Mumbai Court August 2004 Judgments

Kadir Usman Mujawar Vs. Dattatraya Bhaskar Sinkar Deceased Through His ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)MhLj1076

S.R. Sathe, J.1. These three appeals are filed by Kadir Usman Mujawar, the original plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 11 of 1982, 80 of 1982 and 4 of 1986 against the common judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Raigad, Alibag in Civil Appeal Nos. 54 of 1987, 55 of 1987 and 87 of 1987 respectively, whereby the order of dismissing the suits of plaintiff passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag was confirmed and all the three appeals were dismissed. (For the sake of convenience hereafter the parties shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendants.)2. The brief facts which are necessary for the purpose of these second appeals are as under :The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff's father and defendant No. 1 formed a partnership firm by name B. B. Sinkar and U. J. Mujawar Company in the year 1949 and had started business of cutting jungle wood. Both the partners had equal share in the said partnership. In the year 1966, the fathe...

Gujarat Glass Ltd. and Mahadev Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants are manufacturers of glass bottles and glasswares. On 26.12.1998, Preventive check in presence of Mahadev Prasad, Vice President of the Unit was conducted by the Preventive Officers in the factory. It was found that certain goods could not be accounted and certain goods which were fully manufactured were not entered in the statutory records prescribed. The goods so found not accounted in the statutory records valued at Rs 44004280/- were ordered to be confiscated under Rule I73Q (l)(d) and a redemption fine of Rs 44004280/- was imposed. Duty of Rs 3,20,000/- paid by the appellant on 27.12.1998 being part payment of duty of Rs 609772/- leviable on 3402777 bottles valued at Rs 3387624/-which were not found in the premises and or accounted for and were admitted by Mahadev Prasad, Vice President to have been removed unaccounted and without payment of duty was determined payment of Rs 2,89,772/- penalty on that account demanded. A penalty of Rs 609772/-under Rule 173Q (1)...

Manoj Processors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT440Tri(Mum.)bai

1. After hearing both sides, and considering that the delay of 80 days in filing this appeal has been explained only due to sickness of the proprietor, Manoj Agarwal, who has been certified to be suffering from 'infective hepatitis with general debility' and was advised rest from 27-5-2004 by Dr. B.S. Agrawal, M.D. (Registration No G-1009) Consulting Physician, Agrawal Hospital, Surat and considering that in the same appellant's case, a Bench of this Tribunal vide Order No A/688/WZB/2004/CI/ 653/WZB/2004/CI, M/241WZB/2004/C-I, dated 21-4-2004, has found that the delay of 84 days in that case was not called for on the following grounds : "3. We find that the learned JCDR is correct in pointing out that the medical certificate does not inspire confidence as it has been stated therein that Mr. Kishore Ramgopal Agarwal was advised rest during the period above mentioned which does not tally entirely with the claim made in the application for condonation. Secondly, there is an authorised si...

Kiran Sagarmal JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Airport

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT432Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Briefly the facts are that on 19/01/96 police seized 12 foreign market gold from one Shri Vithal R. Chikla. As per the order of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla, Mumbai, the gold bars were taken over by the Customs under a Panchnama dated 25/01/96. The appellant in this case approached the police and claimed the gold stating that it was on his instructions that Shri Chilka was carrying the gold from Mumbai to Hyderabad and that the gold should be returned to him. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate therefore directed the police to hand over the gold to Customs for proceedings to be conducted under the Customs Act. It transpired that the appellant claimed that the gold in question was brought into India by one Vazue Abdul Razaque Umer, Passport No. P-840388, that the said gold was handed over to him for sale; that he knew Razaque for the last four years; that Razaque under an affidavit stated that he handed over the gold to the appellant and that the sale pro...

Bensons Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellants provide advertising service and pay service tax on such services. Service tax on advertising agencies is introduced in the year 1996. The appellants have duly registered themselves with the jurisdictional Central Excise officers. As per the provisions of Service Tax Rules, the appellants were required to collect the service tax from their customers and deposit such tax into the treasury. They were required to file a periodical return giving details of the service tax collected and paid into the government account. The appellants filed such returns regularly. After assessment by a proper officer a copy of an assessment memorandum was periodically given to the appellants who were required to comply with the remarks of any short payments or interest payments etc., as may be pointed by the assessing officer.2. In the months of July and August 1997, the appellants received show cause notices wherein it was alleged that the appellants had delayed the payment of service tax...

Shri Kamalakar Ganesh Sambhus Vs. Master Tejas Kamalakar Sambhus (Bein ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2004Bom478; 2004(4)ALLMR670; 2004(6)BomCR587; I(2005)DMC118; 2004(4)MhLj754

F.I. Rebello, J.1. The appellant herein was the petitioner in petition No. 408/1995, which has filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. That petition came to be allowed and the marriage between the appellant Kamalakar and respondent Suvarna stood dissolved with effect from the date of the order. Mrs. Suvarna has not challenged the order of divorce. A further direction was given, that the appellant and respondent are the joint owners of the house property situated at Lake Villa, Shree Siddhatek Co-Op Housing Society, Sutarwadi, Pashan Pune and the respondent's share in the title of the property was determined to be half share. It was further directed that both the appellant and respondent's have right to possession over the house property to the extent of half share and in the event of sale of the house property, the petitioner and respondent will be entitled to receive half of the sale proceeds. The parties were also directed to pay equally the liability of property tax...

Sukhdev Singh Jamwal Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004CriLJ4338

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the original accused No. 1 challenging his conviction Under Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.C. Act' for short) by which he was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of Court. A fine of Rs. 25,000/- was directed to be paid by the appellant, in default, to suffer R.I. for one month.2. I have heard Mr. Gavanekar for accused, Mr. Satpute for respondent No. 2 and Mr. Shringarpure for respondent No. 1.3. The case against the accused was that he was working as Regional Iron and Steel Controller, Mumbai during the relevant time. He had powers and jurisdiction over State of Maharashtra and, State of Gujrat and Goa and had powers to inspect and call for documents from the Companies consuming Iron and Steel products. Accused No. 1 was to visit M/s. Marathwada Alloy Steel Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'MASCO' for short). He did visit the MASCO during period 26th Apri...

N.K.P. Salve Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre Vs. the ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom18; 2004(4)ALLMR597; 2005(1)BomCR659

Dalveer Bhandari, C.J.I1. Managements of privately owned professional collages imparting education in Health Science disciplines are before the Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. They are aggrieved by the determination of fees made by a Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice R.A. Jahagirdar, a former Judge of this Court. The institutions have several objections to the decision of the Committee, both in regard to the methodology and on the merits of the determination. The institutions and their managements urge that the deprivation of an opportunity of a personal hearing is a matter of prejudice to them because were they to be given that opportunity they would have established that expenditure which the Committee proposed to disallow was legitimate and had to be allowed. The Colleges urge that the methodology and basis are at variance with judgments of the Supreme Court. They contend that the jurisdiction of the Committee is not fix fees but...

Central Bank of India Vs. Shri Kurian Babu and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(4)ALLMR521; I(2005)BC594; 2004(6)BomCR597; 2004(4)MhLj1006

ORDERA.P. Shah J.1. Rule. Respondent No. 1 appearing for himself and for respondent No. 2 waives service.2. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith.3. This petition, inter alia, raises a question of construction of Section 20(1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (Act 51 of 1993). The petitioner is a Nationalised Bank and had filed a civil suit No. 493 of 1989 in the court of Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Pune and then the said suit was transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune being Original Application No. 30/P/2000 claiming a sum of Rs. 11,05,667.91 together with interest with respect to various facilities granted to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and to which respondent Nos. 1 and 2 stood as guarantors. As the original documents were not traceable, the petitioner took out an application being Exh.43 for permission to lead secondary evidence. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune vide its order dated 1 h June, 2003 allowed the petitioner to lead secon...

Anamik Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. Narayan Janardhan Ambe ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR861; 2005(1)BomCR186; 2004(4)MhLj1023

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel appearing for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Mr. Shahapurkar waives notice for respondent No. 1. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are formal parties. Notices to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are dispensed with. As short question is involved, petition taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent.2. This petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the President, Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Bombay, dated June 21, 2004 in A. O. No. 46/2004. By the said appeal, the petitioner had assailed the correctness of the decision of the Co-operative Court No. 4, Bombay, dated February 16, 2004, in Dispute No. 239 of 1996, wherein the Co-operative Court held that the Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the dispute, except in respect of the amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- allegedly incurred by the respondent No. 1 - Disputant towards legal expenses. The Co-operative Court directed respondent No. 1 to amend t...