Mumbai Court August 2004 Judgments

imam Mirasaheb Nadaf Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR82; 2005(1)BomCR163; 2005(1)MhLj726

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the parties. Perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 11th October, 2001 passed in Appeal No, 22 of 2001 by the Maharashtra Slum Areas (I. C. & R.) Tribunal, Mumbai. The challenge to the impugned order is on the two grounds. Firstly, that the petitioner had raised the specific plea as regards the non-compliance of the mandatory requirements under section 4(1) before issuing the declaration under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance & Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter called as 'the said Act') in relation to the area in question and the lower Appellate Authority failed to consider the same and thereby failed to exercise its jurisdiction in that regard, which is otherwise required to be exercised. Secondly, that the lower, Appellate Authority also failed to decide the issue pertaining to the non-service of the notice relating to the said declaration which was required to be ser...

Yellawwabai Malkappa Mali Since Deceased by Her Legal Heirs Vithabai N ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)BomCR698; 2005(1)MhLj540

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. This petition takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 29th October, 1987 passed by the Designated Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Pune in Revision Application No. MRT.-SH- 112/86 (TNC.B.21/86) Pune.2. Briefly stated, the land in question is agricultural land bearing Survey Nos. 959/3A and 959/5A situated at Mangalwedha, District Sholapur. The petitioners claim to be the landlords and the respondents claim to be the tenants in respect of the suit land. The predecessor of the petitioners Yellawwabai Malkappa Mali and Anjubai Mahadu Mali were the owners. They were disabled landladies being widows on the tillers' day i.e. 1st April, 1957. Accordingly, the tillers' day stood postponed. The landladies, however, filed application purported to be under Section 29 read with Sections 32G, 33P, 35A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), requesting the Authority to hold that the tenant was holding land in ex...

Deepak Atmaram Ingle Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)ILLJ519Bom

J.N. Patel, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties.2. A letter was received by this Court from the petitioner Deepak Atmaram Ingle, Prisoner No. 2460, who was lodged in Amravati Central Prison for undergoing his sentence. The letter was treated as Writ Petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was appointed by the Legal Aid Committee to present the petitioner before this Court.3. The petitioner came to be convicted by the Court of Sessions, Akola for having committed offence under Section 354 read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code by judgment and Order dated March 22, 2002 and came to be lodged in Central Prison, Amravati to undergo his sentence. The petitioner was given training and thereafter was working in the tailoring section of the jail. During the time the petitioner was working on cotton ginning machine, he met with an accident where his left arm broke at two places. He was sent to Irwin Hospital and advised to undergo surgery for inser...

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Vs. General Secretary, Best Workers ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR605; [2005(105)FLR304]; 2005(1)MhLj1013

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. None present for the respondents, though served.2. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order passed by the Labour Court on 8th March, 2001 in Application (BIR) (REIN) No. 59 of 1997 as well as the judgment and order dated 18th June, 2001 passed by the Industrial Court in Appeal (IC) No. 31 of 2001 insofar as it relates to the interference by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court in the matter of quantum of punishment imposed upon the respondent No. 2, who had been found to have misappropriated certain amount of money by causing false entry in relation to the opening account on 4th October, 1996 in the ticket memo.3. The facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the respondent No. 2 was employed as Bus Conductor in the Undertaking of the petitioner since December, 1993. He was charge-sheeted for the misconduct under Standing Order Nos. 20(c) i.e. theft, fraud and dishonesty in connection with the...

imperial Trading Lic, Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The stay application filed by M/s. Impex Enterprises, whose goods namely, Viscose Filament Yarn have been confiscated with option to redeem the same on payment of fine and penalty is dismissed, as infructuous as M/s. Impex Enterprises has already paid duty, fine and penalty.2. We are now left to consider only application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs imposed on M/s. Akhil Abbar Rassai on the ground that in the present case mulberry raw silk which is prohibited goods were smuggled into India by concealing the same along with declared Viscose Rayon Filament Yarn for which Bill of Entry has been filed by the importer.3. The submission of the Ld. Counsel for Akhil Abbar Rasson is that the material on record does not disclose that he had any knowledge of mulberry raw silk being concealed under the viscose filament yarn imported by M/s. Impex Enterprises, and the finding of the Commissioner that he is the person set up the M/s. Impex Enterprises is not borne out fro...

Samsonite India Ltd., Prakash N. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal is taken up for disposal, after grant of waiver of pre deposit along with the stay applications E-Stay 556 to 558/00 and appeals E/739, 740 & 741/00 filed by other persons aggrieved by the same order as in this appeal. The stay applications are pending for a long time. The pre deposits are waived in these cases and these appeals are also being disposed of by this common order.2. After hearing both sides, and considering the issues, it is found that duty demands and penalties have been arrived at on the following grounds: Demand (duty) : Rs. 31,87,414/- (out of which Rs. 28,38,476/- has been paid, the detaiIs as under)----------------------------------------------------------------------S. No. Amount Issue Status----------------------------------------------------------------------1. Rs. 21,08,490/- on account of alleged undervaluation Paid by issuance of Debit Notes towards before the rate difference of ABS Grindings SCN.2 Rs. 3,48,938/- On clearance of ABS Gr1nd1ng...

Marmagoa Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(178)ELT480Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant is a manufacturer of Steel Billets and rolled products of steel, falling under Chapter Heading 7207.90 and 7228.20 of the Schedule to CETA respectively. In the impugned order the Commissioner confirmed a demand of Rs. 27,82,198/- being the credit taken in contravention of Rule 57G and imposed a penalty of Rs. 7 lakhs under Rule 173Q (1) (bb) of CER, 1944. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant under Rule 173Q (1) (a) for contravention of Rule 9, 173F, 173G of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The allegation is that the appellant undervalued steel billets sent for job work and have also failed to include the loading/unloading charges while determining the assessable value in this connection with the clearance of steel billets for conversion on payment of Central Excise duty by under valuing them and for non inclusion of loading and handling charges in the assessable value.3. In regard to the demand for Rs. 27,82,198/- the Commissioner's contention is that t...

Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. Delta Lens Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT464Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. We find that while passing the impugned order the Commissioner has observed as follows :- "I have examined the impugned order-in-original and considered the points raised in the appeal and those urged at the time of personal hearing. I observe that the imported goods are flint glasses and are used in the making of fused bifocal lens by fusing it with woven glass. According to the IS Specification IS : 8260 (Part-I) -1976 as indicated above, a piece of material for the making of a lens at any stage before completion of the surfacing processes is considered to be ophthalmic blank. Since the lens could be bifocal, multifocal etc, the impugned imported goods are clearly covered by the entry "Ophthalmic Blanks" for manufacture of optical lenses appearing at Sr. No. 95 of Notfn. No. 11/97. In that view of the matter, there is no justification for the view taken by the Asstt. Commissioner that the blank in question should be used independently for making the lenses witho...

Cce Vs. Velcord Textiles

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(116)LC732Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), holding that the process of Float cutting carried out by the respondents herein on woven pile fabrics does not amount to manufacture so as to result in manufacture of a new product falling for classification under CET Subheading No. 5801.22 attracting duty at the appropriate rate and setting aside the duty demand of Rs. 65,04,104/- confirmed against the assesses by the Assistant Commissioner.2. On hearing both sides, and noting that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon CBEC Circular No. 363/79/97-CX dt. 10.12.1997 clarified that cut-float pile fabrics as well as in cut pile fabrics will be treated as woven pile fabrics not subjected to any process fall under CET Sub-heading 5801.21 and although float cutting would amount to manufacture as defined under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, the classification of woven pile fabrics would not change from CET Subheading 5801.21 to 5801.22, we see no merit in t...

Pandurang Keshav Gorwadkar and anr. Vs. Paper and Pulp Conversions Ltd ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR582; 2004(4)MhLj932

S.U. Kamdar, J. 1. In the present petition, the petitioners have raised the grievance about the withdrawal of Rs. 3 crores by the respondent No. 2 out of the sale proceeds received from an auction sale in respect of the assets of the 1st respondent company. Some of the material facts of the present case briefly enumerated are as under:-2. The petitioners before the Court are the employees of the respondent No. 1 whereas the respondent No. 2 is a bank and are secured creditors. The respondent No. 3 is the authority constituted under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT Act'). The 2nd respondent filed an application being Original Application No. 344 of 1999 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') fro recovery of the loan lent and advanced by them to the respondent No. 1 company. The said application was allowed by the DRT and ultimately on 21.8.2001 a recovery certi...