Mumbai Court May 2004 Judgments

Maharashtra Mudran Parishad and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2005]139STC193(Bom)

1. Heard Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rajiv Chavan, the learned counsel for the respondents.2. The first petitioner claims to be apex body of printers association in the State of Maharashtra. The second petitioner is the printers association. The third petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 but is also an independent association of printers. The fourth petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act and is a member of the second petitioner association. The printers associations are engaged in the business of job-work and it is their case that they carry out the job-works by various methods like offset, screen, letter press, gravure, flexography. It is averred that many members of the printers associations are engaged in the business of printing where they also supply paper and/or other material to their customers. The petitioners seek to impug...

Life Insurance Corporation of India and anr. Vs. Smt. Maya Alias Maham ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2004)ACC229; 2006ACJ1276; AIR2005Bom214

N.A. Britto, J.1. The defendants in Special Civil Suit No. 35/91 have filed the present appeal against the judgment/decree dated 10-6-98 of the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Senior Division (I), Margao2. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the said suit.3. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose of the present appeal.The plaintiff/respondent is the widow of her late husband Mahabaleshwar Dessai. The said Mahableshwar Dessai had taken several policies from the defendants and the first three policies for Rs. 5000/- each were taken commencing from 16-9-1970, 7-10-1971 and 27-12-1973. The next was for Rs. 50,000/- commencing from 7-12-79. The other two were for Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 90,000/- commencing from 1-3-1981. The last which is the subject-matter of dispute was of Rs. 2,00,000/- commencing from 8-1-1988. Except for the last policy, the defendants have paid the amount due on the previous policies presumably because the said ...

Gurudas R. Naik Vs. State of Goa Through the Secretary P.W.D. and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)106BOMLR875

P.V. Hardas, J.1. This petition, ostensibly in public interest, has been filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of a writ for quashing the decision of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to reconvey plot bearing Chalta No. 31 (Part 1) of P. T. Sheet No. 105 in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 7 and for quashing the Deed of Reconveyance dated 23rd November, 2000. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus ordering the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take possession of the said land from respondent Nos. 3 to 7.2. The facts as are necessary for the decision of this petition are stated hereunder :The Government initiated proceedings for acquisition of land admeasuring 168 sq. metres comprising of portion of the property bearing Chalta No. 31A of P. T. Sheet No. 105 situated at Fontainhas, Mala, Panaji. for laying the distribution pipeline of 100 mm diameter for supplying water from the Altinho Reservoir to the Patto area and other parts of Panaji. The first respondent had acquire...

Foreshore Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. Shri Praveen D. Des ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR590; (2004)106BOMLR310

Anoop V. Mohta, J.INTRODUCTION :1. This Notice of Motion has been taken out by the plaintiffs (on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court) in a re-numbered Suit No. 2939 of 1999, originally numbered as Suit No. 655 of 1968 in the Bombay City Civil Court, Bombay, for an order and injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 or any of them or their Officers claiming any right, title, possession or use or occupation, transferring, alienating, assigning, creating third party rights and/or otherwise dealing with, or carrying out any construction work or activity or from making use of any F.S.I, under the alleged permissions and Certificates and Letter No. EB/5817/Aa dated 8th March, 2004 read with Letter No. EE/BPC/5817/AA dated 9th March, 2004, purported revalidation of the IOD dated 16th June, 1966, and Commencement Certificate dated 20th June, 1966, in respect of 'Divya Prabha' i.e. the property in question.2. These IOD and Commencement Certificate issued in the year 1966 wh...

Airport Authority of India Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)BomCR23; (2004)106BOMLR915

S.A. Bobde, J.1. The Airport Authority of India has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to grant requisite permission to the petitioner to kill or otherwise deal with stray dogs. In the alternative, the petitioner has sought direction to the respondents to provide dog vans for catching of or transporting far away dogs from Airport area and also in case of emergency permission to kill stray clogs at. Airport.2. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, the respondent No. 5 is the Animal Welfare Board of India and the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are the Ministry of Social Justice and Improvement and the Union of India respectively, who have been heard in the matter. We have also heard the All India Animal Welfare Association and Viniyog Pariwar Trust, which are non-governmental organisations.3. The setting of this case is the Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airpo...

Sesa Goa Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)213CTR(Bom)579; [2007]294ITR101(Bom)

D.G. Karnik, J.1. By our order dated May 6, 2004, we allowed the writ petition and made rule absolute in terms of prayer Clauses (a), (b) and (c). We now proceed to give detailed reason for the order.2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the notice dated May 31, 2001, issued by respondent No. 1, purportedly under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), in respect of the assessment year 1991-92.3. The facts giving rise to the petitioner are briefly stated below:The petitioner is a company mainly engaged in the business of mining and export of iron ore and construction and repairs of marine crafts, and is an assessee under the Act since the assessment year 1963-64. The petitioner filed its return of income for the assessment year 1991-92 ending March 31, 1991, on December 31, 1991, showing the total income of Rs. 1,22,56,440 arrived at after claiming an aggregate deduction of Rs. 7,82,43,801 under Chapter VI-A of the Act including a deduction of Rs. 7,74,9...

Amtrex Hitachi Appliance Ltd. and Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT639Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The applications are for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty imposed in the impugned order. The dispute relates to the applicability of higher MRP on the Air Conditioners cleared at the factory gate at Silvassa. It is submitted that the air conditioners sold at the factory gate are declared with MRP of Rs. 21,000/- while those which are cleared from depots are declared with MRP of Rs. 22,478/-. The Adjudicating Authority proceeded to adopt the higher MRP in respect of the sales effected at the factory gate by ignoring the declared MRP of Rs. 21,000/-.2. Heard both sides. The ld.counsel invited our attention to the explanation (1) of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act and subsequent explanations 2(a) and 2(b). It is the submission of the applicant that on the packages of air conditioners cleared at the factory gate, a single MRP of Rs. 21,000/- was affixed. The ld.DR justifies the order of the Commissioner by inviting our attention to explanation (1) to Section 4A to state t...

Milton Polyplas (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The stay application is directed against the impugned order-in-appeal, whereby the, Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner, confirming the demand of Rs. 24,40,837/- and imposition of penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs. The application seeks waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellants for their failure to make pre-deposit of the aforesaid amount without examining the merits.2. We note that the show cause notice was issued to seek recovery of duty on "insulated wares" cleared by the appellants with effect from 01/03/92 to 30/04/92. In terms of Notification No. 14/92-CE dated 01/03/92, these goods were chargeable to duty at an appropriate rate with effect from 01/03/92 and were exempted with effect from 30/04/92 vide Notification No. 59/92-CE dated 30/04/92. These goods were also exempted from duty prior to 01/03/92. It is alleged in the show cause notice that, during the period from 01/03/92 to 3...

Kattapani Ibrahim Kenjam Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.1.95, DRI officers intercepted one Majeedhu Rawther Gani who was to travel by Emirates Flight and recovered foreign currency equivalent to Rs. 14,25,800/- and US $ 500/- equivalent to Rs. 15,685/- from his person. His statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. He stated that his real name was M. Khan Sahibu; he got the passport in the name of Majeedhu R. Gani at the instance of one Mohammed in October, 1994; that one Barkat Ali engaged him in carrying foreign currency concealed in body from Bombay to Dubai for which he was to be paid Rs. 2500/- per trip. He accepted the offer; Barkat Ali also introduced one Mohd. Ali Choori Abbas on 8.1.95 and he received air ticket and a packet of 400 foreign currency notes from Abbas and another 5 notes of US $ 100 each were given to him as his F.T.S. The business premises of M/s. Viscerey Travel and Telecom Agency owned by the present appellant and run by Shri Mohd. Abbas was sea...

Southern Petrochemical Vs. Administrator of Specified

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: II(2005)BC129

1. This Misc. appeal is filed by appellants/ original defendants being aggrieved by common Order dated 12.2.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai. By the impugned common order, the learned. Presiding Officer, while allowing applications made by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for amendment as set out in the schedules of their applications, dismissed the application of the appellants taken out by them for dismissing the original application. The respondent No. 1 is the Administrator of Specified Undertaking of Unit Trust of India in his capacity as successor in interest of Specified Undertaking of Unit Trust of India, a statutory corporation constituted under Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (since repealed) and the respondent No. 2 is UTI Trustee Company Pvt, Ltd. in its capacity as successor in interest of Undertaking (excluding Specified Undertaking) of Unit Trust of India.2. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are the original applicants in Original...