Mumbai Court February 2005 Judgments

Tilak Raj Bhalla Vs. Ulhas Narayan Sanvordekar (Since Deceased) Repres ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR16

Lavande A.P., J.1. The above two appeals are preferred by the plaintiff and the defendant against judgment and decree dated 19th January, 1999 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 25/1993/A by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Panaji. The appellant in First Appeal No. 48/99 is the plaintiff in the Special Civil Suit No. 25/93/A and the respondent is the defendant in the said suit. Since both the appeals are preferred against the same judgment and decree, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The parties will be, hereinafter, referred to as 'the plaintiff and 'the defendant'. The plaintiff filed the above mentioned suit against the defendant for declaration, recovery of possession, damages, permanent injunction and consequential reliefs.2. Briefly, the case of the plaintiff is as follows :The plaintiff was carrying on business under the name and style 'Novelty House and Wine Stores' situated at Old Bus Stand, Panaji, Goa and had licence for the same. On 1-4-1983, he entered into ...

Jagannath S/O Raghunath Sing Raghuwanshi and anr. Vs. Member, Maharash ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR727; 2005(3)MhLj853

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioners/landlords challenged the order dated 30th September, 1992, passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and also the order dated 30th March, 1988, passed by Tahsildar and Agricultural Land Revenue Tribunal. The lowest authority i.e. Tahsildar passed said order on an application for determining purchase price, filed under Section 50 of the Tenancy Act by respondent No. 2-tenant and has observed that the tenant is entitled to purchase said land. The said order was challenged in appeal by landlords before Sub-Divisional Officer, Mangrulpir and the appeal of landlord was allowed by S.D.O. On 31st October, 1989. This appellate order thereafter was challenged by tenant by filing revision under Section 111 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbh Region) Act, 1958 and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has allowed the revision filed by tenant and has upset the appellate orders in favour...

Vrajesh Navnitlal Desai Vs. K. Bagyam and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006ACJ65

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. Heard advocate for the appellant. Respondents are served. Nobody is present for them. This appeal is for enhancement of compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigad at Alibag by its Judgment dated 31.7.1997. Since there is no cross-appeal or counter-appeal by any of the respondents, their liability to pay compensation has to be held in favour of the appellant. The question is of quantum. In the accident occurred, the present appellant suffered 44 per cent permanent partial disability. Certificate to that extent was proved by this appellant before the Tribunal by examining the doctor. Disability is in respect of inability to make movements of leg. The doctor stated that he, the appellant, will not be able to stand more than 2-3 hours and he cannot bend his leg, he cannot sit. He will have to undergo operation in future when pain will become intolerable. Hip joints which were replaced at the time of surgery, will have to be changed because, acc...

Mr. Fernando Sequeira Lobo Vs. Mr. Jose E. Coelho Pereira and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR171

N.A. Britto, J.1. Rule. By consent heard forthwith.2. By these petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner tenant questions the legality of the order dated 23.7.2004 of the Rent Controller, Panaji as upheld by the Administrative Tribunal by order dated 10.12.04, dismissing the tenant's application for amendment of his written statement to enable him to withdraw the plea of permanent tenancy taken by him earlier by amending his written statement in proceedings filed by the respondents landlords for his eviction.3. The respondents who are the landlords had filed eviction proceedings for the eviction of the said tenant in respect of two floors of their building known as 'Hotel Imperial' having Matriz No. 336 under Section 22(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the G.D.D. Buildings (L.R.E.) Act, 1968 (Act, for short) and a written statement was filed by the tenant on or about 16.12.1991 denying the case of the landlords.4. On or about 7.7.93 the tenant filed an application for a...

Fashion Exim India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chintamani Ambolkar and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2005(105)FLR988]

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. This petition arises out of an award of the Labour Court dated 21st September, 2004 on a reference to adjudication. The Labour Court has held that the termination of the first respondent w.e.f. from 9th October, 1996 was illegal. Consequently, the petitioner has been directed to reinstate the first respondent with full back wages and continuity of service.The petitioner carries on the business of manufacturing ready-made garments for export. The first respondent in his statement of claim before the Labour Court claimed that lie had been working with the petitioner as a checker cum-supervisor since November 1992 and that his last drawn salary was Rs. 2,100/- per month. In the statement of claim it was specifically averred that the employer has not issued any appointment or confirmation letter to any employee. It was stated further that the first respondent was a permanent employee; that he was carrying out the work of checking garments in accordance with the norms...

Grham Firth Steel Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. M/s. Graham Firth Steel Products, the appellant is a manufacturer of Cold Rolled Steel Strips. The allegation is that the appellant removed excisable goods without payment of duty. A total of Rs. 1,08,765/- was demanded towards duty on such removals and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed.2. It so happened that during a visit, the officers of Central Excise, found extra copies of invoices evidencing removal of excisable goods.These extra copies seemed to indicate that the appellant removed excisable goods in addition to what have already been removed on payment of duty during the period 1.1.1996 to 30.6.1999. The appellants' stand was that the extra handwritten copies of the invoices were made on the request of his buyer M/s. Godrej & Boyce Mfg.Co. Ltd. who is said to have lost the original copies under which he received the goods. The appellant contends that no excisable goods were removed under the handwritten copies of the invoices and therefore the question of evading payme...

Garg Industries Ltd., Sunland Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After hearing both sides for some time on the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty as detailed in the annexure to this order, we find that it was possible to decide the appeals themselves at this stage and hence proceed to do so with the consent of both sides, after waiving pre-deposit.2. The finding of the authorities below is that copper content of goods declared as copper scrap druid has been misdeclared, as what was declared was copper content ranging from 30 to 35% while on test, the copper content was found to be 51 to 69% approx and on the basis of the higher percentage of copper content, the value of the goods has been loaded. The contention of the appellants is that although on receipt of the test report showing the higher percentage of copper content, initially they accepted the lest report. However, prior to the final assessment, they sought retest of the samples drawn from all the Sots on the ground that copper scrap was heterogeneous in nature and...

Deendayal Didwania and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Airport

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT390Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These applications for waiver of pre-deposit of various penalties imposed on the applicants arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. The applicants in C/S/2165 and 2166 are alleged to be the ones who caused unauthorised import of electrolytic copper wire rods, copper rods, electrolytic copper wire bars, linear low density polyethylene film, copper scrap and brass scrap total valued at Rs. 6,01,41,225/-. The applicants in C/S/2251 to 2253 are the company who exported the goods to India from Singapore and its two directors respectively. The department's case is that Deendayal Didwania and Navneet Kumar Didwania caused the import of the above said goods in fictitious names. It is alleged that the fictitious firms did not possess IEC code numbers. It is also alleged that the goods under import were undervalued. The Commissioner who adjudicated the case finds that the members of the Didwania family were involved in importing the goods in violation of Foreign Trade ...

Vita Soaps and Specialities Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT45Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Duty demand of Rs. 1,27,36,109/- has been confirmed against the appellants and penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- has been imposed upon them by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vapi, as a result of classification of Savlon antiseptic manufactured by them, under chapter heading 38.08 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as a disinfectant, rejecting the appellants' claim for classification as a medicament under chapter heading 30.03.(P) Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara 2004 (167) ELT 20 (SC), the apex court has held that products hexiprep, hexiscrup and hexiaque used for cleaning of wounds and abrasions and minor cuts and disinfecting the skin prior to surgery are classifiable under CET sub-heading 3003.10 and not under chapter heading 38.08 since these products have therapeutic properties and prophylactic use. The above three products contained chlorhexdine gluconate solution BP, which had therapeutic properties. In the present case, the Chemical Examiner has found th...

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Akhil K. Dalal

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)99TTJ(Mum.)100

1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dt.17th Feb., 2000, of the CIT(A)-V, Mumbai, cancelling the assessment framed by the AO for the asst. yr. 1991-92 under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 on the ground that it is bad in law and invalid.2. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a share broker in the Bombay Stock Exchange. The AO framed the assessment under Section 143(3) on 30th March, 1994, at total income of Rs. 4,43,950, wherein, he made the addition of Rs. 5,50,000 out of a total hedging loss of Rs. 47,31,947 claimed by the assessee. This loss was estimated because the assessee was not in a position to furnish the exact co-relation between the stock held by him and the value of the hedging done by him in respect of such stocks.3. Subsequently, the AO on 13th Sept., 1995, issued a notice under Section 148 and reframed the assessment, wherein, he estimated the hedging loss at Rs. 23,65,973 which is 50 per cent of total hedging loss claimed of R...