Mumbai Court December 2005 Judgments

Chellaram Jethanand Madhrani and anr. Vs. Maruti Raghunath Kadam and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom147; 2006(3)ALLMR45; 2006(1)MhLj853

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.2. Few facts relevant for the decision are that the original plaintiff Maruti Raghunath Kadam filed Suit No. 95/108 of 1993 in the Court of Small Causes under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 in respect of the suit premises contending therein that the original defendant Mangatram Anantrao Mane was his gratuitous licensee. On 17-1-2000 the said suit was decreed ex parte and direction for possession of the suit premises was issued in favour of the original plaintiff. Thereafter the original plaintiff filed Miscellaneous Notice No. 148 of 2000 for execution of the said decree which was made absolute and the plaintiff was allowed to execute the decree. When the plaintiff tried to execute the decree on 21-1-2001, the petitioners obstructed the execution. In view thereof, the original plaintiff took out Obstructionist Notice No. 18 of 2001 under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 9...

Jogani and Sachdev Developments Vs. Lawrence D'Souza and Ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR81; 2006(2)MhLj369

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. By the present petition the order dated 9-8-2005 passed by the City Civil Court on a preliminary issue of jurisdiction in L. C. Suit No. 2974 of 2004 is challenged. Some of the material facts of the present case can be briefly set out as under :--2. The original plaintiffs being respondents herein are the tenants in respect of tenements situated on a plot of land bearing No. 298, Hissa No. 9 and 15 admeasuring 4961 sq. yards equivalent to 4098 sq.mtrs. at Kole Kalyan, Taluka Andheri in the City of Bombay. The original landlord was one Sheikh Gafoor Sheikh Cassum. By an agreement dated 12-8-1987 entered into by the between Sheikh Gafoor Sheikh Cassum and M/s Jogani and Sachdev Development the original landlord was selling the said property to the purchaser for the sum of Rs. 1,80,000/-. Under the said agreement for sale dated 12-8-1987 the original landlord also executed a power of attorney in favour of Avtarsingh Sachdev and Ghewarchand Lalchand Jogani inter alia conf...

Satya Prakash Aggarwal Vs. National Stock Exchange of India

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2006]134CompCas324(Bom); [2006]69SCL115(Bom)

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. The issue involved in the aforesaid petitions is common and, therefore, we are disposing of all the aforesaid petitions by this common Judgment.2. So far as Writ Petition No. 2392 of 2003 is concerned, the petitioner is praying that the Guidelines issued by Respondent No. 1 and Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 on 2-4-2002, be declared as illegal and ultra vires of the Bye-laws of Respondent No. 1 as well as the 1996 Guidelines. The Petitioner has also prayed for a writ order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for the records of the case and after going into the legality, validity and propriety of the same quashing and setting aside the Guidelines issued by Respondent No. 1 and Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 on 2-4-2002. The Petitioner has also prayed that the decisions communicated to the petitioners vide their letters dated 26-4-2002, 17-6-2002 and 16-1-2003 respectively be quashed and set aside. Similarly, the petitioner has also prayed for a wr...

Association of Engineering Workers Vs. V.K. Date and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2006(108)FLR1184]; (2006)IILLJ625Bom

R.M. Lodha, J.1. Association of Engineering Workers (for short, 'the Union') filed the writ petition before this Court praying therein that direction be issued to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation Officer) to initiate conciliation proceedings with regard to the demand raised by the Union for lifting the illegal lock-out and for payment during the period of lock-out and in case of failure, direction to the State Government to refer the industrial dispute for adjudication. In the writ petition, the Commissioner of Labour, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Assistant Commissioner of Labour, State of Maharashtra and Premier Automobiles Limited were impleaded as respondents 1 to 5 respectively. The writ petition came to be dismissed on January 6, 1997 by eight word order, 'Since ULP Act invoked, writ petition is rejected'. Aggrieved thereby, the Union has preferred this appeal.2. On June 5, 1996, the respondent No. 5 Premier Automobiles Limited (for short, 'the employer') decla...

Ram Tuljaram Shahani (Dr.) Vs. Kalyanji Virji Shah (Since Deceased Thr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR46; 2006(6)BomCR451

Daga V.C., J.1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to that part of the judgment and order dated 10/11th February, 1999; to the extent it restrains the petitioner from parting with the possession of the suit premises i.e. Flat No. 27, Vimal Mahal, Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400 026 by inducting third party interest in it arid/or by creating any lease, assignment in any manner whatsoever.Factual Matrix:2. The factual matrix, in short compass, is that the petitioner filed eviction suit against his tenants Shri Kalyanji Virji Shah and Shri Anandji Virji Shah in the Small Causes Court. The suit came to be decreed. Not being satisfied with the decree, the tenants/ original defendants preferred appeal before the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court. The Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. However, while dismissing appeal, the Appellate Court put condition in its...

Pradeep Vasant Shirgaonkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR78; 2006(6)BomCR446

Mohite R.S., J.1. This petition is filed seeking to quash and set aside a judgment and order passed by the Dy. Collector, Stamp & Valuation, Kolhapur in Case No. Karvir/178/1982 dated 7.3.1991.2. The brief facts of the case are as under:a) That, by a registered sale deed dated 16.2.1982, the petitioner purchased a plot of land bearing Plot No. 27 from Revision Survey No. 1102/1, admeasuring 513.28 sq.mtrs., situated within the limits of Kolhapur Municipal Corporation, Kolhapur. The sale-deed was inadequately stamped on the date when the sale deed was executed. Section 32-A Sub-section (5) provided that the Collector of the District could sue moto or on receipt of information from any source within six years from the date of registration of the instrument referred to in Sub-section (1) but excluding an instrument executed before 4.7.1980, call for copy of the instrument from the registering officer and examine it for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market ...

Zenith Tins Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur, has confirmed the demand of Rs. 3,59,768/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Eight only) under Rule 57CC of erstwhile Central Excise Act, 1944/Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2001 read with Section 11D(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the provisio to Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and also appropriated amount of Rs. 86,594/- (Rupees Eighty Six Thousand Five hundred Ninety Four only) already paid by the assessee against the said payment. Therefore, the balance recovery amount is Rs. 2,73,084/-(Two Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand Eighty Four only). Further equal amount of Rs. 3,59,678/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Eight only) towards penalty imposed under the provisions of Rule 57I and 173G of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules/Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2001 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.3. The Asst. Commissioner did not agree fo...

Apna Community Charity Centre Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Two issues arise for determination in this appeal, against the order of the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad, who has upheld confiscation of goods, such as old and used clothing, dry fruits, spices, etc. imported by the appellants herein, with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 55.000/- and imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. He has also directed that the appellants, who discharged the duty liability on the value of the consignment, as declared by them. The issues arising are as under:- (i) Whether the benefit of exemption from payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 148/94-Cus., dated 13-7-94 is available to the goods in question? (ii) Whether the import of restricted items and the other items require production of SIL for that import to be considered as valid? 2. None appeared for the appellants in spite of notice, hence, we heard the Id. DR and perused the records.3. We find that in paragraph 5 of the impugned order of Commissioner (Appe...

Radheshyam Kanoria Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. These appeals have been filed against the 4 orders-in-original passed by the same Commissioner. The issue involved in all these appeals is the same. The Id. SDR appearing for the revenue submitted that the appellant have sought for early hearing in these appeals and they have taken several adjournments in the past.Therefore, their request for adjournment may be rejected. He also pointed out that on 14-2-2005, when the appellants have sought for adjournment, it was clearly recorded that the adjournment is being given as a last chance for 16-2-2005. Therefore, agreeing with the SDR, we reject the request of the appellants for adjournment.2. The learned DRs appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Id. Commissioner and stated that the Appeals need to be rejected since there were no merits in the Appeals filed by them.3. We find that all these Appeals arise out of four Order-in-Originals Nos. 29, 30, 33 and 34, dated 17-11-2003, 25-11-2003, 17-12-2003 a...

Sahara India Tv Network Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The Deputy Commissioner (STC) Central Excise, Mumai-V has confirmed the demand of Service Tax to the tune of Rs. 1,43,918/- (Rupees One Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Eighteen only) for the period April, 2001 to September, 2002 and further penalty of Rs. 48,135/- (Rupees Forty Eight Thousand One Hundred Thirty Five only)(Rs. 46,135/- (Rupees Forty Six Thousand One Hundred Thirty Five only) under Section 75 and Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 2004. The appellants had filed the Service tax returns for the half year ending Sept. 2001 and March 2002 on 2nd Nov. 2001 and 13th May 2002 respectively and paid Service Tax. The Service Tax payable for the month of September, 2001 was Rs. 27,756/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Six only) whereas the Service Tax was paid Rs. 1,35,798/- (Rupees One Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Eight only) and Service Tax payable for the month of July, 2001 was Rs. 6,936/- ...