Mumbai Court August 2004 Judgments

Salim IkramuddIn Ansari and anr. Vs. Officer-in-charge, Borivali Polic ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)106BOMLR868

Dalveer Bhandari, C.J.1. This is a classic case of violation of human rights, fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ('the Act', for short).2. The brief facts of this case are recapitulated as under : Petitioner No. 1, Salim Ikramuddin Ansari, aged about 15 years at the time of his arrest, has moved this petition with a prayer to declare his incarceration in Mumbai Central Prison unlawful and in violation of the Act.3. The first petitioner has also prayed that the second respondent be directed to produce him before the Juvenile Justice Board. The further prayer is to shift him from Mumbai Central Prison to the observation home at Urnerkhadi.4. It is submitted that petitioner No. 1 has remained in unlawful custody of the Mumbai Central Prison from 16th November, 2001 to 11th February, 2003 and for that, he be awarded compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-.5. Petitioner No. 1 has also prayed that he be awarded ...

Pradip L. Mehta, W.W. Shipping Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These three appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai.2. Pradip L. Mehta is a proprietor of M/s. Raj Enterprises. He floats firms in different names and imports Mitsubishi colour film rolls mostly to fool the Japanese supplier who, for some reason, docs not want to sell a lot of his product to the same importer in India. On this occasion, the appellant imported 100,000 of such rolls in the name of Raj Enterprises. The Japanese, according to Mehta, have come to know that the Indian Government imposes a stiff customs duty on colour films and, therefore, decided to reduce their price in such a way that their product sells in India at the same price as it does, say in America and Singapore. Mehta has taken advantage of this pricing policy of the Japanese thrice before. His strategy is simplicity itself. He imports colour films all the way from Japan, warehouses them after their clearance without payment of customs duly, procures an export order ...

ivp Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(117)LC216Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.6.1994 it was noticed by the Excise authorities that the appellants herein who are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods galling under Chapters 26, 29, 34, 39 etc. of the Schedule to CETA, 1985 had take credit of Rs. 15,92,477/- in their RG. 23A Part II Account without taking corresponding credit of the same in the RG. 23A part I Account of quantity credit. On this basis it was alleged that the credit had been availed without actual receipt of inputs in their factory; show cause notice dated 22.7.1994 proposing recovery of the credit for the above reason and proposing penal action was issued, which was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner who upheld the duty demand and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2000/- upon the assessees; the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order; hence this appeal.2. We have heard both sides. The plea of the appellants that goods were actually received in their factory and non-entry of the s...

Cce Vs. Voltas Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(117)LC51Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue involved in this appeal is the correct classification of Centrifugal Liquid Chiller manufactured by the assessee herein, whether under Chapter heading No. 84.18 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as claimed by the respondents or under Chapter Heading No. 84.15 as contended by the department. The Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the stand of the assessee for classification under Chapter Heading No. 84.18, and hence, the revenue is in appeal against his order.2. On hearing both sides, we find that it is not disputed, that the question of classification stands decided by the Tribunal Order in the case of Carrier Aircon Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi holding that chiller is classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.18 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. There are subsequent decisions also in the case of the same assessee Voltas Ltd. and Anr. v.CCE, Mumbai-VI vide order No. A/268-271/WZB/04-C-II dated 21.5.2004 : 2004 (115) ECR 284 (T); wherein the T...

Dy. Cit Vs. Aatur Holding (P) Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)1SOT101(Mum.)

These two departmental appeals involving common issues are disposed of by this common order. An application for adjournment on behalf of the assessee respondent has been filed by Shri Ashwin Mehta, Director of the company on the ground that the assessee company belongs or Harshad Mehta group and the cases of Harshad Mehta group are being normally heard by ITAT, A Bench, Mumbai. It is, therefore, requested that these appeals may be transferred to the A Bench.None was present on behalf of the assessee company. The Bench felt that the request of the assessee is untenable and can not be accepted.Therefore, the assessees application was rejected and we have beard Shri Ashok Kotangle, standing counsel, who attended on behalf of the department. The appeals are decided on merits.Both the appeals pertain to deletion by the learned CIT(A) of penalties of Rs. 87,56,292 and Rs. 3,01,46,655, levied by the assessing officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 1991...

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Subhash Kondiram More

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR40

Nishita Mhatre, J.1. This Petition challenges the order dated 10th March 1995 passed by the Labour Court, Bombay in Application (IDA) No. 537 of 1986 under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The claim of the Respondent workman has been allowed and the petitioner Corporation has been directed to pay the Respondent workman an amount of Rs. 57,466.50 along with costs of Rs. 500/-.2. The Respondent applied for employment as a Painter for the Teaching Aid Centre pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Petitioner on 23rd November 1971. (sic) appointed as a Painter, the candidate was required (i) to know painting work very well and (ii) to have experience of painting for atleast two years. The Petitioner appointed the Respondent with effect from 21st March 1972 and he was designated as a Painter. He continued to work as such and is in fact working in the same grade as Painter upto today. The Respondent workman filed an application o...

The Upper India Couper Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Mangaldas and Sons

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR228; 2004(6)BomCR18; 2004(4)MhLj992

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel appearing for the parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr. Uraizee waives notice for Respondents.3. As short question is involved, the matter is heard for final disposal forthwith, by consent.4. The only question that needs to be examined in the present Petition is: whether the Trial Court was justified in declining the request of the Petitioners/Defendants to allow them to continue the cross-examination by confronting the Respondents/Plaintiffs witness with documents without furnishing advance copies thereof to the concerned witness. The Trial Court has rejected that request on the reasoning that in view of the provisions contained in Order VIII Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Petitioners/Defendants were obliged to disclose those documents in the written statement and also furnish advance copies thereof to the Respondent/Plaintiffs. The grievance made before this Court is that the Petitioners/Defendants wer...

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Dinkar Balkrishna Palande

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ1280

R.S. Mohite, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the State seeking to quash and set aside the Judgment and Order passed by the Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri on 28.4.1988 in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1987, acquitting the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution case is as under:a) The accused was married with the deceased Vidya @ Sarojini. They were residing at Village Pratahanvali. That, the accused was running a flour mill at Village Khor Ninko. In addition to the business of running flour mill he was doing the business of making Ganpati idols during the Ganpati festival. The flour mill of the accused was close to the house of P.W.No. 3-Satyawati. The incident in question took place on 27.9.1986 at about 1.00 p.m. On this day the deceased Vidya came to the house of Satyawati with a tiffin which she was carrying to give to her husband. Satyawati then told her that accused had not consumed his tiffin on the earli...

Chintaman Sukhdeo Kaklij and ors. Vs. Shivaji Bhausaheb Gadhe and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(5)BomCR573; 2004(4)MhLj739

A.P. Shah, J.1. Divergent opinions expressed by two learned Single Judges of this Court have necessitated the present reference to a larger Bench to resolve the conflict as regards the true and correct interpretation of Order 8, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC for short). The question that falls for consideration is whether the Court can permit filing of written statement beyond the period of 90 days stipulated under Order 8, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The reference arises in following manner.2. In Prabhakar Madhavrao Mule v. Bhagwan Mitharam, : 2004(5)BomCR568 , Vagyani J., held that by virtue of recent amendment to the Civil Procedure Code by Act 22 of 2002, there is no alternative for the defendant to file written statement within 30 days from the date of service of suit summons and by virtue of proviso to Rule 1, Order 8 of the Civil Procedure Code, the written statement can be allowed to be filed on such other day for reason to be recorded in writing, but in any c...

Sajeda Nihal Ahmed Vs. Malegaon Municipal Corporation and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom81; 2005(1)ALLMR864; 2005(1)BomCR142; 2005(1)MhLj87

ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel appearing for the parties.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr. Sabrad waives notice for respondents 1 and 2 in Writ Petition No. 2465/04 and Civil Application No. 1839/04 and for respondent No. 1 in Civil Application No. 1840/04. Mr. Khemani, A.G.P. waives notice for respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 2465/04 and Civil Application No. 1839/04 and for respondent No. 2 in Civil Application No. 1840/04. Mr. Shaikh waives notice for Intervenor Applicant in Civil Application No. 1840/04.3. As short question is involved, the matter is heard for final disposal forthwith, by consent.4. This Writ Petition takes exception to the decision of the Municipal Commissioner, Malegaon Municipal Corporation, Malegaon dated February 23, 2004. The principal question involved in this petition is; whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction to declare that the petitioner has incurred disqualification from being continued as Councillor under Sectio...