Mumbai Court July 2004 Judgments

Corn Products Co. (India) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)MhLj662

A.P. Lavande, J.1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order of issuance of process against them by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhandara in Regular Criminal Case No. 18/2000 instituted by respondent No. 1 herein. The petitioner No. 1 is a Company, which is inter alia engaged in business of manufacturing of food products. The petitioner Nos. 2 to 8 are Directors of the petitioner No. 1-Company. Respondent No. 2 was the vendor and respondent No. 3 was the stockist of the petitioner company. On 19-3-1993 the Food Inspector visited the shop of respondent No. 3 and purchased three bottles of Rex Pineapple Jam and thereafter he took samples of the Jam and after following due procedure, as required under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 (the Act for short) filed Regular Criminal Case No. 18/2000 against respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the present petitioners and one Mr. R.K. Hanry, who was original accused No. 3 and one Mr. Diego Bevilacqua, who was original accused No. 9. In the...

Kamlabai Wd/O BindadIn Parasram Bawaria Vs. Sohanlal S/O Amriksingh Ar ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005ACJ699; [2009(104)FLR380]; 2004(4)MhLj869

Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 30 of the Workman's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') by the original applicant/appellant herein, against the original non-applicant-employer/respondent herein, and thereby challenged the judgment and bill of cost dated 22-9-1986, passed by the Commissioner. Workmen's Compensation, Chandrapur, in W.C. Case No. 14(11)/81, whereby, the application was dismissed. The Commissioner, after considering the material, as well as, evidence on record, came to the conclusion that at the relevant time Mr. Bindadin, the husband of appellant No. 1 and father of original applicant No. 2, was not workman of the employer, one Mr. Sohanlal Amriksingh Arora, respondent herein. It was also declared that the original applicant No. 3 was not dependent of said Bindadin. As he was not in the employment and, in the accident, which took place on 15-4-1979, by the use of truck No. CPC 8260 owned by the respondent, 4 persons inclu...

Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Vs. Kantabai Wd/O M ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2005)ACC473; 2005ACJ628; 2005(1)ALLMR296; 2005(1)BomCR317; 2004(4)MhLj811

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. This appeal is by appellant - United India Insurance Company (original Non-applicant No. 3) (for short 'Insurance Company'), thereby challenging the award dated 13-10-1988 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola in Motor Vehicle Case No. 9/1983, thereby the appellant along with the driver and owner (original non-applicant No. 1 and 3), are directed jointly and severally to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident i.e. 8-8-1982, till realization of the amount. There is no appeal by the owner or driver of the vehicle. The present appeal is only by the appellant insurance company, therefore there is no much dispute as regards merits of the matter. Except the statutory liability of the insurance company to the extent of then existing provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'M. V. Act'), and based on the existing insurance policy executed between the respective parties.2. The facts which ...

Saraswati Dalmia and ors. Vs. Collector of Bombay and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR657; 2005(1)BomCR686

Chandrachud D.Y., J.1. The subject-matter of the two petitions before the Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution is land, to be more precise three parcels of land bearing CTS Nos. 2/65, 66 and 67 situated within the Lower Parel Division, Haines Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 Oil. The first petition arises out of an order of eviction passed by the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District on 18th August, 1997 in exercise of powers conferred by Section 53 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The order of eviction has been affirmed in appeal by the additional Commissioner and in revision by the Government of Maharashtra. The Collector, in appeal the additional Commissioner and in revision the State Government have concurred in holding that the term of the original leases expired on 31st October, 1985; that the purported assignment by petitioners 1 to 5 in favour of petitioner No. 6 on 19th April, 1988 must, therefore, be disregarded and that within the term of the origin...

indresh Shamsunder Advani and anr. Vs. Gopi Tarachand Advani (Smt.) an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR918

Khanwilkar A.M., J.1. This common judgment will dispose of Contempt Petition No. 66 of 2003 as well as Notice of Motion No. 2678 of 2003 taken out in the said Contempt Petition and Notice of Motion No. 1598 of 2004 in Testamentary Suit No. 4 of 2004.2. At the outset, it would be appropriate to advert to the family tree of the parties. The same reads thus : FAMILY TREE Tarachand Rochiram Advani (Died on 5-8-1958) Gopi Tarachand' Advani (wife) (defendant) | ------------------------------------------------ | | |Manik Advani Shamsunder Advani Tulsi Miskil Son Son Daughter (deceased) (died on 2-6-2001) | Kalavati (wife of deceased) (respondent No.2) | ---------------------------------- | | Indresh Advani Karishma Mahtani (Son of deceased) (daughter of deceased) (Married) (Married) (Plaintiff) (respondent No. 1)3. The plaintiff Indresh Shamsunder Advani filed Petition No. 819 of 2002 before this Court praying for issuance of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed of the property...

Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax and ors. Vs. Narendrakumar Devendraku ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR99; 2005(1)BomCR848

Mohta Anoop V., J.1. These second appeal's have been filed by the original appellants/defendants Nos. 1 to 4, and thereby, challenged the judgment and decree dated 20th February, 1990, passed in the Regular Appeal No. 10 of 1983, by the Additional Judge Buldana, which arose out of the common judgment and decree passed in R.C.S. Nos. 132 to 135 of 1980, dated 16th October, 1985, passed by Civil Judge, S.D. Buldana and thereby, directed the appellant herein to deliver the vacant possession of the suit property to the respective respondents (original plaintiffs).2. All these second appeals have been filed by the appellant, are based on common judgment and decree dated 19-10-1985, passed in suits in question. The common and basic facts and law are also common. The appellants, had filed common defence in all the matters. Therefore, common issues had been framed in all the above suits. All these appeals were admitted on the points mentioned in the respective memo of appeal. There were no que...

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Vs. Dattatraya E. Galave and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2005(104)FLR786]

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the parties. Perused the avoids.The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Industrial Court in Appeal (1C) No. 50 of 1999 whereby the Industrial Court has allowed the appeal against the orders dated 5th April, 1999 and 13th July, 1999 passed by the Labour Court in Application (BIR) No. 104 of 1995 filed under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, hereinafter called as 'the said Act', and has directed reinstatement of respondent No. 1 with continuity in service however without payment of back-wages.2. The impugned order is sought to be challenged on the ground that the appellate-authorities, merely on the basis that the respondent was acquitted in criminal prosecution under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, could not have set aside the order passed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court had held that domestic inquiry was fair and just and the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer were not perverse and hence h...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bhushan Processors Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(177)ELT285Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The issue involved in this appeal is Application of notification No. 29/96 CE(NT) dated 3.9.96 as amended and also as provided in notification No. 85/87 CE dated 1.3.87 as amended from time to time.2. The appellants are M/s. Bhushan Processors Pvt. Ltd. engaged in the manufacture of cotton fabrics and man made fabrics falling under Chapter 52, 54 and 55 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and have filed three refund claims under Rule 57(F) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Division V, Ahmedabad, rejected the refund claims on the appellant. On filing appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), observed that merely writing on the AR-4 or invoices "deemed credit not availed" under a bonafide impression could not have been ground for rejection of the said credit, particularly when there is no dispute eligibility of the said credit.4. It is further observed with regard to non-fulfillment of condition No. 2 of the ...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Armstrong World Inds. (i) Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This is a Revenue's appeal against the order of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who in the impugned order set aside the order of the lower authority. The issue relates to valuation of goods imported by the respondent from M/s. Arm strong World Industries incorporated in USA. It is an admitted fact that the respondent is a subsidiary of the parent company who supplied the goods.2. The short issue that arose is whether the import is between related parties. The lower original authority observed that the importers were getting a discount of 25% to 30% from their supplier as they are related persons of the supplier. He ruled that the discount of 25% to 30% as declared by the importer is not admissible. He determined the value disallowing the discount of 25% to 30% on the declared price. In appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the lower authority. The department is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and hence this appeal.4. The main grouse of the...

National Torch and Tubes and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT622Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. This is an application for extension of stay order granted in the above appeals on 15.02.2003. The brief averment in the petitions are as follows.2. The Hon'ble Tribunal has been pleased to grant stay and dispensation from pre-deposit in the above said appeals on 15.02.2003 on the condition that the appellants should pay Rs. 50,000/- towards duty on such deposit. The remaining duty and penalty is waived from deposit.The appellants complied with the order by payment of Rs. 50,000/-.However, on expiry of six months, since the applicants appeal has not been finally disposed of, the Dept. is insisting for the payment of remaining duty and penalty.3. Therefore, the applicants submit that non-disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal within the period of six months is causing much hardship.Therefore, it is prayed to extend the stay order.4. Now the point for determination is that whether the appellant is entitled for extension of the stay order as sought for.5. The issue i...