Mumbai Court December 2005 Judgments

Ramesh S/O Natthuji Shende Vs. Narayan Kisnuji Wakodikar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR19; IV(2006)BC100; 2006(3)BomCR846; 2006(3)MhLj253

R.C. Chavan, J.1. The appellant, who has been saddled with a decree for payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum in Summary Suit bearing No. 98/2000 by learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur has raised a very interesting question in this appeal. The respondent/plaintiff had filed suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for recovery of Rs. 2,50,000/- on the basis of dishonour of cheque for this amount given by the defendant to the plaintiff. Summons was issued to the appellant/defendant in amended form No. 4 given in schedule appended to the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). This amended form was duly notified at Page 431 in Part IV-C of the Maharashtra Government Gazette dated 15th September, 1983. As per this form the summons at Exh.6 was issued to the appellant/ defendant, which reads as under:Whereas plaintiff has instituted a suit against you under Order XXXVII, of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for Rs. 2,50,000/- and interest, you are he...

Sai Freight Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC18

2. This is an appeal against an Order-in-Original dated 18.02.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai, wherein penalty amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Thousand only) was imposed on the appellants, who is a Steamer Agent under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. M/s. Sai Freight Pvt. Ltd., the Steamer Agent, have applied for an additional entry in the I.G.M. No. 4033/15.12.99 for 2000 bags of pulses for S.S. M.V. Eco Elham vide of Bill of Lading No. 15/YGN-Mum. The value of the goods has not been manifested in the IGM No. 4033 as required under Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, the goods were off-loaded without taking prior permission from the proper officer. The Steamer Agent, vide letter dated 20.12.99, has requested for additional entry in the said consignment. Their plea was that they received the documents by e-mail instead of listed by courier. While unloading the e-mail messages, copy of BL No. 15/YGN-Mum for 2000 boxes, net ...

Crystal Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Are Alucobond Composite panels imported by the appellants herein for use in exterior architecture as facade and wall cladding panels for use column and beam claddings after cutting to required size or profile, grooving, bending/folding as required and then transferred to size for installation on a special frame, consumer goods requiring licence for import as held by the Commissioner of Customs are freely importable items in terms of para 5.1 of the Exim Policy 1997-2002? 2. We have heard both sides. The goods admittedly required further processing and therefore cannot be termed as consumer goods which means "any consumption goods which can directly satisfy human needs without further processing...." In the light of the ratio of the Tribunal's decision I Zavenir Coated Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai and Plast Fab v. Collector of Customs . Further the goods are more in the nature of industrial raw materials for manufacture of panels, claddings and roof edgings,...

Speb Adhesives Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. This is an application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, filed by the assessee for granting waiver of the pre-deposit amount of duty and penalty and interest and grant stay for its recovery.3. The issue involved in the appeal is about availment of special excise duty paid on input received during the period 01.03.2001 to 31.03.2003, which was availed in the month of February/March, 2003. The appellants also deducted the credit of inputs in RG23A Part-I Register and the credit of basic excise duty in RG23A Part-II Register after receipt of inputs in the factory, but they have not taken the credit of special excise duty under the reasonable belief that the credit is not permissible as the same is not attracted on finished goods.Subsequently, on knowing the correct legal position, the appellants took the credit and the same is sought to be denied by the Department on the ground that it was not availed immediately.4. The ld. counsel for the appellants submits that prior to 0...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. V.H. Patel and Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. In all these appeals, duty amount involved is less than Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only). The original adjudicating authority has sanctioned refund order. The Department went in appeal. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nashik, has confirmed the same basing on the judgment in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. 1987 (89) ELT 247 (SC) rendered by the Apex Court.3. The contention of the Department is that the refund order is illegal as the same is hit by limitation and the duty was not deposited under protest.4. I have perused both the orders. The Commissioner (Appeals), while relying in para 83 of the judgment in Mafatlal's case, has confirmed the Order of original adjudicating authority holding that the deposit made by the assessee during the pendency of the appeal proceedings amounts to deemed protest and the claim is not hit by limitation.Therefore, I do not see any substantial question of law is involved in the above appeals so as to exercise ...

Nandkumar Rushikant Joshi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(3)SLJ98CAT

1. The O.A. is filed for quashing and setting aside the punishment order of compulsory retirement passed by the Competent Authority holding the applicant guilty in the departmental proceedings.2. The applicant entered the postal department as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent in 1984 and working as such upto 1994. He was appointed as Postman from 29.7.1994 until his compulsory retirement from 15.1.2004. He was served with a charge memo on 2.7.2003 alleging that he while functioning as Postman No. 8 at Parbhani HO during the month of February 2003 was entrusted with two money order amounting to Rs. 1000/- Rs. One thousand only payable to addressees for payment. He showed them as paid without being paid either to the payees or to the remitter and rendered returns accordingly. By the said act the official has contravened Rule 127 of Postal Manual Volume VI Part I Sixth Edition and thereby failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty in violation of Rule 3(1)(i) of the CCS Conduct Rules, ...

Madhumati Suresh Raut and anr. Vs. Namdeo Tukaram Yadav Since Deceased ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR716; 2006(1)BomCR505; 2006(1)MhLj892

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. The petitioners challenge the Order dated 19-3-1991 passed by the Additional District Judge, Baramati in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 1991. By the impugned order, the lower Appellate Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioners for setting aside the order of dismissal of the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the petitioners.2. The respondents herein filed Suit No. 149 of 1979 for specific performance of an agreement which was decreed on 7-10-1985 against the petitioners. The petitioners preferred an appeal in the lower Appellate Court and as there was delay in filing the appeal, it was accompanied by a Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 809 of 1986 being an application for condonation of delay. Originally the said application with the appeal was lodged in the District Court at Pune but subsequently it was transferred to the lower Appellate Court at Baramati and registered as No. 17/B/1989. The said applic...

TwIn Star Venus Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. and anr. Vs. G.N. Sainani ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR262; 2006(1)MhLj721

P.V. Kakade, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as for the respondents.2. This petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India by the petitioners impugning the directions issued by respondent No. 4 dated 9-3-1995 by way of Circular submitting that it is ultra vires, illegal and contrary to law and consequently sought quashing and setting aside the impugned Order dated 21-7-2000 passed by the respondents with regard to the activities of the concerned parties.3. The petitioner No. 1 is a Society, duly registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The petitioner No. 2 is the Secretary of the petitioner No. 1 Society. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are Officers appointed by respondent No. 4 under the said Act. The respondent No. 1 is the member of petitioner No. 1 Society. The petitioners have submitted that the Circular issued on 9-3-1995 passed by respondent No. 4 is purported to exercise the powers vested under Section 79-A of the Maha...

Ernesto Joao Guilherme Rodrigues (Dr.) and ors. Vs. State of Goa and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR522

Britto N.A., J. 1. Rule.2. By consent of the parties heard forthwith.3. The Writ Petition is directed against the Order dated 9-8-2005 passed by the State whereby the petitioners Managing Committee of Communicate of Courtroom was removed and replaced by another Managing Committee of respondent Nos. 5 to 10 till the elections are held. 4. Mr. Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that the appointment of the Managing Committee consisting of the petitioners under Article 41 of the Code of Communicate was for a period of three years. It is contended that in view of the provisions of Article 69 the Members of the Board, appointed or elected, are not allowed to refuse the post, except by obtaining exemption from the Governor General etc. It is, therefore, contended that once the body is constituted and Members are appointed by the State Government, it is incumbent, mandatory for such Members to accept the appointment and since the appointment of the petitioners w...

Swarnarekha Shrikant Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR652; 2006(3)BomCR693; 2006(2)MhLj709

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In all these Writ Petitions challenge is to the order passed by the respondent No. 3 Divisional Joint Registrar in proceedings under Section 78(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that all these petitions are identical. Initially when the petitioners were heard on 25-10-2005, challenge in this all these petitions was to order dated 24-10-2005, and by the said order the respondent No. 3 did not permit the petitioners to adduce evidence of Chairman of the District Central Co-operative Bank, Chandrapur and also one Mr. Lanjewar, Officer of the Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank. On 25-10-2005 this Court found that matter of petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5616/2005, was slightly different inasmuch as she has in her reply filed in response to the show cause notice before the Divisional Joint Registrar not only denied user of the vehicle for the priva...