Mumbai Court September 2004 Judgments

Chimanlal Vithaldas Panchal Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2005)DMC415

Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. This is an appeal by the appellant-accused against the order of conviction dated 25th January, 2000, by which the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 by the Additional Sessions Judge and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.2. The crime was registered against the four accused. Appellant is the original accused No. 1 by the impugned judgment, accused No. 2 Dashrath was acquitted for the same offence. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 viz., Pravin and Kanaiyalal aged 128 and 14 years respectively, being juvenile, were discharged by the High Court order dated 16th October, 1986, in a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.3. There was no eye witness in the matter. The prosecution has examined 7 witnesses. P.W. 1-Laxmi Rajaram Godan, P.W. 2-Dr. Ghanshyam Daulatram Bhatiya, P.W. 3 - Dr. Kumar Dattatraya Mana...

Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation Vs. State of Ma ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)MhLj171

ORDERS.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In all these matters, petitioner Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation, Aurangabad impugns the orders/ award made by respondent No. 2 in applications under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. These awards are made on 22-10-2001. XBy the award, several claimants have been awarded diverse sums in respect of acquisition of their lands for the purpose of the Development Corporation.2. Reliance is placed on Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which reads as under :28A. (1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Section 4, Sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, by written application to the Co...

Shri Suresh Jhunjhunwala, Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT60Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant at the outset submitted that the issue involved in the present cases is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by various decisions of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Apex Court. The recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2004 (163) ELT A113 held as under: "The Supreme Court Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar on 4/12/2003 after condoning the delay, dismissed the Review Petition (C) No. 1626 of 2003 in Civil Appeal No. 4230 of 2001 filed by Commissioner of Customs (HP), Mumbai against the CEGAT Order No. 2774/2000 WZB, dated 18/8/2000 and reported in 2000 (121) ELT 810 (Tri.) (Prayag Exporters Pvt. Ltd. V. Commissioner). While dismissing the review petition, the Supreme Court passed the following order- We have carefully gone through the review petition and the connected papers. In our view no case is made out to review our earlier order. The review ...

Malpani Infertility Clinic Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Appropriate Authorit ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom26; 2004(4)ALLMR836; 2005(1)BomCR595; (2005)107BOMLR737; 2004(4)MhLj1058

ORDERH.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Mr. Anturkar for the petitioners. Mr. Sakhare Senior Advocate with Mr. Patil appears for respondent No. 1 and Mrs. Pawar, Additional Government Pleader for respondent No. 2.2. This petition seeks to challenge the order dated 7th August, 2003 issued by respondent No. 1 under the provisions of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (for short 'the PNDT Act') which suspends the registration of the 1st petitioner's Diagnostic Centre under the PNDT Act. This is an Act which has been passed by the Parliament to deal with the problem of pre-natal sex determination leading to female foeticide. A Public Interest Petition bearing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 301 of 2001 was filed in the Apex Court by an N.G.O. CEHAT (Centre for Enquiry into Health and Allied Themes) wherein a grievance was made that in spite of passing the said Act, the activities, which are prohibited under this Act, are going on. The petitioner...

Ramnarayan S/O Manilal Sahu Through Lrs. Smt. Kamal Wd/O Ramnarayan Sa ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR397; 2005(2)MhLj95

P.S. Brahme, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.By this petition the petitioner challenges the Order dated 9-10-1986 passed by 15th Additional District Judge, Nagpur in M. C. A. 459/1983 whereunder respondents No. 1 and 2 were prevented from paying the amount of compensation as per award to the original petitioner till the decision on M. C. A. 459/1983. Petitioners sought declaration that the order passed by the 15th Additional District Judge, Nagpur in M. C. A. 459/1983 dated 9-10-1986 be quashed and set aside and that the amount of compensation be paid to the petitioners who are legal representatives of original petitioner.2. The subject-matter of dispute is the entitlement of petitioners of compensation in respect of acquisition of the land admeasuring 17 acres 23 gunthas out of the land survey No. 86 as per the award dated 6-4-1987 in land acquisition case No. 10/A-65/84-85 of village Nanda by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (General), Nagpur respon...

Smt. Josephine D'Costa, widow of Manual Educardo Modestino de Silva (s ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR614

N.A. Britto, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the Plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No. 5/87/A. 2. The parties to this appeal shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the said Civil Suit. 3. The dispute between the three sets of parties is regarding the land surveyed under Nos. 145/6 and 145/7. 4 The Plaintiffs' suit for declaration, injunction and/or for recovery of possession came to be dismissed by Judgment/Order dated 31st August, 1998, of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem, and an appeal filed against the same, being Regular Civil Appeal No. 75/1998 came to be dismissed by Judgment/Order dated 5th October, 2000. 5. The case of the Plaintiffs is that there is a property known as 'Ambeachem' alias 'Tansorem' situated in Naqueri village of Quepem taluka having Land Registration No. 1042 and bounded on the East by the paddy field known as 'Deulachi Nomoxi' situated at Quitol and village boundary of Dabem(Morpirla Village); on the West by the falli...

ipcl Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(117)LC385Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The duty demand has been confirmed on Light Ends and Heavy Ends as a result of denying the benefit of Notification No. 217/86-CE (captive consumption notification) on the ground that Light Ends and Heavy Ends were cleared for captive consumption without payment of duty for manufacture of HCL which in turn was exemption from payment of duty. It is explained to us by the appellant herein who are represented by counsel that in the course of manufacture of ultimate final product HDPE PVC which were admittedly cleared on payment of duty several intermediate products arise such as HCL, demineralised water, heavy ends and light ends arise. It is submitted that in the light of Board's circular No. 17/93-CX.8 dated 6.12.1993 wherein it has been clarified that exemption may be permitted under Notification No. 217/86 to more than one intermediate product used captively in the manufacture of final product provided such intermediate products are those as contained in the Table to the Notificati...

Indiana Chem-port and ors. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(117)LC610Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The common issue arising for determination in all these appeals is whether the process of purification of chemicals bought out from the market results in manufacture of new excisable commodity liable to excise duty.2. We have heard both sides. The duty paid inorganic/organic compound purchased by the appellants herein from the market contains impurities which are removed by the appellants by the process of distillation, crystallization, solvent extraction, filtration etc. and nothing comes out from the record as to what new product is alleged to have arisen as a result of the above mentioned process. In these circumstances, the Tribunal's decision in the case of S.D. Fine Chem (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CCE 1997 (91) ELT 610 (T) holding that purification of bought out chemicals through distillation or recrystallization does not amount to manufacture for the reason that marginal purification of chemicals does not result in a new commercial commodity having a distinct name, character or use, is ...

Concept Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The appellant is M/s. Concept Pharmaceuticals Ltd., who are manufacturer of medicines, falling under Chapter 30 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and they are also availing MODVAT credit Under Rule 57A/57AB of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. On subsequent inspection of the premises of the appellant by the Preventive Officers, it is noticed that some inputs were found short, where upon the appellant reversed the MODVAT credit involved on such shortages amounting to Rs. 2,572/-. Further it is noticed that the appellant had availed MODVAT credit on all inputs used in the manufacture of exempted and dutiable goods without giving due consideration, whether the inputs were common for both dutiable as well as exempted products and reversed MODVAT credit @ 8% as per provisions of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. According to the appellant, out of 400 formulations they manufactured, 15 are exempted from the duty. The appellants were reversed the MODVAT credit up to Au...

Bhikkamal Chhotelal Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC317

1. The appellants herein filed Bill of Entry on 15.9.97 which was noted on 16.9.97 for clearance of vessel M.V. CONSTRANTINOG .M for home consumption for breaking. It was noticed on scrutiny of the bill of entry that the rate of duty against Chapter Heading 8908.00 and 9805.10 was shown as 2% and not as 5% and further it was noticed that no bill of entry had been filed for clearance of excess bunker on board other than the bunker in the engines and machineries. These discrepancies were pointed out to the appellants and vide letter dated 29.9.97 corrected the bills of entry as regards the rate of duty, but neither declared nor filed bill of entry for clearance of excess bunkers. Show cause notice proposing to recover duty on the excess bunkers was issued; the adjudicating authority assessed the bill of entry asking them to pay total duty of Rs. 1,13,01,123 for the clearance of the vessel including duty on vessel, bunkers and foodstuff on the board.Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adju...