Mumbai Court September 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Pushpalata Parshuram Borukar and ors. Vs. Madhavlal N. Pittie Esquire ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR43; 2005(3)BomCR458
Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard. Perused the records. No case for proceeding against the respondent No. 2. The petition as regards the respondent No. 2 is concerned, the same is rejected in limine. Rule. By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioners challenge the order passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court, Mumbai, on 8th July, 2004 in Appeal No. 156 of 2004 whereby the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 27th August, 2003 passed in R.A.E. Suit No. 271/807 of 1981. The eviction suit was filed on three grounds viz. (1) commission of waste and damage to the suit premises, (ii) carrying out additions and alterations of permanent nature and (iii) unlawful subletting of the premises. Both the courts below, on detail analysis of the materials on record, have arrived at the concurrent findings on the said issues and, therefore, undoubtedly in the absence of finding being either perverse ...
Nandkishor Daulatrao Shelke Vs. Baban Vitthal Mhaske and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR131; IV(2005)BC457; 2005(2)BomCR819
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. In this Civil Revision Application filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, the Revision applicant has challenged the order dated 14-3-1996 passed below Ex. 1. In M.J.C. No. 93 of 1994 and has further prayed for declaration that sale of property involved in the said M.J.C. be declared as void.2. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the present Revision applicant is the owner of field Gat No. 99, Area 3 Hectares 47 R, for Rs. 32.38. The present respondent No. 2 Shakuntalabai had obtained a decree for recovery of Rs. 7,000/- against Revision applicant on 24-6-1991 and for execution thereof she filed Regular Darkhast/Execution Case No. 101 of 1991. In that, she made prayer for attachment of property. The property came to be attached by warrant of attachment dated 20-12-1991 and the further process of sale of that field property was undertaken. The sale price of this property was fixed at Rs. 50,000/- on 4-1-1992. The sale was held by bailiff of c...
Station Superintendent, Inter State Police Wireless, Transmitting Stat ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)MhLj971
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This is an appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenging the Award passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 36/93 by the learned District Judge at Panaji on 17th September, 2001. By the said Award, the learned District Judge at Panaji was pleased to enhance the compensation from Rs. 43/- per sq.mt. to Rs. 170/- per sq.mt.2. The Government of Goa published the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short) on 22nd January, 1991 and acquired a total of 10,117 sq.mts. from survey No. 92/1 (part) situated at village Bambolim in Tiswadi Taluka of Goa, for construction of I.S.P.W. Transmitting Station and Staff Quarters. The Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the compensation rate at Rs. 43/- per sq.mt. and being dis-satisfied with the same an application for enhancement was moved, claiming the compensation at Rs. 300/-per sq.mt. Reference was made to the District Court under Section 18 of the Act for consi...
Co-operative Bank Employees' Union Vs. Bharat Co-operative Bank Ltd. a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-2004
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR52]
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The issue which arises in the present petition is, which is the 'Appropriate Government' in respect 'of the respondent No. 1 Bank, a Multi State Co-operative Bank carrying on business in more than one State.A few facts now may be set out:The petitioner Union had filed a complaint being Complaint (ULP) No. 769 of 2002 before the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, under Item 5 of Schedule II and Items 3, 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The Respondent No. 1 raised an objection that M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, is not applicable as the appropriate Government in respect of the Bank is the Central Government. It was contended that as the Respondent No. 1 is a bank engaged in the business of banking and is Banking Company as defined under Clause (c) of Section 5 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949 which is now known as Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Considering the definition of appropriate Government, the appropriate Government would be the Central G...
Polynova Chemical Industries, Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-2004
Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT173Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Spectacles frames at a declared value of Rs. 72,06,386/- were entered for export by M/s Polynova Chemical Industries on an average price of Rs. 602/- per frame, as declared. The valuation on market enquiries were determined to be between Rs. 24 to Rs. 55/- per frame.On the ground that excessive valuation was entered for recovery extra DEPB benefit of over Rs. 10 lakhs, show cause notice was issued to the appellants herein, ie the exporter & the supplier of the frames and the authorised signatory of the suppliers. The goods were provisionally released and exported. Full realisation of the amount, as per the declared values, has been received and evidence to that effect was shown to the adjudicator. The adjudicator however confirmed the charge of over invoicing & ordered the limiting of DEPB to Rs. 3,28,900/- as against Rs. 12,25,088/- claimed. A penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs was imposed on the Exporters proprietor Shri Milan Shah, Rs. 2 on Shri Rajesh Poojari proprietor of M/s SR E...
Ratilal Hemraj and Shri Y. Kerani Vs. C.C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT365Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Consequent to an enquiry being made as regards DEEC imports misuse by one M/s Choice Laboraters, the officers found and seized 208 drums of Glycerine weighing 73.76 MT from the premises of appellant in appeal no. C/350/95. Further enquires made revealed. i) out of 288 drums under seizure, 200 drums were imported in the name of M/s Fresh Laboraters and cleared duty free under DEEC and 88 were part of an import made by M/s Shreeji Cosmetics Industries DEEC. ii) Both these importing forms were claiming MODVAT credit on goods exported to meet DEEC obligations. Thereafter the diversions in the market were made in contravention of DEEC imports. iii) M/s Flash Laboraters were found to be selling goods and 3 Advance licences to Shri Yogesh Kerani owner of M/s Nikita Packaging Pvt Ltd appellants in appeal no C/351/95. iv) Yogesh Karani was negotiating with foreign suppliers and also arrange for money to retire the documents. The licences were handed over to him to clear the goods. He acted ...
Polynova Chemical Industries and Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC297
1. Spectacles frames at a declared value of Rs. 72,06,386 were entered for export by M/s Polynova Chemical Industries on an average price of Rs. 602 per frame, as declared. The valuation on market enquiries were determined to be between Rs. 24 to Rs. 55 per frame. On the ground that excessive valuation was entered for recovery extra DEPB benefit of over Rs. 10 lakhs, show cause notice was issued to the appellants herein, i.e. the exporter & the supplier of the frames and the authorised signatory of the suppliers. The goods were provisionally released and exported. Full realisation of the amount, as per the declared values, has been received and evidence to the effect was shown to the adjudicator. The adjudicator however confirmed the charge of over invoicing & ordered the limiting of DEPB to Rs. 3,28,900 as against Rs. 12,25,088 claimed. A penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs was imposed on the Exporters proprietor Shri Milan Shah, Rs. 2 on Shri Rajesh Poojari proprietor of M/s SR Enterpris...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Lord Shiva Overseas
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-2004
Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC50
1. An import of 8,20,000 pcs of Plastic Lighters vide BE 408085 dated 20.11.2003 was made at declared price of US D 0.05 per pcs. Claiming classification under 9613.109 non-refillable lighter and assessed, after loading the value by 100%. DRI enquired into the matter and based on quotations, proposed re-enhancement of value and change in classification, as refillable lighter under 9613.20. Only value was enhanced to Rs. 48 per dozen under Rule 7 of Custom Valuation Rules in re-adjudication by the Addl. Commissioner, who vide this order dated 31.2.04 imposed a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh for Section 111(m) confiscation liability, rejected the declared value loaded the same as proposed and fixed it at Rs. 13,12,000 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 under Section 112 (d).2. Commissioner appeals, set aside the order of Addl. Commissioner after holding that straight away applying Rule 7 was not permissible and applied the tribunal decision is case of Auto Hardware Enterprise, 2003 (151) ELT 330, ...
Trinity Electric Syndicate Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of Customs,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC717
1. Appellant in C/174 is a company and in C/175/04 is its Managing Director. The Company is engaged in the import and sale of supply of certain machines called T-36, to M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (herein after regards to as BSNL). They imported such machines and cleared them for Custom Department during the period 1.6.99 to 18.02.99.2. a) Certain enquiries were launched, on or around 18.07.01, pursuant to the company having filed BEs dated 31.03.2001, 18.06.2001 for clearance of 210 & 3 & 210 pcs of CD's declared to be containing "Installation Software" for the operation of the machines imported by them. During the enquires made, statements of various persons were recorded and questionnaires sent got answered and taken on record.Based on these enquires, it was alleged in the Show Cause notice That appellant's company had imported T-36 splicing Machines, manufactured and supplied by M/s. Sumitomo Electric Industries, Japan under two separate consignments and two separate i...
Aries Components Manufacturing Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)(174)ELT238Tri(Mum.)bai
--------------------------------------------------------------------Sr. Items in Classification Classification Rate of dutyNo. classification claimed by by Dept. as per in list Appellants Order in Appeal1.Capsule Filling 8479.00 8422.90 10% Machine2.Capsule 8479.00 8422.90 10% Inspection M/c.3.Capsule 8428.00 8422.90 10% Loading M/c.4.Capsule 8479.00 8422.90 10% polishing M/c.5.Capsule 8479.00 8422.90 10% Sorting M/c.8.Top/Bottom 8479.00 8428.00 10% Conveyor Parts of items 8479.00 8431.00 25% at Sr. No. 89.Interchangeable 8479.00 8422.90 25% parts of Sr.12. Components 8479.00 8422.90 25% and spares of13. 8479.00 10% Advelorum The appellants submit that so far items 1 to 5 are concerned there is no difference in rate of duty. The appellants are, however, requesting for modification of the classification list as approved by the Honourable Capsule Inspection Machine is an independent machine and it is not the part of the Capsule Filling Machine, it has got its own power and function indep...