Mumbai Court March 2005 Judgments

Hafix Ismail Shaikh and ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR332; 2005(3)MhLj232

F.I. Rebello, J. 1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The case of the petitioners is that they along with respondent No. 2 had filed a reference for enhancement of compensation in respect of the lands of the family which were acquired by the respondent No. 2. On account of the apprehension that the respondent No. 2 would appropriate the entire compensation they moved under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code to implead them in the land reference. That application has been rejected and consequently the present petition.3. The lands have been acquired for Twin City Project. On behalf of the petitioners it is contended that the petitioners admittedly are the heirs of the deceased land owner. In the revenue records unfortunately on the death of Shaikh Mahammed Sileman Mestry in 1961 only the name of the respondent No. 2 came to be mentioned by the village authorities as Karta and Manager of joint family. The late Shaikh Mahammed Sileman Mestry had four sons of which respondent No. 2 was on...

Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. (Cs) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Akaljot Singh Sekh ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)MhLj797

D.D. Sinha, J. 1. Heard Mr. Samudra, learned Counsel for the applicants and Mr. C. P. Sen, learned Senior Counsel for the Non-applicant-Respondent.2. Civil Revision Application is directed against the Order dated 21st February, 2001, passed by Sixth Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur, in Special Civil Suit No. 1164 of 1999, whereby the trial Court rejected the application below Exh. 10 moved by the present applicants (defendants) for appointment of Arbitrator under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.3. Mr. Samudra, learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the Non-applicant-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,74,635.48 against the present applicants. The non-applicant was in service of the applicants-company since 15th July, 1989. The non-applicant claimed to be promoted as Senior Manager with effect from 24th November, 1997, by Order of Promotion issued by the applicants. The applicants terminated the services of non-applican...

Narendra S/O Maroti Kawale Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through P.S. V ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR1562

S.T. Kharche, J.1. This Criminal appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order of conviction dated 4.5.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Session Trial No. 360 of 1992, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The case of the prosecution is required to be stated as under : (a) The father of the accused by name Maroti was the Ex-police patil of village Sawarkheda who is now no more alive. Deceased Nanda was the wife of the accused and they were blessed with three children. The accused, his wife and parents and the children were living jointly at village Sawarkheda. (b) Accused was appointed as an accountant for maintaining the accounts of cutting and auction of bidi patta by one Jamanbhai Morarji of Rajnandgaon, as he ...

Mrs. Chetna Chandrakant Todankar Vs. Shri A.N. Roy and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR471

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard. Perused the records. The petitioner challenges the order of detention passed under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981, hereinafter referred to as 'M.P.D.A. Act', dated 19th August, 2004 against the husband of the petitioner, viz. Chandrankant Prabhakar Todankar on four grounds.2. The materials on record disclose that the C.R. No. 136 of 2004 came to be registered against the detenu at Dadar Police Station on 22nd June, 2004 under Sections 387, 323, 506(ii) read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 3 and 25 of Arms Act, pursuant to the complaint lodged by one Shri Ramkrishna Genu More. The detenu applied for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court on 9th July, 2004 which came to be rejected on 12th July, 2004. The detenu was arrested on 13th July, 2004. He was remanded to the custody from time to time till 23rd July, 2004. He was released on bail 011...

Cit Vs. Ace Builders (P) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN855(Bom)

JA Devadhar, JThis appeal filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Income Tax Act hereinafter referred to as ) by the CIT, Mumbai City-II, Mumbai, was admitted on the following substantial question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 54E in respect of the capital gain arising on the transfer of a capital asset on which depreciation has been allowed and which is deemed as short-term capital gain under section 50 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessment year relevant herein is assessment year 1992-93.3. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') is a private limited company. The assessee was a partner in a firm called M/s D. Manekji & Associates. The said firm was dissolved in the year 1984 and the assessee was allotted a flat against the balance standing to its credit in the capital account with the firm. The assessee had ...

Cce Vs. Ubha Instruments Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(185)ELT80Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Revenue is in appeal against the orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), who has held that the discount ranging from 5% to 27% given by the respondents, who are the manufacturers of apparatus for measuring and checking electrical quantities and transformers and supplying the same to the dealers, is permissible in law. According to the Revenue, the varying rates of discounts were negotiated on telephone and over the counter and it cannot be said that the terms of discounts were known to the buyers in the wholesale trade prior to removal of the goods. The Revenue accepts that upto 10% discount is normal and therefore challenges allowing discount in excess of 10% to the dealers.2. None appeared for the respondent in spite of notice. We have heard Ld. SDR for the appellant. We find that the varying discount allowed should be known and understood prior to removal of goods and subsequent discounts negotiated over the telephone or across the counter cannot be known pri...

indira Gandhi Ssg Ltd., Nav Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The duty demands have been confirmed against the appellants herein, who are 100% Export oriented Undertaking (EOU) on the ground that they are covered by Chapter VA of the Central Excise Rules and not Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules.2. On hearing both sides, we find that the Tribunal has already decided this issue namely, as to whether the goods cleared by 100% EOU to Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 47/94-CE issued under Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, in favour of the assessees, as seen from 2003 (153) ELT 549 (Tri.-Del.) - Paras Fab International Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur and 2003 (154) ELT 651 (Tri-Del) = (2003-TIOL-54-CESTAT-DEL)- Kurt-O- John Shoe Components Vs.Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Noida.3. Following the ratio of the above orders, we find that the appellants herein above are eligible for exemption benefit under Notification No.47/94-CE. Therefore, we set aside the duty demand and al...

Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1 These eight appeals are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). In the impugned order the Commissioner upheld the order of the lower authority who adjusted certain sums due to the appellants against government dues.2. Under a spin off agreement with PAL, they have taken over liabilities of UNO car model and started manufacturing the cars. It is their contention that Fiat India Ltd., the present appellants, have not taken over any liability in regard to 'Padmini' car manufactured by PAL. Under such circumstances, any liability of PAL in regard to Padmini car cannot be transferred on to the appellants. A copy of the agreement entered into between the appellants and PAL is filed along with the appeals.4. The learned advocate for the appellants pointed out that Fiat is not liable to pay any dues of its predecessor company, i.e. PAL. Further the amounts due to the appellants have been wrongly adjusted without giving an opportunity to the appellants to ...

Pramila Anand Sing Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)MhLj939

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties. This petition takes exception to the order passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeal and Security) dated January 2004 in appeal filed by the Petitioner questioning the justness of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-X, Mumbai, dated 2nd December 2003, externing the Petitioner from the areas of Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban, Thane and Raigad Districts, for a period of two years from the date when he removes himself from those areas, in exercise of powers under section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. 2. The first contention raised before this Court is that there was only one criminal case registered against the Petitioner. Indeed, reliance is also placed on two in camera statements by the authority to justify the impugned action against the Petitioner. However, submits learned Counsel for the Petitioner, those in camera statements are stereo-type, which only shows the absurdity of the material, w...

indira Dattaram Patil and ors. Vs. Executive Officer, Shree Siddhi Vin ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR1; 2005(2)MhLj921

Shah A.P., J. 1. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution in which the petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of the Shree Siddhi Vinayak Ganpati Temple Trust (Prabhadevi) Act, 1980 (Maharashtra Act No. VI of 1981), hereinafter for brevity's sake called 'the Act'. The petitioners are descendants of one Sunder Laxman Patil who was the founder of Shree Siddhi Vinayak Ganpati Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai. Their main contention is that the Act violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution to manage their own affairs in the matters of religion. It is also contended that the Act suffers from vice of arbitrariness and unreasonableness and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondents to this petition are, firstly, Shree Siddhi Vinayak Ganpati Temple Trust, a public trust deemed to have been constituted under the Act and the Executive Officer of the Management Committee of the said Trust. The State of Maharasht...