Mumbai Court March 2005 Judgments

Wellbert Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(184)ELT396Tri(Mum.)bai

2. The issue relates to remission of duty on account of fire broken in the factory. The appellant is a job worker and was doing the job work on the medicaments when the fire broke out in the factory on 19-12-2000 and beside loss of machinery etc., seven workmen have also died. The appellant was also arrested. The appellant has sent an intimation to the department on 3-1-2001. On 18-6-2001 the appellant has filed an application for remission of duty. Again on 16-7-2001 a reminder was sent by the appellant to expedite the remission. The ld. Commissioner has rejected the request of the appellant on the ground that the application for remission was filed late. The ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is no time limit prescribed for filing of the application for remission and as such the ground of rejection of the Commissioner, is extraneous to the provisions, of the Central Excise Act and Rules. He submitted that in the show cause notice the department has admitted...

Atika Synthetics Vs. Commissioner of Customs (import)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. All these petitions are interlinked. As such, they are being disposed off by a common order.2. There is a delay of 21 days in filing the appeal. Therefore, the applicants pray for condonation of delay on the following grounds.3. As the Commissioner did not pass any order on the original release of the seized goods in spite of repeated applications filed before him, they have filed an application before the Settlement Commission on 11.06.2004. Thereafter, the Commissioner passed the impugned Order-in-Original on 30.06.2004, which is received by the appellants on 17.07.2004. The Settlement Commission on 14.09.2004 declined admission on the ground of Section 123 of the Customs Act applying to the seized goods and passed final order dated 19.10.2004, which is received on 04.11.2004. As the Settlement Commission rejected the application, the appellants filed the present appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 30.06.2004. The date for filing appeal expires on 17.10.2004, as such there...

Municipal Corporation of the City of Pune Vs. Bombay Cable Car Co. Pvt ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR458; 2006(4)MhLj622

D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this Appeal, the Appellant challenges the judgment dated 5th August, 2000 passed by the 3rd Extra Joint District Judge, Pune in Misc. Application No. 586 of 1998. 2. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this petition are that the Petitioner/Pune Municipal Corporation had entered into a contract with the Respondent. The dispute arose between the parties. The agreement had an arbitration clause. On 1st October, 1996 the Respondent issued a notice styling it as notice under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The arbitration clause was invoked and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.L. Pendse (retd.) was appointed as the sole arbitrator. It was stated that if the Petitioner desires to appoint an arbitrator of their own then they shall do so within 15 days and it was also stated that if they fail to appoint their own arbitrator, the arbitrator appointed by the Respondent shall be the sole arbitrator, and he will proceed with the matter. Another notice was ...

Smt. Rukminibai Krishna Shigwan Vs. Adinath Builders and Developers an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR668

H.L. Gokhale, J.1. Both these petitions are filed to seek appropriate alternative accommodation in lieu of the structures which were occupied by the petitioners earlier as claimed by them. The issue involved in both these petitions is almost similar as also the facts and, therefore, it will be advisable to decide both petitions together. 2. The petitioners in both these petitions are claiming this alternative accommodation under the scheme of the State Government framed for the purpose of slum re-development/ rehabilitation. Both these petitioners were occupying their structures in a chawl known as Sakharam Paste chawl, Ghatkopar (East). There is no dispute that in the scheme of re-development any such occupant of a slum could claim right of rehabilitation in a tenement of 225 sft. provided he or she is in a position to establish that they are occupying the concerned structure in the slum prior to 1st January 1995. As far as the petitioner in W.P.No.492 of 2000 is concerned, it is her ...

Vasant Govind Shirsekar Vs. Mhatre Pen and Plastics Pvt. Ltd. and ors. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)BomCR594; [2005(106)FLR866]; 2005(3)MhLj272

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. The petitioner has challenged in this proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution the correctness of two orders dated July 12, 2004 and December 20, 2004 of the Labour Court. The Labour Court has by the first order condoned the delay on the part of the first respondent in filing an application for setting aside an award dated January 13, 1997 and by the second order has allowed an application for setting aside the ex-parte award. As a result the reference to adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has been restored subject to the payment of costs. 2. The petitioner claims to have joined the first respondent as a skilled workman in 1980. His services were terminated on September 21, 1990 and the grievance of the petitioner was that due process of law was not followed by the employer either by holding an enquiry or by the payment of retrenchment compensation. A reference to adjudication was made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disp...

Nanik Wadhumal Alimchandani Vs. Mrs. Savitri Prem Mirchandani

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom126; 2005(4)BomCR637

S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. By consent the appeal is admitted and heard forthwith.2. This is an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dated 10-7-2003 by which the learned Judge ordered that the above Miscellaneous Petition No. 29 of 2001 does not survive in view of the withdrawal of the above main petition No. 432 of 2000 and that the order passed in the main petition granting probate in favour of the petitioner was therefore revoked and cancelled.3. The respondent was the petitioner in the above petition No. 432 of 2000. That petition was filed by the respondent for probate of the alleged last Will and testament of one Jairam Wadhumal Alimchandani dated 18-9-1996, who died at Texas on 19-9-1997. The deceased is the brother of the parties. Under the alleged Will, the respondent is the executor and the sole beneficiary. The probate was granted by the order of this Court dated 24-7-2000,4. The above Miscellaneous Petition No. 29 of 2001 was filed for revocation of the probate date...

Muctabai Datta Naik and ors. Vs. Roshant Prabhakar and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: IV(2005)ACC276; 2005(4)BomCR196

Lavande A.P., J.1. By this appeal, the appellants challenge the judgment and award dated 30th March, 1999, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Margao, in Claim Petition No. 34/1992, on the ground that the compensation awarded is inadequate. Appellant No. 1 is the wife of late Datta Naik, who died in an accident which occurred on 21-11-1991 at Curchorem-Sanvordem bridge. Appellants No. 2 to 8 are the children of late Datta Naik. After the accident, Datta Naik was admitted in Goa Medical College hospital at Bombolim and he expired in the hospital on 27-11-1991. The applicants filed Claim Petition No. 34/92 in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Margao, claiming total compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- against respondent No. 1 who was the driver/owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and against respondent No. 2, insurance company which had insured the vehicle. In the claim petition, the claimants examined four witnesses. The respondents did not examine any witness. After con...

Free Legal Aid Cell (Ngo) Vs. Govt. of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom271; 2005(6)BomCR429

Dalveer Bhandari, C.J.1. The present petition has been filed in the larger public interest by a firm of legal-minded retired persons, who have been involved in giving free legal aid and advice to the most tortured and affected persons in the society, so that fatal and very serious road accidents can be avoided to a large extent.2. In the petition, the petitioner has given details of number of the serious /fatal road accidents, which had taken place during the years 1999-2002. The particulars of the said information are as under :-Year No. of Death Injured accidents cases -----------------------------------------------------1999 4548 1546 2134-----------------------------------------------------2000 5619 2023 3086-----------------------------------------------------2001 6497 2581 3439-----------------------------------------------------2002 6510 2649 36413. According to the petitioner; the majority of the fatal accidents can be avoided in case the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1...

Syed MohsIn Ali S/O Syed Shaukat Ali Vs. Smt. Noorus Saher W/O Syed Mo ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR1607

S.T. Kharche, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.10.2001 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 163 of 1996 whereby the Revision was allowed and respondent No. 1/wife was granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from 1.8.1994, i.e. the date of the application by setting aside the order dated 28.12.1995 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. In Misc. Criminal Appln. No. 106 of 1994, whereby the claim of the wife for maintenance was rejected. 2. Brief facts are required to be stated as under : The marriage between petitioner and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 24.10.1992 and soon after the marriage she joined the matrimonial home. It is contended that she was being ill-treated in the matrimonial home and her husband had made her life miserable because of which she had to take shelter at the house of her parents in February 1993 because she was suffering from long illness. It is contended that she was unabl...

Mr. Jaidev Yeshwant Naik and anr. Vs. Smt. Prabhavati Pundalik Uskaika ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR872

A.P. Lavande, J.1. Rule. The learned Counsel for the respondents waives notice. By consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, heard forthwith.2. By this petition, the petitioner takes exception to the Order dated 18.2.2005 passed by the IInd Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Panaji in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 92/2004. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 116/04/B, pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji and the respondents are the original defendants. The parties shall be, hereinafter, referred to as the plaintiffs and the defendants, respectively.3. Along with the said suit, the plaintiffs filed an application seeking interim relief bearing Civil Misc. Application No. 294/04/B. After hearing both sides, the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Panaji by Order dated 14.12.2004, confirmed the ad interim order passed on 10.4.2004 and granted injunction restraining the defendants from doing any further construction in the set bac...