Mumbai Court May 2005 Judgments

Sudhir Engineering Company Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Diesel Generating Sets classifiable under Chapter No. 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant's factory was visited by the Preventive Officers of Central Excise, on 28.1.1991, who conducted various checks and verifications and recorded the statements of the authorized representatives of the appellants. During the course of checks, it transpired that the appellant had received certain DG Sets for repairs, reconditioning and/or for remaking, etc., which were originally cleared by them on payment of duty from their factory. The officers found that in some of the DG Sets either the engine or alternator or both were replaced with new engines or alternators. As such, they entertained a view that such replacement of the old engine/alternator with a new engine amounts to 'manufacture' and the applicants were required to pay duty on the same.3. On the above basis, show cause notice was issued to them raising demand of duty in...

Champ Trading and Services Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of Anti-dumping duty of Rs. 52,872/- arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. The differential duty demand arises as a result of confirmation of differential duty between what was professionally determined and finally determined.2. We have heard both sides. In the identical circumstances in the case of Adani Exports Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Kandla - 2004 (171) ELT 169, the Bench has held that prima facie there is no requirement of payment of any amount by way of pre-deposit in view of Rule 21 of Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping duty on dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995. Following the same view in the case, we waive requirement of pre-deposit and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal....

Shri Anant Purushottam Athavale Vs. Govind Purushottam Athavale and or ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom301; 2005(3)ALLMR89; 2006(2)BomCR494; 2005(3)MhLj384

ORDERD.G. Deshpande, J.1. So far as the Civil Application is concerned, it is for restoration of the appeal which was dismissed by the Court on 24.11.2004 as nobody was present for the petitioner on that date. The application is allowed and disposed of. Appeal is restored to file and by consent it is taken up for final hearing. 2. The appellant/original plaintiff filed an application before the Civil Judge, Sr.Division, Pune for appointment of Court Receiver. That application came to be rejected by the lower Court and, therefore, this Appeal. I extensively heard the counsel for the appellant and respondents. 3. Appeal arises in the following background:- The petitioner/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit 887 of 1994 for a declaration that the partnership known as M/s.Athavale Dairy has been dissolved on 20.4.1994 and for accounts of the partnership and for giving to the plaintiff his share in the profit and assets. And it was in this suit that application came to be made by the plaintiff for ...

State of Maharashtra Vs. Shankar Shivaji Phalake

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)MhLj374

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The State of Maharashtra has preferred this appeal against the impugned order of acquittal dated 7th July, 1994, passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, whereby, accused respondent was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').2. On 24th July, 1988, at about 6.30 p.m., when Chabutai (PW1) was watching television in the room of Phalke Chawl, situated at Satara Road, along with her son Shivaji (PW3), her brother Ravindra (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') came shouting that the son of one Phalke beat him in the house of Panditbai who was residing in the same locality, PW1 and PW3 and the deceased went together towards the house of the said Panditbai. The deceased started shouting and calling the said Panditbai from the ground floor. In response to that, the accused-Shankar came out of the house of Panditbai. PW1 asked Panditbai about the assault to Ravindra. She denied the said assault and, ...

Abdul Abid S/O Abdul Sattar Vs. Sultana Parveen D/O Husainkhan and anr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)MhLj471

A.H. Joshi, J.1. Petitioner herein had suffered an order for payment of a sum of Rs. 6000/- towards maintenance for iddat period, Rs. 7,051/towards Mehr and Rs. 50,000/- towards the reasonable and fair provisions in view of divorce under Section 3 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, vide judgment of the J.M.F.C. Amravati, dated 3-9-2001, and it seems that it became final.2. The petitioner has failed to make the payment and that has resulted in the wife filing an application claiming recovery of amount totalling Rs. 63,051/-. She made following prayer:'PRAYER :-- It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the non-applicant to pay Rs. 63,051/- in lump sum failing which issue distress warrant and in case property is not available the non-applicant may be sent to Jail realisation of amount.' 3. The petitioner failed to comply with the order. Upon notice, he was then produced before the Court by issue of non-bailable warrant. T...

Bhaskar Bhagwant Shinde Vs. Sou. Vasudha Madhukar Kadam and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR77; 2005(4)BomCR532; 2005(3)MhLj428

Ranjana Desai, J.1. Rule. The respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing.2. The petitioner is the original defendant in Civil Suit No. 1758 of 1989 filed by the respondents (original plaintiffs) in the Small Causes Court at Pune. The suit was filed for possession of the suit premises on the grounds of default in payment of rent, bona fide requirement, acquisition of alternate accommodation, non user and change of user of the suit premises.3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the property being House No. 347 situate at Rasta Peth, Pune, was owned by the mother of plaintiff 1. Plaintiff 2 is her husband. The defendant is the monthly tenant of two rooms on the first floor of the said house. The agreed rent was Rs. 35/- per month inclusive of education cess and permitted increases. The tenancy month commenced from first of every English Calender month. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant was in arrears of rent from 1-10-1986. The plaintiffs gav...

Executive Engineer and anr. Vs. Sherif Mohammad I. Shaikh and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2005Bom308; 2005(3)ALLMR677; 2005(4)BomCR649

Deshpande D.G., J.1. Heard Mr. Soni learned Counsel for the appellants. Nobody was appearing for the respondents even though the respondents were served However, looking to the submissions made by Mr. Soni and the crucial question involved, Mr. Murthy, Advocate, was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court because the decision on the issued involved were going to have wider implications, therefore I heard Mr. Murthy.2. Appellants are the original defendants. Suit came to be filed by the respondents against the appellants for recovering sum of Rs. 58,000/- and odd, that was in respect of the work done by the respondents pursuant to the tender submitted by them and work done by them. Before filing the suit the original plaintiff gave a notice under Section 280 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'). This notice Exhibit 40 was dated 10-10-1990 and since the appellants did not make any amends, a suit came to b...

V.P. Shetty Vs. Sr. Inspector of Police and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005CriLJ3560; 2005(3)MhLj1006

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the respondents.2. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.3. Apart from the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the respondents, we have also heard the learned advocate for the complainant in the matter.4. The petitioner challenges the F.I.R. No. 133 of 2005 recorded on 30-4-2005 at Cuffe Parade Police Station, Mumbai. The grievance of the petitioner is that, in spite of the fact that the complaint lodged by the complainant nowhere discloses any offence punishable under, Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Atrocities Act'), the police have registered the said F.I.R. against the petitioner under the said provisions of the Atrocities Act. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, while taking us through the complaint as well as placing rel...

Shri Choudappa Bhimsha Ningadalli Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Its ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR599

R.M. Lodha, J. 1. The petitioner-Choudappa Bhimsha Ningadalli filed his nomination on 7th October 1938 for election to the Municipal Council, Maindargi, Taluka Akkalkot, Dist. Solapur from the ward no.12. The Ward No. 12 was reserved for the candidate of Scheduled Tribe. The Returning Officer rejected the petitioner's nomination paper on the ground that the caste certificate submitted by him was false and not issued by the Competent Authority. Aggrieved by the order of the Returning Officer, the petitioner preferred appeal being Election Appeal No. 2/1998 in the District Court at Solapur. The Fourth Additional District Judge vide his judgment dated 3rd November 1998 set aside the order of the Returning Officer passed on 7th October 1998. The petitioner then contested the election to the Municipal Council, Maindargi and was duly returned. The petitioner's caste claim was referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification. The Caste Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 17th June ...

Gujarat Co-op. Oilseeds Growers Federation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sa ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(2)BomCR316; 2005(3)MhLj1043

J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The question referred by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 reads as under :Whether on a true and correct interpretation of Entry 222 of the Notification issued under Section 41 of the Bombay Sales Act, 1959, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in holding that the exemption claimed in respect of Sales of refined rapeseed oil to the tune of Rs. 7,55,00,23/- is not admissible, though the said oil was purchased from the National Dairy Development Board and sold within the State of Maharashtra, merely because it was delivered to the applicant in Gujarat? 2. The applicant is a Federation of oilseeds growers having its head office at Ahmedabad and a branch office at Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'). The head office at Ahmedabad has registered itself as a dealer under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act and the branch office at Mumbai is registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ('BST Act' ...