Mumbai Court December 2005 Judgments

Forbes Forbes Campbell and Co. Ltd. Vs. the Board of Trustees of the P ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2006Bom162; 2006(2)ALLMR22; 2006(1)BomCR514; (2006)108BOMLR29; 2006(1)MhLj830

R.S. Mohite, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'Defendant No. 2') seeks to quash and set aside a judgment and decree dated 7.11.1989 passed by the full court of the Court of Small Causes, Bombay. By the impugned judgment and decree the claim of the present respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'Plaintiff') made in R.C.S.Nos. 2212/ 2911 of 1979 has been decreed and defendant No. 2 has been directed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 4752/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization of the said amount. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed with costs and the defendant No. 2 was directed to pay the costs throughout. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: a) The plaintiff is statutory body constituted under the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. One Metal Fabs India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Defendant No. 1') was the consignee of seven Cartons of Ball Bearings which landed in th...

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Vs. Atlanta Infrastructure ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ARBLR93(Bom); 2006(2)BomCR596; (2006)108BOMLR67

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and order of a learned Single Judge dated 18thJanuary 1996 in Arbitration Petition No.184 of 1992. The Arbitration Petitioninvoked Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to challenge an award dated 6th August1992 made by the second respondent, who was appointed as Sole Arbitrator in disputes anddifferences arising out of a contract awarded by the Appellants in favour of firstrespondent herein. 2. By the order under appeal, the learned single Judge dismissed the petition filed bythe Appellant to challenge the aforesaid award. Aggrieved by refusal to interfere in theaward by the learned Single Judge, the Appellate Jurisdiction of this Court underArbitration Act as well as Clause 15 of Letters Patent has been invoked by the AppellantMunicipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. 3. The facts about which there is no dispute, may be now set out. First Respondent isa registered Contractor with the Appellant herein. The appella...

The Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Khosala Kesharwala

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2006]145STC57(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai has made this reference under Section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 seeking a decision of this Court on the following question of law:-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in law in holding that saffron / kesar is not culinary and flavouring essence covered by Entry No. 78 of Schedule C Part II to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, liable to tax at 15% but it is an ayurvedic medicine in natural form covered by Entry No. 214 of the Notification issued under Section 41 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, liable to sales tax at 4% '2. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') is a registered dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ('the BST Act' for short). The assessee purchases kesar / saffron from Kashmir and sells it in the State of Maharashtra. 3. On 1/12/1990 the assessee made an application to t...

Bhau Bhiku Pawar Vs. Bapu Manu Dhane Since Deceased by His Heirs Kamal ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)ALLMR490; 2006(4)BomCR445; 2006(2)MhLj545

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. This is a Second Appeal filed by the appellant-original plaintiff, as by the impugned judgment and decree dated 20th September, 1991, the Additional District Judge Satara has allowed the appeal filed by respondents 1 to 4, the legal heirs of original defendants, that resulted into the dismissal of the appellant's (plaintiff) suit for specific performance. Therefore, this appeal.2. On 16-12-1991, the present appeal was admitted on grounds 1 to 4 of memo of appeal as a substantial questions of law. Those grounds are reproduced as under;i. The learned Additional District Judge illegally and by adopting erroneous and defective procedure, arrived at wrong finding of facts to the effect that the transaction of registered agreement for sale dated 17th June, 1977 at Exh.71 was not an agreement to sale of the suit land but a money lending transaction.ii. The substantial question of law is whether the interpretation of the learned lower Appellate Court regarding specific per...

Vijay Shrihari Khandar Vs. Shriram S/O Sitaram Gaikwad and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)ALLMR502; 2006(2)MhLj838

R.C. Chavan, J.1. Defendant Vijay, who was ordered to be evicted from the suit premises, in pursuance of the decree passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Ramtek and affirmed on appeal by the learned 14th Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Nagpur, has preferred this Second Appeal.2. The facts which led to the presentation of this appeal are as under:The plaintiffs had purchased house bearing No. 31 C.T.S. 2035, Sheet No. 8 of Rakhi Bank Road at Ramtek by registered sale deed on 1-10-1987 from Nalini Joshi and others. The defendant was a tenant in respect of part of this premises on monthly rent of Rs. 125/-. Since the plaintiffs required the premises bona fide and reasonably for their own occupation and since the provisions of C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises, 1989 applied to the suit premises they approached the Rent Controller for permission to issue notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Rent Controller accorded necessary permission and ...

Stak Cables Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appellants seek the stay of the operation of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and recovery of amounts due. In the instant case, the duty demand of Rs. 2,21,878/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty One Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Eight only) has been confirmed with equal amount of penalty. The ld. counsel for the appellants submit that there was a Show-Cause-Notice and the same has been settled under the Scheme of KVSS. According to him, the Department has issued the Show-Cause- Notice once again for the activity covering the same period and the same can not be permitted. He has relied upon the case of CCE, Calcutta-III v. Nicco Corporation Ltd. . It is observed in the above decision that another Show-Cause-Notice in respect of identical goods for identical period and identical dispute for assessable value though on a different grounded, can not be raised against assessee.3. The ld. DR submits that the duty demand raised with present Show-Cause-Notice dated 07.08....

Gufic Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Heard both sides. The appellants have availed of the exemption under Notification No. 245/83 dated 13-9-1983 by paying duty on goods covered under the DPCO, 1987 on the basis of MRP less 15%. On other goods, the appellants have paid duty adopting valuation under the statutory valuation provisions.2. It is the department's case that on the latter also, they should have paid duty claiming 15% discount only as these goods are covered under the DPCO, 1979. We find that the DPCO, 1979 was repealed by the DPCO, 1987 itself and hence the same cannot have any applicability. As such, we find that the department's case is on a wrong premise as it is seeking coverage under DPCO, 1979, which was not any longer in existence at the material time though there is a reference to it in the impugned notification. Moreover, it is rightly contended by the appellants that the terms of the exemption notification can only be applied to them if they are seeking exemption under the same and not by way of a ...

Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Aarti Dyeing and Printing Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(212)ELT80Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The revenue is in appeal aggrieved by impugned order passed by the Commissioner (A). In the instant case, the refund claim filed by the assessee is time barred. The Commissioner (A) has allowed the refund claim of the respondents basing on the letter dated 20-11-2000 written by Supdt. (Tech.) of Central Excise & Customs, Surat-I in response to the enquiry made by the respondent. Basing on the said letter, the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the claim though barred by time. The Id. DR contends that statutory provisions can not be set at naught basing on such letter which can not provide limitation nor gave rise fresh cause of action. Having convinced about the contentions raised by the Id. DR. and having found that the impugned order is not based on the merits, the same is not sustainable. Accordingly, it is set aside.The revenue appeal is allowed....

Tata Consultancy Services Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Airport)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The issue in dispute is whether appellant is liable to pay Customs duty on the value of documentation imported by them along with the software, for which a separate invoice, was raised. The ld. Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the show cause notice is without jurisdiction as the same was issued by the Addl. Director General, DRI, who is not the proper officer Under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, to issue a demand notice. He placed reliance on the decision in the case of Ramnarain Bishwanath . Orient sustainable as assessments in a number of cases were provisional. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of Larger Bench in the case of ITC Ltd. 2004 (63) RLT 350 (T) and S.C. decision in the case of Serai Kella Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE 1997 (19) RLT 821 (S.C.). He submitted that in respect of the balance bills of entry which had been finally assessed the demand was barred by limitation as the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Tata Infotech Ltd. - , h...

Dhanraj Narayan Gharate Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(2)SLJ296CAT

1. The O.A. is filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 07.07.2003 of dismissal from service passed by Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Dhule, the order of the Appellate Authority dated 21.11.2003 passed by Director of Postal Services, Aurangabad rejecting the appeal and for quashing and setting aside the charge-sheet dated 06.01.2003 and its proceeding of inquiry and the appellate order dated 18.10.2002 directing inquiry to be held ab initio by issuing fresh charge-sheet passed by Director of Postal Services, Aurangabad.2. The applicant's case is that he was appointed as ED Packer at Kheda EDSO. He was continuing the post of ED Packer Kheda till his dismissal from service. It is contended that Sub Divisional Inspector (P) issued charge-sheet on 12.02.1998 with 2 charges as under:- Shri Dhanraj Narayan Gharte ED Packer Kheda was working as ED Packer EBSO Kheda from April 1980 to 09.09.1985. On 09.09.1985 regular ED SPM was on leave. He worked as EDSPM Kheda on that place. On 09...