Mumbai Court February 2005 Judgments

Flowfast Engineers (India) Vs. D and H Secheron Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom204; 2005(2)BomCR497; 2005(2)MhLj482; [2005]64SCL559(Bom)

Shah S.K., J.1. The plaintiffs filed this suit for specific performance of the oral agreement dated 30-11-1977 for purchase of Basement-cum-godown premises as described in Exhibit 'A' annexed to the plaint. 2. The plaintiffs are a partnership firm. They are carrying on business as manufacturers of and dealers in engineering goods. The defendant No. 1 is a Private Limited Company. Defendant No. 2 is a partnership firm. Both defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are carrying on their business in the premises situate in Merchant Chambers, 5th Floor, Vithaldas Thakersey Marg, Mumbai 400 020. The business of the defendant No. 1 Private Company is as manufacturer of Electrodes and other allied articles. The business of the defendant No. 2 partnership firm is as Financiers and Builders. The defendant No. 3 is one of the Directors of the defendant No. 1 company and also one of the partners of the defendant No. 2 firm. The defendant No. 4 is the manager of the defendant No. 2 firm and defendant No. 5 is one ...

Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay Vs. Sharda Dyeing and Printin ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR538; 2005(3)BomCR71; 2005(2)MhLj690

D.Y. Chandrachud, J. 1. The first respondent is a consumer of the Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking and carries on the business of dyeing and printing. The first respondent has derived electric supply through three meters situated at the premises of the factory. Meter D-833723 was being used for commercial purposes while Meters 0273715 and 0442967 were being used for industrial purposes. The consumption pattern on Meter 0442967 showed that there was a sudden and considerable drop in consumption from 3rd May, 1994. The meter was checked by the Deputy Engineer in the Energy Audit Department of the petitioner on 7th December, 1995 in the presence of a representative of the first respondent. On being checked, it was found that the meter was under-recording the consumption of electricity by 65.76% due to the Secondary Circuit of the Current Transformer being open on the red and yellow phases and because of a loose potential connection on the red and yellow phases. According t...

Timblo Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Hardesh Ores Private Limited an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR273

Lavande A.P., J.1. Rule. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waive notice. By consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, taken up for final disposal, forthwith.2. By consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the following order is passed :In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and Anr. 2001(3) S.C.C. 1, the observations of the trial Judge in paragraph 6 of the impugned order are expunged and set aside, being premature. However, all points and expunged and set aside, being premature. However, all points and questions pertaining to the admissibility of evidence are kept open.2. This order is passed without prejudice to any of the rights of any of the parties either to lead evidence or cross examine, as the case may be and/or to canvass further arguments.3. The learned Judge shall, after full trial, at the time of final hearing, consider the evidence as well as all objections of the ...

Sangeeta Peplo Gaude and ors. Vs. Tulshidas Bablo Gad and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR242

Lavande A.P., J.1. Rule. Mr. Diniz waives notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Ms. Coutinho, Government Advocate waives notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Respondent No. 2 is a formal party. By. consent heard forthwith.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. By this petition, the petitioners, who are members of the Usgao Ganjem Panchayat, take exception to order dated 28th January, 2005, passed by the Additional Director of Panchayats II, in Panchayat Petition No. 5/2005. In the meeting held on 25th January, 2005, a 'No Confidence Motion' was passed against respondent No. 1, who was the Deputy Sarpanch, as well as Mrs. Manik Dhananjay Naik Shirodkar, the Sarpanch of the said village Panchayat. This Resolution was challenged by filing panchayat petition before the Additional Director of Panchayat. On 28th January, 2005, the Director of panchayats passed the following order : -'Heard learned Advocate Shri Francisco Tavora for the petitioner. The status quo to be maintai...

Eskay Enterprises Vs. Suresh P. Hinduja

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)MhLj620

D.G. Karnik, J.1. This motion is taken out by the defendant for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against him on 28th August, 2001 in Summary Suit No. 129 of 2001. The plaintiff opposes the motion.2. The case of the defendant is that after service of the summons he had engaged an advocate and instructed him to do the needful. The defendant bona fide believed that the advocate would file appearance in court and would do the needful for defending the suit. However, the advocate did not file an appearance and therefore an ex parte decree was passed. The defendant should not be penalized for the negligence of the advocate, says his learned counsel. After controverting these facts, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that assuming all averments to be true the ex parte decree cannot be set aside because no special circumstances have been made out as required under Order 37, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in...

Bhojraj Kisan Bhagat Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)MhLj513

S.T. Kharche, J.1. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the order dated 31-12-2001 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. in Summary Criminal Case No. 733 of 1998 has been challenged whereby the complaint lodged by respondent No. 2 was registered as regular criminal case for the offences punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 145 and 147(e) of the Bombay Police Act.2. Brief facts are as under :(a) Respondent No. 2 and his driver Sheikh Amir were facing criminal prosecution for contravention of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, bearing Summary Cri. Case No. 773 of 1998, pending on the file of learned J.M.F.C. The accused in that case had remained absent and, therefore, the learned Magistrate had issued non-bailable warrants for securing their presence.(b) The petitioner was working as Head Constable at the police station, to whom the non-bailable warrants were given for execution. On 21-10-2001 the p...

Vikas Shipping Agency and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC385

1. CIU is one of the many agencies, in the Custom Houses. M/s. AL Yaseen Enterprises imported garments misdeclaring them as Rags, filed the Bs/E, got the goods examined, paid duty applicable to Rags, took out of charge, loaded the precious cargo into five trucks, look leave of everyone concerned and were in the process of leaving what one calls 'Customs area'. The CIU got wind of it and pounced on the hapless importer, got the consignment unloaded and examined it all over again.Much to the chagrin of the importers and to the joy of the CIU, it was found that 84 bales out of the imported goods contained garments and the rest (9 bales and 20 gunny bags) mutilated woollen rags. The consignment was seized not only for misdeclaration but also for import without a valid licence. Those days only pre-mutilated garments could be imported without a licence.2. Investigation revealed that the importer in connivance with the CHA and the dock examining officers perpetuated a fraud. Proceedings were...

Minma Electronics P. Ltd. and Shri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Appellants a registered company and an assessee under the Central Excise Act 1944 engaged in the manufacture and clearance of excisable goods and avail SSI benefit, and the Managing Director of the assessee company.2. The department in these proceeding sought to deny the benefit of SSI exemption notifications as on the grounds that the assessee is affixing/using the brand name 'WIZEN' and "Cannonmate" on the products and such "Cannonmate" brand was owned by another person viz M/s Multi Spark Electronics Pvt Ltd, other allegations of mis-declaration non accountal etc were also alleged by the department.3. The assessees pleads that the name and style used was different & no contravention of the trade mark law was effected by them & the name 'WIZEN' belonged to them & the words 'Cannonmate' were used from October 1998, by then & there could be no reason to suppress the same prior to that date as also no material evidence exists to prove unaccounted clearances by them o...

Pudumjee Pulp and Paper Mills and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC453

1. The appellants are assessee engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper products they avail Modvat Credit on various inputs used in this manufacture in respect of various kinds of paper such as newsprint.Inputs used in the manufacture of such exempted product were received & in terms of rules, credit during the period March, 2000 to March, 2001, aggregating to Rs. 17,66,946.00 was taken, in respect of duty exempt.News print cleared from the factory. As soon as this was noticed, and since they introduced new technology and use of the chemical used in the manufacture of "De-ink pulp plant" where pulp from old used news paper were the raw material & they not entitled to credit, they reversed credit on 27.12.2000. Similarly, for the period, June, 1998 to November, 2000 reversal of cenvat credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of bagasse pulp which was subsequently used in the manufacture of duty exempt news print was reversed which amounted to Rs. 37,442.00. In r...

Archana Syntex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(101)ECC269

1. The Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise, Belapur, found that the Range Supdt. has issued Show Cause Notice to the assessee on the ground that he has availed Modvat credit by filing declaration, which does not run parallel to the procedure laid down in the Rule 57G, which they mean to say the declaration is not filed in the manner as required under Rule 57G. As per Rule 57G(1), every manufacturer intending to avail Modvat credit shall file a declaration with the Asst.Commissioner, Central Excise, having jurisdiction over his factory, indicating the description of final products manufactured and the inputs intended to be used in the said final products. On scrutiny of the declaration filed by the assessee and the invoice under which the inputs has been received; it is observed that neither description of the input nor chapter sub-heading on the input is indicated in the declaration, so it can amount to a non-filing of declaration for the inputs, which assessee has availed Modvat credi...