Mumbai Court April 2004 Judgments

Madhukar Gaikwad and Vijayanand B. Bhalshankar Vs. General Insurance C ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR28; 2004(5)BomCR261; 2004(3)MhLj759

V.G. Palshikar, J. 1. By this petition the petitioners have claimed direction that the respondents be directed to grant promotion to the petitioners with retrospective effect as they were wrongly shown in the seniority list.2. The petitioners had earlier approached this Court for similar relief by way of writ petitioner No. 4400/85. This petitioner was allowed by the Court partly. The operative part of this order is as follows:'7. Accordingly petition partly succeeds and respondent No. 3 are directed to give each of the petitioner a deem date of November 21, 1984 as the date of promotion to the cadre of Assistant Administrative Officer for western region and in the seniority list of that cadre place each of the petitioners in accordance with their inter-se-seniority over and above respondent Nos. 5 to 7. The petitioners will be entitled on the basis of deem date to be considered for future promotion. In the circumstances of the case, respondent No. 3 shall pay costs. Deem date shall be...

Smt. Prabhavati Narayan Mokal Vs. Shri. Baliram Rambhau Patil

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom401; 2004(6)BomCR405; 2005(1)MhLj356

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The Appellant and the Respondent are siblings; the Appellant is the sister of the Respondent. The Respondent instituted a suit for partition against his father in 1984 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Alibag. The father of the Appellant and the Respondent died during the pendency of the suit. Thereupon, the Appellant was brought on the record as one of the legal heirs of the deceased defendant. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court on 30th September, 1987. The Trial Court issued a declaration that the Respondent was entitled to a 3/4th share in respect of the properties which form the subject matter of the suit, whereas the Appellant would be entitled to a 1/4th share in respect of the suit property. Since the Respondent had constructed a house bearing Survey No. 34/1 of Chinchavali village, the Trial Court directed that the aforesaid portion should be allotted to the share of the Respondent, The Appellant filed an appeal before the Additional ...

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Satyendra Dayal Khare

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004CriLJ3399

A.S. Aguiar, J.1. This is an appeal by the State from the judgment and order dated 27th February 1997, passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 22nd (sic) Court, Andheri, Bombay, acquitting the accused Satyendra Dayal Khare, of offences punishable under Sections 341, 342 and 354, IPC, on the allegation that on 21-3-1992 between 6 to 7.30 p.m., the accused outraged the modesty of the complainant P.W. 1 Rajyashri Wagharay, in his office at Sahar Airport, Mumbai.2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant, a probationer of the Indian Customs and Central Excise Service, Group A, was undergoing training while attached to the Bombay Custom House. As part of her training she was required to write a detailed assignment on the topic baggage rules, problems in interpretation, cases of violations, and suggestions for improvement, and for the said purpose she was stationed at the Sahar Airport Collectorate.3. Since the complainant had completed her training she wanted to s...

Devang R. Vora Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(95)ECC491

1. These appeals came up before us pursuant to remand by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court as per judgment dated 18.8.2003 in Writ Petition No.1636/2003 vide 2003 (158) E.L.T. 30 (Bom.), The appellant's letter dated 7.1.2004 to the Asstt. Registrar requesting that the appeals be posted before another Bench was already on record. The appellant, who was present, was told that the case as remanded had to be heard only by this Bench duly constituted for the purpose and therefore his request could not be acceded to. It was also pointed out to him that the Hon'ble High Court had not directed the appeals to be heard by a different Bench. The appellant then sought time to engage an advocate to argue his case, whereupon it was pointed out to him that his counsel (who had not relinquished vakalatnama) was still on record and also that it was incumbent on the Bench to dispose of the appeals at the earliest in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Hon'ble High Court's judgment. The appellant w...

Macnair Exports Pvt. Ltd. and H.R. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(171)ELT403Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The ROM applications are directed against the order of the West Zonal Bench, Mumbai bearing No. C-1/415-23WZB/2002 dated 30-1-2002 on the ground that it suffers from an error apparent on the face of it in as much as the Tribunal imposed a penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs on the appellant company i.e. M/s. Macnair Export Pvt. Ltd., and Rs. 15 lakhs on Shri H. R. Bhatt the Director and Rs. 5 lakhs on Shri Feroz Haziani another director under Section 112 of the Customs Act. In the impugned order, the Tribunal has not quantified the alleged evasion of duty by the company. The Tribunal has not suggested nor given any definite findings that the goods imported by the appellant company is liable to confiscation. We have gone through the order of the tribunal carefully.The Tribunal passed the impugned order while disposing off an appeal filed by the department against the order of Commissioner of Mumbai. In that order the Commissioner held that the demand raised by the department is barred by limita...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Kruti Cosmetics and Lotus

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These two appeals by the Revenue arise out of the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the orders of the lower authority.2. The issue pertains to determination of assessable value of excisable goods cleared by a manufacturer who under an agreement with the brand name holder manufactures goods and sells the entire product to the brand name holder who in turn sells them at prices far higher than the one at which the goods are sold to him by the manufacturer. The Assistant Commissioner (the lower authority) felt that the prices at which the brand name holder sells the goods should be taken for the purpose of assessment. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) sets aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner stating that there is no rule or section in the Central Excise Rules and the Act respectively which permits such a method. The transaction between the manufacturer and the brand name holder is on principal to principal basis. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside...

Chamunda Inds. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT556Tri(Mum.)bai

1. K.V. Parmar, Member (J) learned Consultant appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri M.H, Shaikh, learned JDR appeared on behalf of the Revenue.2. The learned Consultant inter alia submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the case laws cited before him and he has not given any finding thereon.3. Shri M.H. Shaikh, learned JDR, appearing on behalf of the Revenue fairly conceded that since Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the case laws relied on by the appellant as cited before him, it would be necessary to remand the matter to him for fresh adjudication and to pass a fresh speaking order.4. After hearing both sides and perusal of the records, I remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the cases cited by the appellant and record his findings thereon and pass a fresh speaking order....

Shri Rahul Sharad Awasthi Vs. Shri Ratnakar Trimbak Pandit and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR896; 2004(5)BomCR50; 2004(4)CTC241; 2004(3)MhLj706

R.M. Lodha, J. 1. The Division Bench presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice by order dated January 15, 2004 passed in the present Letters Patent Appeal observed that the decision of the Division Bench of this court (Goa Bench) in Shri Chandreshwar Bhuthanath Devasthan of Paroda v. Subiraj Prabhakar Naik and Ors., 2003 Vol 105(2), Bombay Law Reporter, 915 deserves reconsideration.2. The present Letters Patent Appeal presented on January 6, 2004 is directed against the order dated December 18, 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge summarily dismissing the First Appeal arising out of the suit for possession filed on September 9, 1992.3. In Chandreshwar Bhuthanath the Division Bench of this court (Goa Bench) held that Section 100A as substituted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 shall have retrospective effect and summarised its reasoning thus:'46. We are summarising our reasonings as follows for our conclusion that the aforesaid C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2002, perta...

In Re: Echjay Industries (P.) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2004]54SCL43(Bom)

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. By this Application under Section 392 of the Companies Act, 1956, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs :'(a) This Hon'ble Court will be pleased to order and direct the Respondents jointly and severally to implement and to give effect to the Order dated 3rd September, 1986 in Company Petition No. 271 of 1985 and take all steps to transfer in the record of the Respondent No. 4 Society, Flat No. 9 on the 1st Floor alongwith the basement in 'Echjay House' situate at 31A, M.L. Dahanukar Marg (Carmichael Road), Bombay-400 026 in the name of the applicants and to enter the name of the Applicants in the record of Respondent No. 4 Society as a member and the holder of 10 shares of the face value of Rs. 50 each, 10 shares bearing distinctive Nos. 51 to 60 (both inclusive) (Certificate No. 11) in the capital of Respondent No. 4 Society and which shares were mutated in the name of the Applicants by Respondent No. 3 pursuant to the Order of Deputy Registrar of ...

Sukhdeo Parashramji Bhugul (Dr.) Vs. Wamanrao Nagorao Charhat

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)ALLMR645; 2004(3)MhLj724

S.T. Kharche, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7-10-1991 passed by the Additional District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 575 of 1986, whereby the appeal came to be allowed and the judgment and decree dated 30-10-1986 passed by the trial Court was set aside and instead the appellant/defendant was directed to deliver possession of the suit land, i.e. 7 Ares shown in red colour in the map (Ex.31), which was said to be encroachment, with further direction regarding enquiry into future mesne profits under Order 20, Rule 12(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Brief facts are required to be stated as under :The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for possession on the basis of the title of the land under encroachment on the contentions that he is the owner of the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 55/1A admeasuring 1 hectare 1 Are situated at village Jawara, whereas the defendant is the owner of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 55/1, admeasuring...