Mumbai Court December 2005 Judgments

Priti Karmarkar Vs. S.S. Bharasme and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR56; 2006(2)MhLj524

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This is an application for restoration of Contempt Petition No. 102 of 2005 dismissed for want of prosecution on 16-8-2005.2. According to the learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioner, the petition was listed for hearing on 16-8-2005. On 10-8-2005, the car of the petitioner's counsel was stolen and he had to lodge a report with police. The counsel, therefore, could not attend the Court from 10-8-2005 to 16-8-2005, when the petition was dismissed. Therefore, he has sought restoration of the petition.3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioner. The reason given for non-appearance on 16-8-2005 is not acceptable, because theft of a car may immobilize a person for a day or two. After the report was lodged, there was no reason why the counsel could not come to the Court and attend to his matters, for which he had accepted briefs from the clients, on the dates fixed. In any case, there was enough time for the counsel to request his colleagues in the ...

Smita Arvinda Apte and anr. Vs. Ajay Pandurang Potdar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR505; 2006(3)BomCR687; 2006(2)MhLj509

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioners-original defendants failed to deposit the cost, within the stipulated time even though ordered by the trial Court. The petitioners' application under Section 148 of Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) for extension of time to deposit the cost was rejected by an order dated 15-9-2004. An application, was allowed for taking written Statement on record, subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 150/- to the respondents plaintiffs, within one month.2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Admittedly, the suit was filed on 11th February, 2002 by the plaintiff against the defendants for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from causing obstruction to his possession of the suit property. There was an inordinate delay in filing a written statement. Therefore, an application was filed to take written statement on record. By an order dated 15-9-2004, same was granted subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 150/-, to be deposited within one month, ...

Purshottam Narayan Mehta Vs. Mamati Jayram Ambonkar and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2006)ACC664; 2007ACJ619; 2006(3)ALLMR58; 2006(3)MhLj272

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. These are three appeals filed against the common order dated 31-3-1987, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Claim Tribunal), whereby, the appellant-Insurance Company, in First Appeal Nos. 587 and 588 of 1990 i.e. original opponent No. 3 and the appellant in First Appeal No. 1063/1987, original opponent No. 2-owner of the vehicle, have been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 64,800/- together with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition till payment of the amount and proportionate cost of the petition. Opponent No. 2 have been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 14,800 and opponent No. 3 to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- with interest on the respective amounts.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in First Appeal No. 1063/1987-opponent No. 2, basically contended, that in view of the Supreme Court's judgment in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. : [1999]2SCR476 and Rikhi Ram and Anr. v. Smt. Sukhrania and Ors. : [2003]1SCR872...

Gangaram Biseshwar Agrawal Vs. Canara Bank

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(6)BomCR436; 2006(3)MhLj13

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Canara Bank, respondent in Writ Petition 4007/2005; filed Special Civil Suit 186/1996 against Shri Hari Ganga Cement Ltd. and five others in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur for recovery of Rs. 28045225.32/- only which was later on transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur (DRT) and came to be numbered as OA 172/2001. Similarly Union Bank of India, respondent in Writ Petition 4008/2005; had filed Special Civil Suit 150/1996 against Shri Hari Ganga Cement Ltd. and five others for recovery of Rs. 25465110/- only which upon transfer to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur came to be numbered as OA 210/2001. State Bank of India, respondent in Writ Petition 4646/2005; had also filed Special Civil Suit numbered 222/1996 for recovery of Rs. 31811607.90/- only against Shri Hari Ganga Cement Ltd. and five others which upon transfer to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur came to be numbered as OA 173/2001. Present petitioner was defendant No. 2 in all these ...

Santosh S/O Singwa Padoti Vs. Caste Scrutiny Committee and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR60; 2006(2)MhLj825

P.S. Brahme, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.Z. Jibhkate, Advocate for the petitioner. Rule returnable forthwith, Mrs. S.W. Deshpande, Advocate waives notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. S.C. Mehadia, Advocate waives notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.2. By consent, heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.3. By this petition, the petitioner is questioning the orders dated 16-10-2004 and 8-12-2004 respectively passed by respondent No. 1 - Caste Scrutiny Committee and respondent No. 2 - Maharashtra State Regional Transport Corporation.4. The petitioner belongs to 'Gond' community which is specified as Scheduled Tribe in relation to the Maharashtra State. He was issued Caste Certificate to that effect dated 6-7-1995 by the Competent Authority at Ramtek on the basis of the School Leaving Certificate, Patwari's report and affidavit. The father of the petitioner, who was permanent resident of Chabhata, Tq. Dongargarh, Distt., Rajnandgaon (Madhya Pradesh), shifted and settled at Tot...

Padmakar Vs. State Bank of India and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2007)BC474

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This first appeal, filed by the borrower/guarantor challenging the decree passed against him by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, was taken up for disposal at the stage of admission in view of the orders passed on 17th August, 2005.2. The appeal arises out of the following facts:On 25th September, 1984 the plaintiff Bank sanctioned to defendant No. 1/ present respondent No. 2, a proprietary concern, owned by the appellant's brother, a demand cash credit limit of Rs. 1,00,000/- and cash credit limit of Rs. 1,40,000/-. The appellant, who was arrayed as defendant No. 2 in the suit, stood as a guarantor and executed necessary agreement of guarantee. A sum of Rs. 4,02,115,11 was found to be due in this loan account. This amount was not paid by the borrower in spite of the demand. Hence, the plaintiff Bank filed suit claiming recovery of the amount jointly and severally from both the principal debtor and the guarantor/appellant. 3. Apart from filing written ...

Kantabai Shivaji Gadakh Vs. Jagannath Bhika Gadakh and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR843; 2006(3)MhLj152

ORDERS.B. Deshmukh, J.1. This appeal from order under Order 43, Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for the sake of brevity) is directed against the judgment and order dated 16-12-2004 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 129 of 2001 passed by the learned 1st Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar.2. The facts in brief may be summarised as follows:(a) The appellant was the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 297 of 1999 filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Newasa, District Ahmednagar, for perpetual and mandatory injunction. The subject matter of the suit is an agriculture land bearing Gut No. 231 situated at Sonai Taluka Newasa District Ahmednagar. The respondents, who are the defendants in the suit, have after entering the appearance filed the written statement in response to the pleadings made in the plaint. The copy of the written statement is annexed with the appeal memo. This written statement...

Subhashappa S/O Pundlikappa Meti Vs. Maroti Laxmanrao Sawarkar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR434; 2006(3)MhLj318

S.T. Kharche, J.1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant has preferred this appeal taking an exception to the judgment and decree dated 31-7-1990 passed by the learned District Judge, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1985 whereby the appeal came to be allowed and the appellant/plaintiffs suit for recovery of possession and damages past and future mesne profits has been dismissed by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 16-10-1984 passed by the learned 9th Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Amravati, in Regular Civil Suit No. 175 of 1983.2. Heard Mr. Kaptan, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Gilda, learned Counsel for the respondent. The short question of law that arises for consideration in this case is whether the alienation made by the mother of a minor without obtaining permission of the District Judge is valid in law? and whether the Appellate Court, by ignoring the recitals of the compromise decree as well t...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. JaIn Irrigation System Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides & considering that the Respondents in this case claim the refund as the buyer of the goods and not as manufacturer, assessee the application of the principles of unjust enrichment as applied treated by Revenue in the present appeal cannot be upheld. This is more so when it is found that the claimant is an 100% EOU who uses the subject goods in the manufacture of goods exported from India on which no duty liability could be raised. The said goods, as raw material could have been procured by an EOU without discharge of duty. The same facility could not be obtained as a CT Certificates were not available at the relevant time. In view of the facts of this case I cannot find any reason to set aside the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) order. The order is upheld. The present appeal rejected....

Safex Equipment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(104)ECC514

1. The appellants are manufacturer of crane. Vide invoice No.3/26/4/95, they cleared the crane on payment of duty. On 5/8/98 they brought back the same goods under provisions of Rule 173H of Central Excise Rules 1944 and cleared them again vide invoice No. 21/7/8/98.Since the goods were brought back after expiry of the time prescribed under Rule 173H and the warranty period, Show Cause Notice was issued demanding duty under Rules 9 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944 and proposing penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules 1944. The lower authorities confirmed the demand and imposed penalty on the ground that the appellants have brought back the goods in violation of the provisions of Rule 173H and the clearance made vide invoice No. 21/7/8/98 was not in terms of Rule 173H and duty demands & penalty for contravention of Rule 173H(2) was called for. I find that in the adjudicating order, the adjudicating authority has observed that the goods were received ...