Mumbai Court December 2005 Judgments

Shankar S/O Ratiram Bhure Vs. Smt. Seetadevi W/O Vishnukumar Modi

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR637; 2006(2)MhLj511

R.C. Chavan, J.1. Being aggrieved by the decree of his ejectment passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sakoli, and confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhandara, the defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 51 of 1994 before the learned trial Court has preferred this Second Appeal.2. The plaintiff claimed to have let out suit premises to the defendant from 1-3-1993 to 31-1-1994 on rent of Rs. 800/- per month. An agreement was executed to the said effect. At the expiry of the term, the defendant was to vacate the premises. It was also agreed that on failure of the defendant to vacate, the defendant was to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 50/- per day. In spite of notice dated 2-2-1994 sent by the plaintiff, the defendant did not vacate the premises and hence the plaintiff filed the said suit for defendant's ejectment.3. The defendant was duly served and filed a written statement denying that he was plaintiff's tenant. He stated that he was tenan...

Subhash Joshi and anr. Vs. Mohd. Sultan S/O Abdul Gani and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom153; 2006(2)MhLj612

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The only question to be decided is whether Small Causes Court is competent to grant relief of injunction in dispute between landlord and tenant while exercising jurisdiction under Section 26 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887, (hereinafter referred to as Act). The brief facts for laying down the foundation for this purpose may be stated as under :The present petitioners are landlords while the present respondent No. 1 claims to be their tenant. The respondent No. 1 tenant has instituted Regular Civil Suit 159/2003 in Small Cause Court, Nagpur, and in it he sought temporary injunction to protect his possession by moving application at Exhibit 5. Later on he also moved another application vide Exhibit 7 for temporary mandatory injunction pointing out forcible dispossession during pendency of suit and prayed for restoration of possession. Present respondent No. 2 who was joined as defendant No. 3 in said suit claims himself to be the real tenant and presen...

Kamal D/O Bansidhar Ghatol Vs. Sawate Education Society and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR64; 2006(2)MhLj675

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Challenge in this writ petition, filed by employee of a Private School, is to the judgment dated 30-4-1994 delivered by respondent No. 5 School Tribunal in an appeal under Section 9 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, dismissing said appeal. It is not in dispute that the service conditions of employees of Private Schools are regulated by said Act (hereinafter referred to as MEPS Act for short) and rules as (MEPS Rules) framed thereunder.2. As is apparent from Judgment of School Tribunal, the present petitioner approached it with grievance that her claim for promotion as Headmistress has been superseded by appointing present respondent No. 3 on that post. The basic facts are not in dispute and even the contention of present petitioner that she is senior than respondent No. 3 as Assistant Teacher is also not in dispute. The petitioner joined the services of present respondents No. 1 and 2 as Assistant Teacher ...

Multimedia Frontiers Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The issue for determination in this appeal is classification of the following items: 2. The importers claimed classification of Photo Resist Coater Sulphate under chapter heading 8480.49, which covers moulding boxes for metal foundry. As regards Developer, they claimed classification under Chapter heading 8480.49 and for Laser Beam Recorder, claimed classification under Chapter heading 8543.90. The authorities below have considered the nature of the goods in question and catalogue before coming to the conclusion that the claim of the importers was not acceptable and classified the goods as under: 3. We have heard the ld. SDR and perused the records, as none appeard for the appellant in spite of notice. We find that there is no satisfactory ground adduced in the appeal before us so as to why the classification of above items is required to be set aside....

Commr. of Cus. (i) Vs. La-cast Metals and Components

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who has extended the benefit of Notification No. 23/98-Cus dated 2-6-98 in terms of Serial No. 152 of the table to the Notification to Piston Ring Set imported by the respondents herein for use as components/parts of engines of Shakti Power Tillers.2. We have heard both sides. Serial No. 152 of the table to the Notification No. 23/98 grants benefit of concessional rate of duty at the rate of 20% to the goods falling under Customs Tariff sub-heading No. 8409.91 or 8409.99 other than if they are parts of goods falling under sub-heading No. 8407.31, 8407.32 8407.33, 8407.34 or 8408.20. The imported items are classified under Chapter Heading 8409.00; therefore, they are falling within one of the headings specified at serial No.152. Therefore, what is to be seen is whether the imported goods are parts of goods falling under exclusions mentioned above in serial No.152. It is the case of the Department that the imported ...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Indorama Synthetics

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. None appeared for the respondents. Heard Shri R. Pardeshi, learned D.R. for the department. This appeal has been filed in the Tribunal on 23-6-1999 in pursuance of the Review order dtd. 20-3-1999 passed by the Board against the impugned order dtd. 7-4-1998. However, we find that the appeal against the same very impugned order filed by the respondents on 3-7-1998 was earlier heard and rejected by Bench Order dtd. 30-4-2003. On the day of hearing on 25-4-2003, the respondents were not present when their appeal was heard by the Bench and the learned D.R. did not bring it to the notice of the Bench that an appeal filed by the department against the impugned order is pending and that the same should be heard together with the appeal filed by the respondents.2. This is a case involving duty of Rs. 1,05,75,932/-. The impugned goods valued at Rs. 6,77,31,626/- were confiscated by the Adjudicating Commissioner. While confirming the duty and confiscating the goods, he has imposed a redemptio...

Shree Venkatesh Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. In view of the fact that the appeal filed by M/s.Shree Venkatesh Steel Ltd. is on a different issue, the same is separated from the group of appeals heard together and is dealt in this order.2. Shri T. Gunasekaran, learned Advocate for the appellants states that there is a demand of duty of Rs. 1,68,43,496/- on the appellants under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, and that the appellants have also been denied Modvat credit of Rs. 8,27,87,599/- apart from penalties of Rs. 25 lakhs and Rs. 50 lakhs imposed on the appellants. He states that the appellants manufacture both notified and non-notified goods and that during the disputed period the goods notified under the Compounded Levy Scheme amounted to 47% of the total manufacture, whereas 53% was the non-notified goods. He states that in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bhawani Shankar Castings Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh apportioning of capacity used in manufacture of non-notified goods is not...

Medico Packers Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs has confiscated Automotive Blow Fill Seal Machine under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lacs only) and imposed penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lacs only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that machine was second-hand/old and used and therefore required import licence for its valid import.2. We have heard both sides. We find that there is no dispute that the machine was used for demonstration to the prospective buyers several hours everyday for a period of one week to show the movement and operation of the machine. In these circumstances, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Millipore (India) Private Limited v. Union of India holding that demonstration and exhibition of machinery amounts to its use even if for a shorter time will be applicable. The...

Daulat Feeds Duistributors, a Registered Partnership Firm, Through Par ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(4)ALLMR325; 2006(2)BomCR573; (2006)108BOMLR110; 2006(2)MhLj201

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The appellant-plaintiff preferred this second appeal against the concurrent findings given by both the Courts by observing that the suit for recovery of the outstanding of account for purchase of poultry feed in question was beyond the period of limitation and therefore, dismissed the same.2. Appellant-plaintiff's suit as sought to be contended, based on the recovery of the balance amount without submitting the account or agreed account between the parties. The suit was for recovery of the price of goods sold and delivered. The plaintiff's case was that the account continued and as the amount was paid and or received by the plaintiff from time to time, lastly on 7/10/1992, therefore, the suit as filed was within limitation from the receipt of the last payment. 3. The suit for recovery of the balance amount in such transaction of sale and purchase of goods governed by the provisions of Limitation Act, basically Article 1 and or Article 14 of the Limitation Act. The ...

Dhondi Rama Bhalekar (Deceased by His Heirs Ramchandra and ors.) Vs. P ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)BomCR509; (2006)108BOMLR60; 2006(2)MhLj94

B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. While admitting this second appeal on 16/4/1991, the following substantial questions of law have been framed for consideration:-(a) It was an error of law to hold that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred by virtue of the provisions of Section 85 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, even when it was apparent from the judgments of the tenancy authorities against the appellants that the same were given contrary to the provisions of the law. (b) The Lower Appellate Court erred in holding that it could not consider the question of legality or nullity of the judgments of the tenancy authorities against the appellants, even when the same were given by disregarding the procedure laid down by the said Act and in gross violation of those provisions. (c) The judgments in tenancy cases by the tenancy authorities were patently illegal, without jurisdiction and wrong in law and resulted into failure of justice to the appellants, the Civil Court err...