Mumbai Court August 2004 Judgments

Shri Sadashiv Sakharam Vs. Additional Director General and Special Ins ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(6)BomCR617; 2005(1)MhLj243

V.M. Kanade, J.1. Petitioner is challenging the Order dated 25/02/1999 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (For short 'MAT') in Original Application No. 617 of 1994 whereby his application was dismissed by the MAT. Thereafter, a Review Petition was filed by the petitioner which also was rejected.2. Brief facts are as under:-3. Petitioner was appointed as Police Sub-Inspector on 01/06/1964. On 15/12/1987, he was promoted as Police Inspector. On 27/12/1989, the petitioner was placed under suspension on the allegation that he had demanded and accepted an illegal gratification. A Charge Sheet was issued to the petitioner to hold a departmental enquiry in the said misconduct in January 1990. Petitioner's application seeking permission to engage a lawyer to defend himself was not decided and no orders were passed on the said application. The Enquiry Officer has submitted his report on 07/01/1992 and held that the charges against the petitioner were not proved. However, ...

Shri Laxman Shankar Kaledhonkar Vs. the Honorary Secretary, Walwa Talu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR386; 2004(6)BomCR613; 2005(1)MhLj833

A.P. Shah, J. 1. The petitioner is working as a teacher in the D.Ed. College conducted by the 1st respondent society since 1.6.1976. At the time of his appointment as a teacher in the D.Ed. College, the petitioner possessed the qualification of B.A. B.Ed., then essential for the said post. The petitioner subsequently obtained M.Sc. Degree in the subject of Education Communication from Yeshwantrao Chavan Mukta Vidyapeeth, Nasik which has been recognised by the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. According to the petitioner M.Sc. degree in the subject of Education Communication is equivalent to M.A. M.Ed.2. The 1st respondent institute runs a Girls High School and two Secondary Schools apart from the D.Ed. College. The Girl School and Secondary Schools are governed by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service Regulations) Act, 1977 and the Rules framed thereunder which are hereinafter for brevity's sake referred to as the 'MEPS Act' and 'MEPS Rules'. Prior t...

Keshav S/O Ganpatrao Hedau Vs. Damodhar S/O Udaramji Kandrikar and anr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom118; 2005(1)ALLMR19; 2004(4)MhLj1104

Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. This Appeal has been preferred by the -. grandfather of a minor Rohit, son of the appellant's late son Ramchandra and non-appiicant/Respondent No. 2 Mrs. Usha and thereby, challenged the order dated 5th January, 1995, passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Nagpur in Misc. Civil (Guardian) Application No. 430 of 1982 under Section 8 of the Guardian and Wards Act (for short 'the Act'), whereby appellant's application for appointment as guardian of the minor Rohit was dismissed. The crystallized facts, according to me, itself are sufficient to dismiss this Appeal. 2. Appellant's son viz. Ramchandra Keshav Hedau had married with the respondent No. 2 on 1-6-1986. The male child i.e. Rohit was born on 23-9-1987. The said Ramchandra, lather of minor Rohit, died on 1-3-1988. The mother, respondent No. 2, left the matrimonial house of the appellant and started living with respondent No. 1, who is the father of the respondent No. 2. Rohit, being minor, has been living...

Ramrao Ramchandra Datir Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2005(104)FLR656]; (2005)IILLJ607Bom; 2005(1)MhLj115

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the present writ petition is directed against the issuance of Charge Sheet dated 9-2-1988 issued by respondent No. 1 as well as letter dated 15-4-1989 issued by respondent No. 1 and communication dated 3-9-1990 issued by the Divisional Special Officer to the petitioner whereby the petitioner was informed that the Government has decided to hold a Departmental Enquiry against him as per Government Order Textile Section, dated 31-8-1989.3. Shri Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the issuance of charge sheet dated 9-2-1988 itself is not sustainable in law in view of the order passed by this Court dated 24-3-1986 in Writ Petition No. 598 of 1987, which reads thus :'Mr. V. D. Govilkar for the petitioner.Mr. M. B. Mehere, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent.The ...

Food Inspector Vs. Balkisan Bansilal Chandak and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ1680

P.S. Brahme, J.1. Heard Mr. Mandpe, learned A.P.P. for the appellant and Mr. A.V. Bhide, learned Advocate for the respondents.These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order of acquittal of respondents of offence under Section 2(ia)(a) read with Section 7(i) read with Section 16(1-a) and Section 17 and Section 2(ia)(m), Section 7(i) read with Section 16(1-a) read with Section 17 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, 2nd Court, Khamgaon in Criminal Case No. 147/1989 and Summary Criminal Case No. 1578/1985 passed on 18-7-1990. Hence these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The facts leading to the prosecution against the respondents are as follows :--The respondent No. 4 (original accused No. 4), M/s. Chandak Trading Company was a registered Partnership Firm dealing in grocery business having its shop on Main Road, , Khamgaon. Original accused Nos. 1 to 3 were partners of the said partnership firm. The complai...

Asian Paints (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(99)ECC196

1 Heard Both sides. The issue relates to the denial of MODVAT credit.The appellants are leading manufacturers of paints, enamels, varnishes, thinners and having paint manufacturing units at various places in India. The appellants availed Modvat credit on forklift under Rule 57Q as capital goods at the plant situate in Andhra Pradesh. The Asst.Commissioner disallowed Modvat credit on forklift on the ground that the same is not covered under the definition of capital goods by order dated 6.6.96. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-Original No. 68/96 and rejected the appeal filed by the appellants. Hence this appeal.2. The issue is squarely covered by a decision reported in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur, 1998 (101) ELT. 131 (Del). In the above case, certain items of electrical/electronic equipments, PVC insulated cables and modules have been considered as capital goods for the purpose of Rule 57Q. Hence the appeal is allowed...

Vivek Joshi, Sohel Kazani, Raman Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT573Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants are importers of waste paper which they use as raw material in their factory to manufacture paper pulp. They filed a BE dated 22.05.02 for clearance of one such consequent in three containers and declared the imported goods as "Waste Paper Soft White Shavings".The goods were assessed and sent for dock examination & clearance. On examination it was found that bales of declared waste paper were in front side of the container, while at the rear end the bales contained Art Paper sheet of uniform size, 12 such bals were said to conceal 109 pallets of serviceable paper (water paper was 11.324 MTs & serviceable 54.23 MTs). The goods were seized. Inquiries were made and show cause notice dated 3.12.02 was issued to iii) Shri. Raman Balasubramanian, Chief Executive of High Seas Seller i) Each container has four bales of waste paper which conceal the pallets of serviceable paper and since custom examination using a percentage basis, this was a deliberate act. ii) BE was fi...

Cynamid Agro Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce (Adj)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(121)LC434Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals are filed by the appellants aggrieved by the Order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adj), Mumbai, who has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 1,46,86,576/- and imposed equal amount of penalty.2. The appellants carry on the business of manufacturing, inter alia, the following technical concentrated Pesticidal Preparations: The Technical Grade manufactured by them have higher concentrations than the formulations, which are made therefrom and which meant for direct application. Technical Grade are insecticides and pesticides etc. and contain various ingredients in a concentrated and toxic form and have to be further compounded into formulations by the additions of solvents, inerts, etc. as so to be able to be used by the ultimate consumer.3. The issue involved in the case is that whether the goods viz.Insecticides, roderticides (pesticides), etc. manufactured by the appellant unit are classifiable under heading No. 38.08 or heading No.29.42 of the Schedule to t...

Bansilal M. Singhvi, Partner of Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing the case for some time, it is found possible, with the consent of both the parties, to deal with the appeal after waiving pre-deposit of penalty.2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of processed manmade fabrics. During the course of preventive checks, it was revealed that the appellant cleared excisable goods without payment of central excise duty and without cover of central excise invoices. The original adjudicating authority confirmed central excise duty amounting to Rs. 6,85,657/- already paid by the appellant on different dates varying from 30.8.1997 to 31.12.1997 leviable on the processed manmade fabrics admeasuring 149056 L.mts.valued at Rs. 34,28,282/-, imposed an equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- on the partner under Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Cent...

Govinda Bhagoji Kamable and ors. Vs. Sadu Bapu Kamable (D/H. Maruti Sa ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR272; 2004(6)BomCR552; 2005(1)MhLj651

Abay S. Oka, J.1. On the request made by the learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants, names of Respondents Nos. 4 and 6 are deleted at the risk of the Appellants.2. On 15th June 2004, notice was issued by this Court for final disposal of the appeal at admission stage. I have accordingly heard Shri Shaikh, Advocate appearing for the Appellants and Shri M.L. Patil, Advocate appearing for the Respondents Nos. 1-A to 1-H, 2 and 3. The order impugned in this appeal is the order dated 14th September 1999 by which the appeal preferred by the Appellants was dismissed for default. The order passed by the appellate Court reads thus:'Appellants absent when called. Their Counsel has filed no instruction purses at Exh.26. Hence the appeal is dismissed for default of appellants. It be filed.'3. The learned Advocate for the Appellants submitted that only because no instruction purses was filed by the Advocate appearing for the Appellants, the Appeal was dismissed for default. He submitted that ...