Mumbai Court June 2005 Judgments

Eastern Steel Industries Vs. Cc

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. After admitting the appeal, I proceed to decide the same as the issue involved lies in a narrow compass.2. The appellant's refund of duty was credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The appellants challenged the same before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the appeals by following Supreme court's decision in the case of Flock India as reported. He observed that as the appellant has not challenged the assessment order before the appellate authority, filing of refund claim is neither proper nor legal. I also note that apart form the above decision, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue industries Ltd. has also held that refund claim cannot be made unless the assessment order has been modified by the higher appellate authorities. As admittedly in the present case there was no challenge to the assessment order, the appellants cannot claim the refund. However, the learned Advocate submits that this point was not examined by the original adjudicating autho...

Kailash Kumar Agarwal Vs. Bank of India and ors.

Court: DRAT Mumbai

Reported in: 3(2006)BC125

1. This miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant/original defendant No. 3 Kailash Kumar Agrawal being aggrieved by the order dated 26th March, 2004; passed by the learned Presiding Officer of D.R.T.-I, Mumbai on Exhibit No. 52 in Original Application No. 3558 of 2000. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer made absolute earlier interim order passed by him restraining the defendant No. 3 the present appellant, his servants, agents, etc. from disposing of or alienating or transferring or encumbering or creating any right, title and interest in favour of any third party in respect of the whole or any part of the premises mentioned in the schedule viz. entire factory property situated at 202, Road No. 1, MIA Udaipur, Rajasthan and entire residential property situated at Badla Road, Opposite Mahavir Complex, Udaipur, Rajasthan. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the original defendant No. 3.2. I have heard Mr. Anup Khaitan for the appellant and Mr. O.A. Das...

Sundardas Ishwardas, Vs. G. Manmohan Rao (Since Deceased Thorugh His L ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR271; 2005(5)BomCR146

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The petitioners are the tenants and the respondents are the landlords. The long standing relationship of landlords and tenants between the parties concluded and determined by the Judgment dated 27th April, 1971, in Suit No.2244 of 1965 and same has been confirmed by the appellate Court in appeal No. 286 of 1971, by the judgment dated 10/4/1984. In the result the respondent's suit is decreed on the grounds; bonafide need, change of user and acquisition of suitable accommodation by the petitioners. Therefore, the present writ petition.2. The learned trial Judge held that the suit premises are being used for the purpose other than for which it was let out. The suit premises is reasonably and bonafide required for the occupation by the landlords. The greater hardship will be caused to the respondents/landlords if suit not decreed. Therefore, based on the evidence led by the parties i.e. Mr. Goomedali Manmohan Rao, Achut Raman Kamath (the rent collector of the plaintiff...

Miss Ankita Subhash Lotlikar (Minor) Through Her Natural Guardian and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(5)BomCR649

S.S. Parkar, J.1. Like previous years, this year also the admission to professional courses has given rise to one more petition in this Court. This time, it is not regarding the holding of Goa Common Entrance Test ('GCET' for short), but with regard to the weightage to be given to the result of the GCET. Only last year in this Court a petition was filed challenging the holding of GCET for admission to professional courses on the ground that announcement for holding the GCET was made belatedly and, therefore, a sort of consent order was obtained from this Court on 28th June, 2004, by way of interim relief restraining the State from holding GCET for the last academic year only, on the ground that adequate notice was not given for holding of the GCET. Accordingly, this year the Government had issued Circular in the form of advertisement dated 12th January, 2005, giving the dates for holding of the GCET for admission to various professional courses like MBBS, BDS, BE, B Arch, and B. Pharm....

Radheshyam S/O Babulal Sharma Vs. Lalchand S/O Vishweshwardas Sharma a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR911; 2006(2)BomCR275; 2005(4)MhLj441

S.T. Kharche, J.1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this appeal takes an exception to the judgment and decree dated 7-3-1989 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in regular Civil Appeal No. 321/1984, whereby the appeal has been dismissed and judgment and decree passed on 23-11-1983 by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division in Regular Civil Suit No. 1644/1982 has been confirmed by which the defendant No. 1 was directed to refund the earnest money of Rs. 6,000/- together with interest @ Rs. 6% per annum amounting to Rs. 900/- to the plaintiff with future interest at the same rate till realisation refusing to grant specific performance of the contract in favour of the appellant-plaintiff.2. The facts relevant for our purpose can be stated as under : Defendant No. 1 is the owner of the house property. He had entered into agreement of sale with the plaintiff on 3-4-1980 for consideration of Rs. 23,000/-, on receivin...

SumkIn Bussan International (Hong Kong) Ltd. Vs. King Shing Enterprise ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR634; III(2006)BC286; 2005(6)BomCR240

Shah A.P., J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned Single Judge dated 20-4-2005 in Chamber Summons No. 531 of 2005 staying the execution of a money decree. The appellant is the decree holder. The appellant has initiated execution proceedings against the property of the respondent No. 2 in Execution Application No. 18 of 2004. The warrant of attachment was levied upon the property of the respondent No. 2 on 12-1-2004. The warrant of sale was levied upon the attached property on 25-5-2004 and public notice was issued on 20-4-2005 inviting offers for attached property. In the meantime, the respondent No. 2 was adjudicated as a bankrupt by the High Court of Singapore in Bankruptcy No. B/4946/2004/C and vide Order dated 4-2-2005 the Official Assignee was appointed as trustee of the respondent Nos. 2's estate. On 14-4-2005 the respondent No. 2 moved the present Chamber Summons to stay the execution in view of the order of the High Court at Singapore in Bankruptcy suit. By the imp...

ishwar Bhuvan Hindu Hotel Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [2006]281ITR139(Bom)

A.S. Aguiar, J.1. The substantial questions of law referred to under Section 256(1) of the IT Act for consideration of this Court by the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee are as follows : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that for the asst. yr. 1980-81, no valid partnership could have been formed between I.P. Barot, representing his HUF as Karta and Shri Rajnikant I. Barot, and his son who was member of the said HUF ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that for the asst. yr. 1980-81 no valid partnership could have been formed between I.P. Barot, representing his HUF as Karta and his son Shri Kamlesh J. Barot, who was member of the said HUF ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-firm was entitled to renewal of registration for the asst. yr. 1979-80 and grant of registration for asst. yr. 1980-81 on the basi...

Sindhu Education Society Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR585; 2006(1)BomCR898

Britto N.A., J. 1. The short point for our consideration is whether the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in this case dated 23-4-1986, as approved by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of St. Francis De Sales Education Society, Nagpur and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. : 2002(1)BomCR650 , requires reconsideration in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. : AIR2003SC355 , in view of the decision of that Court dated 1-4-2003 in Special W.P. No. 9501 of 1986? In other words, the issue that arose for consideration in S.F.S. Education Society (supra) was whether the reservation policy followed by the State applies to a minority educational Institutional? 2. The petitioner claiming to be a minority institution and claiming the protection of Article 30(1) of the Constitution, has been resisting the imposition of reservation policy of the State of Maharashtra as contained in Sub-rules ...

Hemant Sudhakar Madane and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)ALLMR841; 2006(2)BomCR307

Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard.2. Rule.3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.4. Though the writ petition has been filed seeking various reliefs, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has sought leave to restrict the petition to the relief pertaining to the quashing of levy and collection or octroi by Dhule Municipal Corporation without following the procedure prescribed under the statute, and further has sought leave to withdraw the petition as regards other reliefs with liberty to file fresh petition for those reliefs.5. Few facts relevants for the decision are that :The petitioners are businessmen and ordinary residents of District Dhule. Respondent No. 3 Dhule Municipal Corporation is the Corporation constituted under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, (hereinafter called 'Corporation Act') and came in existence from 30th June, 2003. Prior to the establishment of said Corporation, Dhule Municipal Council constituted under the Maharashtra Mu...

A.P.R. Packaging Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1.1 Appellant is an assessee under the Central Excise Act, 1944 engaged in the manufacture of Paper of various kids. They use Pulp obtained from waste paper, an unconventional raw material.1.2 First clearance upto 3500 MTs in a financial year were exempted vide notification 3/2001 CE dt 13.01 of paper made from not less than 75% of unconventional raw material pulp.1.3 Appellants during the year 2001-2002 availed benefit of notification 3/2001 CE only in respect of BILT ECO Kraft Paper and cleared other two varieties on full effective rate of duty. Condition no 13 to entry no. 87 of the notification reads as- "(i) This exemption shall apply only to the paper and paper Bond or articles made there from cleared for home consumption from a factory, in any financial year upto first clearance of an aggregate quantity not exceeding 3500 MTs".1.4 Appellant was served with a show cause notice demanding duty on BILT ECO Kraft Paper cleared at NIL rate during the period September 2001 to November...