted in the petition since several years. Even in past, he had filed petitions being Writ Petition Nos. 5286 of 1998 and 6290 of 1999. The question raised in the present petition relates to Final Development Plan prepared by Thane Municipal Corporation, respondent No. 3 herein ('Corporation' for short). Respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra and respondent No. 2 is the Secretary of Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra. Respondent No. 3 is Municipal Corporation, T...

Sanjay Sanwarmal Agarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(94)ECC504; 2004(169)ELT261(Bom)

V.C. Daga, J.1. The petitioner is a sole proprietor of M/s. Siddhivinayak Impex, Bombay and deals in import and export of various goods. This petition is directed against the act of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in seizing the consignment imported by the petitioner and not allowing the said consignment to be cleared by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on the alleged ground that the import of goods has become illegal as the import having been done under the transferred Advance Licence, which has been suspended by the Licensing Authorities at Ahmedabad as the same was prima facie found to be obtained fraudulently.THE FACTS:The facts giving rise to the present petition, in nut shell, are as under:2. The petitioner is holder of Advance Licence bearing No. P/K/3489550 dated 15th November, 1994 having purchased the same for a valuable consideration of Rs. 14,47,600 from the original licensor one M/s. Omkar Exports of Ahmedabad, a Government recognised export house. Under the said licence import of Polyeste...

Malanbee W/O Sheikh Gafoor Vs. Wahed Mirza Bhuru Mirza and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)MhLj523

S.T. Kharche, J.1. The original plaintiff Malanbee wd/o Sheikh Gafoor by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 28-3-1990 passed by the Additional District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 124 of 1985, whereby the appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 31-1-1985 declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to 7/8th share in the field property mentioned therein and directing partition through the Collector in view of Order 20, Rule 18 read with Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure is set aside and the appellate Court dismissed the regular civil suit filed by the plaintiff seeking share in the connected Survey No. 158/1, admeasuring 4 acres 31 gunthas after the amendment in the plaint.2. This litigation has a chequered history. One Sheikh Sardar had executed a Will dated 2-2-1916 bequeathing his property to his three daughters before h...