Mumbai Court December 2005 Judgments

Shamrao Deoba Kathole Vs. Hawada S/O Piraji Naoboudha and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR530; 2006(4)BomCR474; 2006(3)MhLj78

J.N. Patel, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3rd March, 1995, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1325 of 1990 wherein the orders passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 31-3-1990 affirming the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Washim on 31-10-1989 in a proceeding under Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (for short 'the Tenancy Act') came to be challenged.2. The learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the petition holding that the respondent/tenant was entitled to seek possession of the land by resorting to procedure provided under Section 120 of the Tenancy Act.3. The respondent/tenant filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Washim under Section 120 of the Tenancy Act for claiming possession from the appellant/purchaser of Field S. No. 4/3, admeasuring 5.10 acres with all kinds of trees situated at village Dapuri, Tq. and Distt. Akola.4....

Kalpana Rukhabdas JaIn Vs. Chairman and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)BomCR461

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. In first writ petition the petitioner-land owner has questioned the order dated 25-1-1994 passed by the District Judge, Nagpur in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 540/1992 upholding preliminary objection raised by respondents that the application moved by petitioner under Section 16 Sub-section (3) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is not maintainable. The said proceedings were filed by present petitioner for recovery of compensation on account of removal of trees/cutting trees in the field property belonging to petitioner by respondents for the purposes of or to erect the overhead wires/lines. In the second writ petition the respondent in first writ petition namely Maharashtra State Electricity Board has questioned the order dated 23-5-1996 passed in M.C.A. No. 2/1995 by the District Magistrate, Nagpur. By the said order District Magistrate, Nagpur has permitted petitioner to remove the trees as contemplated under Section 18 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910,...

Anjanaben Hasmukhchandra Shah and ors. Vs. Bholanath Pannalal JaIn Sin ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: II(2006)ACC670; 2006(2)ALLMR641; 2006(5)BomCR871

Anoop Mohta V., J.1. This is a first appeal filed by the appellants as their Claim Application No. 17 of 1984 filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune (Tribunal) for compensation under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (Motor Act) was rejected in toto.2. On 18th November, 1983 (the deceased), Hasmukhchandra Somchand Shah, was travelling in a Car No. MRX - 5840 from Pune to Satara on Bombay - Bangalore N. H. Road. When the said car reached near Kikvi village at about 9.00 P.M., the driver required to turn the car to the left side to avoid accident due to heavy flood light from the oncoming vehicles and in that process dashed into a stationed truck - tanker bearing No. MTT - 8032, owned by Labhsingh, respondent No. 2, which was parked on the left side of the road but in reverse direction and without any light or signals. The deceased received serious injuries. He was removed to the Sasson Hospital, Pune, where he was succumbed to the injuries and declared dead. An...

Zyma Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2006]7SOT164(NULL)

ORDERG.E. Veerabhadrappa, Vice President. This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order dated 23-3-2005 of the CIT City- 10, Mumbai passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 2000-01.2. The assessee is a limited company and is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of shares and securities of other companies. In the course of making investment in shares of other bodies corporate, the assessee mainly invested by subscribing directly to the shares issued by the companies. Its total income for the year under consideration therefore consisted of business income, dividend income and capital gains. For the year under appeal, the assessee filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 15,44,94,082 on 13-2-2002. The income as per the provisions of section 115JA of the Act was computed at Rs. 4,73,66,265. The said return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 20-1-2003. Subsequently, the assessing officer issued notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) o...

Cyclo Motors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2008)9STR310

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture and clearance of Drum Motors and Electric Motors on which they affix the logo and monogram 'Cyclo'. On enquiry made, it was revealed that the said monogram was used by them since 1987 and earlier it was used by M/s. Cyclo Enterprises since 1978 and also by M/s. Cyclo Transmission Ltd. since 1985. It was, therefore, allowed in this issue the benefit of Notification 1/93-C.E. and 7/97 as amended for the period 1-4-1994 to 22-2-1998 was not eligible and duty demand were, therefore, made, including the extended period i.e. 1-4-1994 to 22-2-1998 under Section 11A(1). The duty demands were confirmed and penalty was imposed under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q along with confiscation under Rule 173Q(2). ...The appellants in the matter have mainly contested that as per the agreement between the appellants and M/s. Cyclo Enterprises, since 1-4-93, all the assets, whether movable or immovable, and all liabilities of M/s. Cyclo Enterprises were taken ...

inventa Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The demand in the present case has been confirmed by the Commissioner vide his impugned order on the ground that M/s. Inventa Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") are selling static converters being manufactured by them to their related person M/s. Vistar Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Vis-tar"), who, in turn, are selling UPS system to their customers and as such the price at which Vistar is selling the goods to the ultimate customer has to be adopted as the assessable value of the static converters. It has further been held that the value of batteries which Vistar is buying from the other manufacturers and selling along with the static converters procured from the appellant is to be added in the value of the converters. Further, the benefit of SSI exemption availed by the appellant has been denied to them on the ground that if the value of batteries is taken into account and the value at which Vistar is selling the goods to the ult...

S.V. Business Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty under the provision of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and to grant stay from its recovery, filed by the applicant/assessee.3. The applicants have availed deemed credit on textile fabrics processed by them under the provisions of Notification No. 06/02-CE(NT) dated 28.02.2002 and utilized the same at the time of clearance of the processed fabrics. The new notification No. 08/03-CE(NT) dated 01.03.03 came into force with effect from 01.04.03 abolishing the deemed credit and introducing the Cenvat credit. The applicants have utilized the accumulated deemed credit uptill 31.03.03 and made payment of duty for the period 01.04.03 to 30.06.2003. The contention of the department is that since the deemed credit has been abolished the assessee can utilize accumulated credit under the Cenvat Scheme for payment of duty after the period i.e. 01.04.03 onwards.4. Therefore, the department has confirmed the demand of...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Rajan Tulsidas Shah

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ1155

ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard. From the averments in the application it appears that papers were received in the office of Public Prosecutor on 17th March, 2004 (incorrectly mentioned as 17th March, 2005 in paragraph-3 of the application), as were dispatched by the Law and Judiciary Department on 16th March, 2004. However, the present application has been filed on 9th August, 2005. More than one year was spent in the office of the public prosecutor. Casual explanation is offered that the concerned public prosecutor was extremely busy, being the cause for such a long delay. Even if that explanation was to be accepted, it is unfathomable that the concerned Public Prosecutor was so awfully busy that he could not draft the application for over one year nor cause to file the same within a reasonable time, instead allowed the matter to go by default on the ground of delay. It is possible that the delay is with purpose; for the order which is challenged in the revision application as passe...

Shivaji Basu Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(5)BomCR838

Kukday S.P., J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Petition is taken up for final hearing with the consent of the respective Advocates, who waive service. 2. Petitioner possesses B.A. B.P.ED. qualifications. He came to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher by the respondent No. 5 school on 1-7-1994. The petitioner submitted an application dated 4-10-2004 seeking admission to postal D.Ed. course. The Officers of the respondent No. 2, however, expressed their inability to consider the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court by filing a petition being Writ Petition No. 2898/2005. The petition was disposed of by an order dated 3-5-2005 directing the respondent No. 2 to consider the claim of the petitioner for admission to the said course in accordance with the Government policy. By communication dated 17-8-2005 the petitioner was intimated that admission to postal D.Ed. course is refused on the ground that petition filed by trained graduate teachers is...

Sanjay Chhaganlal Bhutada Vs. Rajni W/O Sanjay Bhutada

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR517; 2006(3)BomCR829; 2006(3)MhLj482

R.C. Chavan, J.1. Taking exception to dismissal of his Hindu Marriage Petition bearing No. 34/98 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon and corfnfirmation of its dismissal in Regular Civil Appeal No. 66/2001 by the learned Additional District Judge, Khamgaon, the petitioner husband has preferred this Second Appeal. In view of the directions by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice on 30-11-2005 on application moved by the appellant, the matter has been listed for out of turn hearing.2. The appellant was married to respondent Rajni on 21-5-1991. After marriage there was discord in the family, and, according to the appellant, the respondent left his company in the year 1992. Therefore, he filed Hindu Marriage Petition bearing No. 26/1994 for decree of divorce on the twin grounds of cruelty and desertion. This petition was dismissed and R.C.A. No. 87/96 came to be filed by the appellant. This appeal too was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khamgaon. The ap...