Mumbai Court December 2005 Judgments

Devidas S/O Pandit Tatar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)MhLj100

S.P. Kukday, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of respective Advocates, the matter is taken up for hearing. Respective Advocates waive service.2. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 27-9-2005 passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 794/2005 rejecting challenge to the order of petitioner's transfer from Nardana to Dhule.3. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the petitioner was transferred from Nasik to Nardana as Deputy Engineer, at his own request, and is serving at Nardana since 30-6-2003. The petitioner was not due for transfer and, therefore, he was not disturbed in the general transfers of May, 2005. However, for accommodating the respondent No. 6 who brought political influence to bear on respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner was transferred to Dhule as Assistant Superintending Engineer, PW Circle, Dhule, in the midst of the term, by an order dated 16-8-2005. In fact, in view of the Circulars dated 27-11-1997...

Gajanan S/O Govind Mokalkar Vs. Jagdeo S/O Ganpat Warankar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR648; 2006(3)MhLj278

R.C. Chavan, J.1. This second appeal by the original plaintiff was admitted for considering the following four substantial questions of law:(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, issue as regards tenancy bona fide arises for determination by the Tenancy Court in view of the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in 1974 Mh.L.J 548 : 1982 Mh. L.J. 6641(ii) Whether alternative plea of the defendant alleging tenancy without giving any details thereof, not taken bona fide, and the absence of even a reference to the alleged tenancy in the defendant's deposition, warrants remitting of an issue regarding tenancy to the Tenancy Court?(iii) Whether the observations of the lower Court on issue Nos. 7 and 8 regarding tenancy in para 14 of the judgment, amount to determination of the said issues or deletion of those issues in the face of explicit observation that those issues do not survive?(iv) Whether the trial Court had no other alternative but to remit issue Nos. 7 and 8 regardin...

Megha Silk Mills, Marvel Fashion, Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. None appealed on behalf of M/s Megha Silk Mills and Marvel Fashions.Therefore, these appeals are dismissed for non prosecution.3. Shri A. Sheerazi (Advocate) appeared on behalf of M/s Farmsons Fabrics Pvt Ltd and Shri Ramjibhai. He has submitted that the appeal by M/s Farmsons has been filed against confiscation and the appeal by Shri Ramjibhai has been filed against imposition of the penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. Ld. Counsel for the appellant inter alia contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the entire proceedings namely issue of the Show Cause Notice leading to the adjudicating order of the Jt. Commissioner of Customs Ahmedabad was without jurisdiction as these were issued by officers having no jurisdiction to do so. He further submitted that the appellants are located in Surat from were the goods were seized and the alleged import and diversion of the goods took place an EOU which belong to Rajkot Commissionerate. He further submitted that the Larger Benc...

Silvasa Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The dispute relates to credit of NCCD taken on inputs (POY) used in production of finished goods (PTY) which are not subject to NCCD. Firstly, PTY cannot be considered as exempted goods as other duties are imposable on the same. Secondly, if PTY is exported, the appellants would be entitled to use NCCD credit or get a refund of the same. NCCD credit can and has also been utilized on clearance of POY itself.2. As such, we are of the view that the appellants are eligible b2 to take credit of NCCD paid on inputs, which, it goes without saying, can only be utilized in the prescribed manner. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Tudor (i) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(105)ECC471

1. Heard the learned D.R. None appeared for the respondents. We have taken on record the written submissions filed by the respondents. The lower appellate authority has held repair/remaking of rejected batteries to be covered under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, holding that the same does not amount to manufacture.2. The facts in brief are that the appellants are manufacturing Electric Accumulator (Automobile Batteries) falling under Heading No.85.07 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and are availing of modvat/cenvat facility. They are bringing defective Automobile Batteries into the factory during the guarantee/warranty period under Rule 173H for remaking. The batteries are cut open and the same are sent for separation of lead and plastic box. The reprocessing of defective/damaged batteries involves the process of re-melting of the cut-open plastic box and refining the lead. The same refined lead is used in a continuous process of manufacturing of new bat...

Shri Mohammed Bilal Hanif Shaikh @ Bilal Bachkana Vs. Shri A.N. Roy, C ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006CriLJ1547; 2006(4)MhLj371

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. These two Writ Petitions are challenging the detention order. The arguments were advanced by Mr. Chitnis, Senior Counsel with Mr. Tripathi for the petitioners / detenus, and by Mr. Borulkar, PP, Mr. D.S. Mhaispurkar, APP and Mrs. A.S. Pai, APP for the Respondents - State.2. So far as Writ Petition No. 987 of 2005 is concerned, the detenu is Mohammed Bilal Hanif Shaikh @ Bilal Bachkana. So far as Writ Petition No. 1597 of 2005 is concerned, the detenu is Uday Mahadev Sawant.3. Mr. Chitnis made certain legal submissions only for both the matters, and, therefore, we are, dealing with only those legal submissions. For the purpose of the present judgment, we are setting out facts in Writ Petition No. 987 of 2005. The order of detention in this Writ petition is dated 18.1.2005 issued by A. N. Roy, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai. It is under sub section (2) of Section 3 of The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders ...

Tanaji Satuppa Waghmare Vs. Krishna Satuppa Patil and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR417; 2006(3)BomCR799; 2006(2)MhLj120

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. All these three matters are in respect of the property being Gat No. 174 admeasuring 2 Hector 83.9 Ares situated at Village Tevurvadi, Tal.Chandgad, District Kolhapur arising between the same parties and thus are disposed of by the present common judgement. The learned counsel for both the sides have agreed that the decision in Writ Petition No. 6996 of 2005 shall govern the other Writ Petition No. 4536 of 2005 and second Appeal No. 257 of 2004.2. The petitioner in this writ petition is claiming to be a tenant in possession and it is his case that he was inducted as a tenant prior to 1988 in terms of the provision of The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and since 1988 he is cultivating the suit land till today. The original owner of the said property being Domiyav Kaitan Shirodkar filed a suit in Civil Court being No. 116 of 1988 for perpetual injunction. According to the petitioner, the said suit came to be dismissed and no appeal was preferred therefr...

Mr. Aatif Nasir Mulla Vs. the State of Maharastra Through the Dcb, Cid

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)108BOMLR98

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant original accused No. 2 and learned P.P. for the State.2. Appellant - Accused is one of the accused in POTA Special Case No. 2 of 2003 pending before the Special Court, Mumbai. He filed an application for bail No. 2 of 2004. There were two other Misc. Applications. All of them were heard and decided by the Special Court on 15.12.2004 and the application were rejected. Therefore, this Appeal under the provisions of The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'POTA Act').3. The charge against the accused along with others, is that there was a criminal conspiracy to cause bomb blast, which, in fact, occurred at Mulund, Vile Parle and Mumbai Central pursuant to the conspiracy. According to Mr. Agarwal, the only evidence against the accused that is collected by the prosecution is confessional statement of the co-accused and recovery of AK-56. Mr. Agarwal contended that the provisions of bail in offence under POTA have been dilu...

Amit Kumar Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR592; [2006(109)FLR387]; (2006)IILLJ699Bom; 2006(2)MhLj210

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Heard Mr. Singh in support of this Appeal. Mr. Dixit appears for the respondent. 2. This Appeal seeks to challenge the order dated 20th July 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge on Notice of Motion No. 295 of 2005 taken out in Writ Petition No. 1696 of 2005. The Motion was taken out for appropriate wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Single Judge has awarded an amount of Rs. 4880/- only which was the basic wage of the appellant when he was removed from service. It is the case of the appellant that this amount is much less than what ought to have been awarded and, therefore, the present Appeal has been filed. 3. Mr. Dixit, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Indian Airlines, has agreed on instructions that the Appeal be heard and disposed of finally at the admission stage itself. Therefore, it is heard finally at the admission stage. 4. The short facts leading to this Appeal are as follows:-The appellant was working as a...

Wasudeo S/O Jagoba Wabhitkar Vs. Vilas S/O Tukaram Tonge and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR361; 2006(2)MhLj625

R.C. Chavan, J.1. The plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 185 of 1979 before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Warora, has preferred this appeal challenging the appellate judgment rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandrapur, which resulted in dismissal of his suit, though initially decreed by the trial Court.2. In a partition in the family of the plaintiff, his brother Bholaram had been allotted 5.96 acres of land bearing Survey No. 142. This partition had taken place in 1965. Since Bholaram did not have the capacity to perform the agricultural operations, the land remained in the cultivation of the plaintiff, who was giving share of the crop to Bholaram. In 1968, Bholaram sold 2.96 acres of land to defendant No. 3. On 2-5-1969, Bholaram sold remaining 3 acres of land to the plaintiff. Defendant No. 3 had sold a part of land purchased by him to one Dada Bhusari in July, 1979. Defendant No. 3 obstructed the plaintiff's possession and, therefore, the plaintiff m...