Mumbai Court February 2005 Judgments

islamic Investment Company for the Gulf (Bahamas) Ltd. and Mr. Vijay K ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR115; 2005(2)MhLj1077

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present application has been taken out by the judgment debtor inter-alia seeking adjournment to raise the attachment in respect of flat no. 91, Maker Tower 'L', Cuffe Parade, Mumbai. It has been further contended that the execution application no. 63 of 2003 should be rejected and or dismissed as against defendant no.3. Various other interim reliefs are sought. 2. The decree which is sought to be executed in the present proceedings is the decree dated 13.2.2002 passed by the High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, United Kingdom. The said decree has been passed in the sum of 10,060,354.28 U.S. ($) together with interest with a cost of 25,000 pound. 3. The present chamber summons raises a very interesting question of law i.e. whether the decree passed by the foreign court in its summary jurisdiction is executable or not in India keeping in mind the provisions of section 13 and section 44(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A connected q...

Lok Housing and Constructions Ltd. and anr. Vs. Everest Industries Ltd ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)BomCR510; 2005(2)MhLj700

Kamdar S.U., J.1. The present application is filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the plaint in terms of the Schedule which is set out to the said chamber summons. In nutshell, the facts of the present case are as under :2. The original suit is filed against the defendant Everest Industries Ltd., inter alia seeking the direction that they should give the 2nd plaintiff a fair opportunity to bid for the property by clarifying the ambiguities in the prescribed format of the required bank guarantee and granting reasonable time thereafter to furnish such prescribed bank guarantee. It is further prayed that thereafter considering the 2nd plaintiff's offer should be considered and if the 2nd plaintiff's offer is the highest then the same should be accepted and necessary documents including the sale-deed should be executed in favour of the plaintiff No. 2. By prayer (b) of the suit, a permanent order and injunction is sought restraining the original defenda...

Bharat Co-operative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Co-operative Bank ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR713; [2006(106)FLR85]; (2005)IILLJ1010Bom; 2005(2)MhLj906

A.P. Shah, J. 1. Appeal admitted. Notice made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent, appeal is called out and heard.2. This appeal raises a short but interesting question of law as to which is the 'appropriate Government' in respect of the Appellant Bank, a multi-State Co-operative Bank, carrying on business in more than one State. The facts giving rise to the appeal and which are undisputed are briefly stated as follows:3. The appellant Bank was originally registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Subsequently, the appellant Bank was registered under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 due to number of branches being outside Maharashtra. The appellant Bank is in the banking business and is governed by the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BR Act'). The respondent is a trade union and represents the workmen employed in the Appellant Bank. The respondent filed complaint (ULP) No. 769...

M.B. Impex Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(187)ELT289(Bom)

S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By this Petition, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 8-6-1989 passed by the Collector of Customs, being the order in original and also the Appellate order passed by the Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal dated 24-10-1989 .2. The Petitioner content's that in February, 1989, the Petitioner had imported a consignment of seeds of almonds (Non Parell Variety) from California, U.S.A. and had also filed the requisite bill of entry. The Petitioner had sought clearance of the said goods from R.E.P. licence and in the said licence, there was an endorsement for import of 'seeds'. The Petitioner's contention is that what is imported was 'seeds' and not 'almonds'. The Collector of Customs by the aforesaid order dated 8-6-1989 came to the conclusion that the aforesaid imported goods were not admissible for import in terms of the replenishment licence produced by the Petitioner and accordingly passed an order of confiscation Under Section 111(d) of th...

Ashok Chhabildas Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(187)ELT295(Bom)

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of CEGAT, dated 19-1-2001, wherein while confirming the Order-in-Original dated 11-8-1994, the Tribunal has reduced the personal penalty levied against the petitioner Under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 from Rs. 10 lakh to Rs. 7.5 lakhs. According to the petitioner, he is not involved in any illegal importation and merely because he had signed some documents in good faith to help his friend Vinodkumar Jatia, the petitioner ought not to be saddled with penalty and in any event, the personal penalty sustained by the Tribunal at Rs. 7.5 lakhs is unduly harsh and excessive.2. Facts having a bearing on the subject matter of the present petition are that two consignments of low carbon mild steel defective sheets/coils weighing 179.860 MTs. and 205.779 MTs. were imported vide vessel 'KRANJ' under two bills of lading both dated 15-9-1989. As per the IGM, the said goods were shipped from Yokohama, Japan and were...

Tejram S/O Jaipal Warkade Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR1475

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Mr. Daga, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.2.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondiya, in Sessions Trial No. 8/2000, whereby the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer R.1. for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, R.1. for 6 months. 3. The prosecution case in nutshell is as follows; On 27.11.99 PW-1 Kacharu went to the police station, Tirora and lodged report - Exh. 12. Kacharu informed Police Station Officer that on 27.11.99 at about 12 noon in front of shop of Raju (PW-2) he saw appellant assaulted deceased Madan Hatwar by means of an axe. The accused gave blows by means of axe on back, neck, hands and legs of deceased Madan. After the incident, Kacharu rushed to the Police Station, Tirora and gave informat...

Smt. Kisnabai W/O Vithoba Gaydhane and Niranjan S/O Vithoba Gaydhane M ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR1576

S.T. Kharche, J.1. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners-applicants have filed this application taking an exception to the judgment and order dated 4/12/2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 24/99, whereby the revision was allowed and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class awarding maintenance @ Rs. 200/- per month to the applicant No. 1 Kisnabai was set aside. 2. The applicants had instituted an application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code on the contentions that applicant No. 1 is legally wedded wife of respondent Vithoba and the applicant No. 2 is a son born out of the wedlock. The applicant No. 1 cohabited with her husband for about 5 to 6 years and after the birth of the son, the wife was being subjected to cruelty and ultimately she and the minor son filed application for claiming maintenance. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Clas...

Satpalsingh Dharamsingh Chowdhary and anr. Vs. Ashok G. Raut and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2006)ACC341; 2005ACJ1900

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Both these appeals have been filed by the original claimants. They arise out of a common judgment delivered in M.A.C.T., Alibag, in Accident Claim Case Nos. 329 and 382 of 1986. Accident Claim Case No. 329 of 1986 was filed by Satpalsingh Dharamsingh Chowdhary and Anr., who are appellants in First Appeal No. 615 of 1998 and Accident Claim Case No. 382 of 1986 was filed by Ramswarup Ramkaran Tak alias Singh and Anr., who are appellants in First Appeal No. 159 of 2000.2. The accident which gave rise to these two accident claim cases before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Alibag, arise in the following manner:Accident took place on 24.8.1986 at 17.20 hours on Bombay-Goa Road, near village Chichwad, and the vehicles involved there are MMF 7299 and MEH 4641. At that time Vijendra Choudhary and Narendra Singh were travelling in Maruti car No. 7299 from Karnala to Bombay through Bombay-Goa Road. When this car reached village Chichwad and was negotiating ascending c...

Kusumgar Finstocks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These three appeals arose out of the order of Commissioner (Appeals) Surat. M/s. Kusumgar Finstock (P) Ltd. is the manufacturer of coated man made fabrics falling under Chapter Heading 59.03.10 of the Schedule to CETA, Shri B.K. Patel is the Excise Clerk and Shri Jayant Gosalia is the factory In-charge.2. The Central Excise officers who visited the factory premises recovered 18 delivery challans which indicated that 13851 L.Mts. of man made fabrics were removed from the factory. There were no corresponding Central Excise invoices covering these goods evidencing payment of Central Excise duty thereon. This recovery was made under a Panchanama.The excise clerk and the factory in charge in their statements admitted to the fact that the goods indicated in the delivery challans were removed without payment of duty. In the impugned order the Commissioner upheld the demand for duty of Rs. 4,02,065/- (BED + AED), reduced the penalty imposed under Section 11AC, set aside the penalty imposed...

Kolety Gum Inds. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC97

1.1 The issue involved in the aforesaid appeal is regarding the classification and demand of duty on the 'gaur dal flour". By the impugned Order-in-Original, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi had confirmed the demand of duty for the period from 28.2.97 to 31.3.2000 raised in the show cause notice dated 11.2.2002. The Commissioner also imposed a penalty equal to the amount of duty confirmed by the impugned order. "The appellants purchase split gaur dal. Water is added to purchase 'split gain dal' so as to soften it and pulverize the same, in a pulverizer for fine mesh. Then that is sieved and dried in centrifuged dryer. The flour so obtained is mixed and packed and ready for sale." 1.3 The Commissioner in the impugned order classified 'guar dal flour' under Sub-Heading No. 1301.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 & demanded duties with interest and imposed penalty. Hence this appeal. a) The appellants are manufacturing Tamarind, Kernel Powder and Gaur Dal Flour. b) Gua...