Mumbai Court March 2004 Judgments

Dropadabai Namdeo Khese Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)MhLj249

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. In Sessions Case No.131 of 1998 the present appellant/accused was put on trial and by his judgment and order dated 9th March, 2000 the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge at Ahmednagar convicted her for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code (the Code, for short) and she is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer R. I. for one month for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Code and to suffer R.I. for one month and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer R. I. for one month for offence punishable under Section 342 of the Code. Hence, this appeal.2. As per the prosecution Santosh Namdeo Khese, the son of the accused, was married to Mangala, daughter of P. W. 4 Bhagwan Jijaba Sathe, from the same village and their respective houses were close-by. The accused was staying with her husband, son and daughter-in-law. It appears that on 30th May, 1998 Mangala and the...

Prabhakar S/O Chinappa Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)MhLj886

B.R. Gavai, J.1. The present petition impugns the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Yavatmal dated 30-4-2002 in Revenue Case No. 2/LND-32/98-99 Wadgaon, later on changed to Revenue Case No. 1/LND-26/2001-02. The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of the present petition are as under:-2. That the field Gut No. 78/2 situated at Mouza Wadgaon, District Yavatmal admeasuring area of 1 Hectare 27 Ares was allotted to one Shri Tukaram L. Shelke under the provisions ofSection 27 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act'). That according to the petitioner, said Tukaram Shelke cultivated the said lands and acquired the status of occupants Class-I. It is the case of the petitioner that said Shri Tukaram was maternal uncle of the petitioner and, therefore, on 16-1-1990, said Shri Tukaram by a registered Will bequeathed the aforesaid land in favour of the petitioner. Said Shri Tukaram died on 29-12-1998. The S...

Kashiram S/O Fakiraji Potbhare and ors. Vs. Jaiwant S/O Wasudeo Pullar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR252; 2005(1)MhLj205

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 plaintiff challenging the judgment dated 21-1-1989 passed by the Additional District Judge (Mr. J. H. Bhatia) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 564 of 1983 whereby the appeal came to be allowed and the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court on 19-11-1983 is set aside by which the respondents defendants were directed to deliver the possession of the suit premises with future inquiry into the mesne profit under Order 20, Rule 12(l)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Brief facts are required to be stated as under :Shri Hanuman Deosthan, Navi Shukrawari, Nagpur is a registered Public Trust being registration No. A/50(N) and through its trustees had filed suit for eviction of the defendants on the contentions that the house No. 873 situated in Circle No. 3 of Nagpur Municipal Corporation is a...

Jayant Agro Organics Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(182)ELT158(Bom)

ORDER1. Rule. Returnable forthwith.2. Mr. P. S. Jetley, Advocate waives service for the respondents.3. By consent, rule is heard finally at this stage.4. The order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara confirming duty demand of Rs. 2,30,95,031 /- on one of the final products namely glycerine and other by-products arising in the course of manufacture of refined castor oil, hydrogenated castor oil, 12-Hydroxy stearic acid and ricinoleic acid is under challenge in appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the petitioner. The Tribunal has asked the petitioner to pre-deposit the sum of Rs. 50 lacks towards duty within a period of twelve weeks from the date of the order. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition.5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that three fourth of the duty demand is barred by limitation and prima facie has been held to be so and, therefore, the direction by the...

Mr. Rasiklal M. Gangani Vs. Government of Goa Through Chief Secretary, ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)106BOMLR626

P.V. Hardas, J.1. These Writ Petitions assail the common judgment passed by the Special Judge, North Goa, Panaji, dated 8th August, 2003, dismissing the complaints filed by the petitioners for violation of human rights by the respondents in the respective petitions. These petitions are, therefore, decided by this common judgment.2. It appears that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 537 of 2003 had filed Special Case No. 1 of 2003, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 541 of 2003 had filed Special Case No. 2 of 2002, while petitioner in Writ Petition No. 542 of 2003 had filed Special Case No. 1 of 2001 and one Mary Rao had filed Special Case No. 1 of 2002. All these cases complained of violation of human rights by the respondents/accused named in the complaint cases respectively. The complainant Mary Rao in Special Case No. 1 of 2002 has not chosen to challenge the common order passed by the Special Judge, North Goa, Panaji, dismissing the complaint cases as not maintainable.3. As stated th...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Spectrum Packing Mfg.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT120Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal from revenue is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) through which the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner against the respondents. The Deputy Commissioner had confiscated goods, imposing redemption fine, confirmed duty and imposed penalties. The revenue appeal seeks restoration of the order in original. M/s. Spectrum Packaging (the respondents) are manufacturing Poly Films and bags. Plastic granules is the raw material which they receive for manufacture of the said products. The respondent was sending the raw materials as well as the finished goods to another unit viz M/s Roma Plastics (party) which is not a registered unit under the central Excise. The party was engaged in cutting and sealing process on plastic tubes sheets and bags, which is carried out manually and mechanically. The plastic tubing sheets and bags are received from the respondents by the party and the same were returned by the party ...

Shri Salim Mohd. Khan Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Adj.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appeal of the appellants is directed against the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, wherein a personal penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs) has been imposed on the appellants under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962. The case of the department is that the appellants along with two others and abetted Mr. Govindbhai Barot to import a car (Lexus) contrary to the provisions contained in Transfer of Residence Rules (T.R. Rules) because Mr. Barot was not entitled to make the said import under the T.R. Rules. The car was confiscated and the confiscation is not under challenge in this appeal.3. The appellant's main grievance is that though the penalties imposed on the importer, and the two abettors named in the adjudication order namely S/Shri Razal Ahmed and Noor Mohd. Mustaq Khan, are of (sic) small amounts of Rs. 7,500/- and Rs. 25,000/- each respectively, the penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs imposed on the appellants is very high. The case against th...

Ghaziabad Ship Breakers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT156Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants are aggrieved against the order of confiscation of a Generator allegedly not declared as movable spares/stores enclosed the vessel in the IGM when the vessel was imported for beaching and breaking.2. After hearing both sides and considering the issue involved it is found - (a) The panchnama of the presence of the "Generator" recorded on 7-3-99 clearly states to the effect that the said Generator was fitted in a cabin made on the Deck of the vessel. This panchnama established the fact that the said Generator was based in a cabin specially made for it on the deck of the vessel and was fitted therein. That should leave no doubt in any reasonable persons mind that the Generator was part of the ship and not movable spares/stores of the vessel. When the ship has been imported, the fittings therein are also part of the ship imported. They are not separately required to be declared under Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1962. (b) There is no misdeclaration/non-declaration to call ...

Abacus Computers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC304

1. According to the applicants an error apparent from the record arises in the finding of the Tribunal that the appellants had not placed any material on record as to show that the goods cannot be treated as consumer goods. They submit that they had already submitted written submissions in which they had placed evidence to support their claim that the goods imported by them, namely, personal computers, were not consumer goods so as to hold import without the cover of valid ITC licence as unauthorised. They relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PAC Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, 1993 (67) ELT 209 (SC) wherein the Apex Court held that since the Tribunal proceeded on a non-existing ground, namely, that goods imported had been shifted to A3 Appendices under the new Policy and as such para 204(6) of the AM 1990-93 Import Trade Control Policy is not applicable, there was an error on the face of the record.2. Learned SDR opposes the prayer for rectification pointing ...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Shree Ram Vessel Scrap Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT373Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The respondents imported a vessel by name M.V.-Milaku for breaking.The M.O.A. entered into with the seller is dt. 26-01-2001. The price indicated is US$ 7,24,675/-. The vessel arrived at Alang anchorage on 02-02-2001 and entry inwards granted on 05-02-2001. An addendum dt.08-02-2001 to the M.O.A. was signed by the respondent and the seller of the ship indicating that the L.D.T. of the vessel under question should be read as 4181.30 metric tonnes instead of 4208 metric tonnes indicated in the original M.O.A. Accordingly the price of the vessel was brought down to US$ 6,88,309/-. The bill of entry was assessed finally by the deputy commissioner taking the reduced price into consideration. The Revenue appealed against this order. The commissioner (Appeals) Upheld the order of the deputy commissioner.2. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the commissioner. The grounds are that the price is altered after the Vessel has already entered India. Any altreration in the price after the d...