Mumbai Court July 2005 Judgments

Shri Vamanrao Vishwanath Falke Vs. Smt. Anusaya Rangrao Patil,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR134

Annop V. Mohta, J.1. The writ petition is filed by the original plaintiff and challenges the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Pune, (appellate Court) dated 4/2/1992, whereby, the respondents' appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned II Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, (trial Court), dated 11/7/1986 in R.C.S. No. 20/1981 r/w M.A. No. 771/1980 was set aside. In the result suit filed by the petitioners-landlord was dismissed.2. The premises in question consists of two rooms, admeasuring 10' X 12', situated House No. 331 at Peth Parvati Sahakar No. 1. The petitioner being owner preferred the present suit for recovery of the possession of the premises in question on the foundation that, the father of the respondents, 2 to 4 and the husband of the respondent No. 1, was the original tenant of the suit premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- plus other charges. The original tenant expired in the year 1977, since then the responde...

Parshuram Bhiva Patil, Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)107BOMLR151; 2005CriLJ3627

R.C. Chavan, J.1. Taking exception to their conviction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the resultant sentences imposed upon them, the appellants have preferred this appeal.2. The facts, which gave rise to the prosecution of the appellants are as under :-The appellants and the deceased Bhagwan Mokal were residents of Village Rave, Taluka Pen, District Raigad. It seems that there was some political rivalry between the victim and the appellants. On 12.5.1990, at about 7.30 p.m. the victim, accompanied by complainant - Ganesh, had gone to answer call of nature in nearby agricultural land, known as 'Khartan'. Suddenly, the four appellants came there and started dragging the deceased towards the water tank. All of them were armed with knives. They started giving blows by knives on Bhagwan Mokal. When Ganesh Patil went to Bhagwan's rescue, he too received blows by knife from accus...

Dhruvakumar Haribhau Gujrathi Vs. Dattatraya Shankar Chikhlikar

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR103; 2005(6)BomCR102; (2005)107BOMLR211

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The present petitioner tenant has invoked Article 227 of Constitution of India and sought to challenge the concurrent finding of facts, given by the Courts below, whereby, the respondent-landlord's suit for possession have been decreed on the ground of arrears of rent.2. The premises in question are Municipal House No. 25, situated at Nashik. The tenancy was monthly. The rent was Rs. 11/- plus education cess. As per the respondents, the notice dated 30/3/1983 was issued under certificate of posting. The petitioner-tenant in spite of the receipt of the notice failed to comply the same and therefore, the suit for possession was filed by the respondent in the Court of Jt. Civil Judge, J.D. Nashik (trial Court). The said suit was resisted by the defendant by filing Writing statement and additional written statement. The evidence was led by the parties. The respondent examined himself. No postman was examined in the matter. The learned Judge after perusal of the materia...

Shri Pralhad Dagadu Kalyankar Vs. Shri Laxman Rambhau Palange and Babu ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR347; 2006(1)BomCR820; (2005)107BOMLR215

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The present Petitioner-tenant-landlord has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and prayed to consider his petition for bonafide need, as the Additional District, Judge, Pune, (appellate Court) by impugned Judgment and order dated 12/2/1993, has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned 5th Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, (trial Court) in Suit No. 2021/1984, dated 6/11/1989, and that resulted into dismissal of the suit filed for possession of the premises admeasuring 7' x 9' one room, which is situated in House No. 876, Bhawani Peth, Pune, after issuance of demand notice dated 19/7/1984, as the respondents-tenants were in arrears of rent from 1-6-1977 to 30-6-1984 and also on the ground of bonafide need. There was no response from the respondents-tenants. Therefore, suit was filed for possession in the Court of 5th Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, on 12/11/1984. The learned trial Court, after considering the material...

Maroti Mahadu Bharade and anr. Vs. Martand Rambhau Holam and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR156; 2005(4)MhLj749

S.P. Kukday, J.1. In this petition, the petitioners seek to quash the orders dated 29-6-1995 in Regular Civil Suit No. 416 of 1980 passed by the learned IInd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangamner and the order dated 18-12-1989, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 385 of 1985 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar, confirming the decree of eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent.2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that:The petitioners are the tenants of suit shop consisting of two khans out of house bearing Municipal House No. 804 belonging to the respondents. The tenancy is a monthly tenancy. Initially the rent was Rs. 10/- but was then increased to Rs. 20/- per month. The petitioners were in arrears of rent from 1-1-1979. Besides, the respondents required the suit premises for their personal occupation for running a grocery shop and therefore, they served the petitioners with a notice dated 21-6-1980 calling upon them to pay the arre...

Jayantilal Shantilal Shah Vs. Vimal Kiran Shah and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR170; 2005(4)MhLj586

S.P. Kukday, J.1. This petition challenges the order dated 5-6-1989 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner, deciding third party application.2. The petitioner had filed Tenancy Case No. 89 of 1988 in the Court of Tenancy Awal Karkun, Kopargaon, under Section 70-B of the Bombay Tenancy Act for declaration of his status as a tenant qua the land Survey Nos. 452/2B and 456/1B situated at Kokamthan Taluka Kopargaon District Ahmednagar.3. During the pendency of the tenancy case, respondent No. 1 filed an application to the Tahsildar for joining her as a party to the proceedings because she had some interest in the property and the disputes in respect of the property were pending before the Civil Court. By his order dated 9-4-1989 the Tenancy Awal Karkoon, Kopargaon, rejected the said application. After this order was passed, the petitioner filed a caveat before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner, on 1-6-1989 and the copy of the said caveat was sent to respondent No. 1 by register...

Krishnanath Sakharam Vs. State of Goa

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(3)BomCR377

Parkar S.S., J.1. Heard both sides.2. By this petition the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus against the respondent No. 2. the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by virtue of his letter dated 17th October, 2003, addressed to the Land Acquisition Officer.3. The undisputed facts are as follows:The Award was passed under the Land Acquisition Act on 20th June, 2003. The petitioner received the notice about the passing of the Award on 23rd September, 2003. Thereafter, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 17th October, 2003, to the Land Acquisition Officer which is part of Exh. D colly, giving the names of the nine heirs of his father who had expired on 7th February, 1986 and stating that a deed of succession was executed on 25th August, 1993, before the Notary Ex officio, Panaji, and all the legal heirs were entitled to the amount of compensation awarded in respect of the land acquired. He also stated that all the legal heir...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Reshma and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2006)ACC600

D.G. Deshpande, J.1. By consent of the parties the appeal and the cross-objection are taken for admission and final hearing simultaneously.2. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the order passed by the M.A.C.T., Thane, by which compensation of Rs. 3,80,000 have been awarded to the claimants. The claimants are the wife and children of the deceased who met with an accident. Their claim was allowed by the Tribunal partly and, therefore, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal. At the same time, the claimants have also filed cross-objections for enhancement of compensation on two grounds, viz. that the Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 6% only, it should be 8% and secondly the multiplier which was applied by the Tribunal in this case was 13 and considering the age of the victim at the time of his death i.e. 35 years, Counsel for the original claimants contends that multiplier, in any case, should not have been less than 16.3. So far as the appellant is concerned...

La Grande Projects Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. M/S La Grande Projects Limited of Tikamgarh, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as "the Importer") imported 1669 used Diesel Car Engines from Singapore declaring them as Capital Goods for Stone Processing Plant. On enquiries made by the Customs Authorities from the Secretariat of Industrial Approval (SIA), it was clarified by the SIA that used Diesel Car Engines were not permitted to be imported under the licence granted to the Importer. Show cause notice proposing confiscation of the imported goods and proposing imposition of penalty was issued to the Importer. The notice also proposed penal action against Shri Natwar Oalmia, authorized signatory of the Importer, Shri Aditya Kumar Dalmia and Ms Ritu Dalmia, the Directors of the Importer Company. The notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs, who ordered confiscation of the goods under the provisions of Section 111(d), (f) and (n) of the Customs Act, 1962 with a option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1...

Procter and Gamble Hygine and Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(197)ELT367Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Heard both sides at length. We find that the lower appellate authority has decided against he appellant and has given the following findings: - "The appellant have imported VSAT's some of which is admittedly installed by them in their premises and others at different places. These are used for communication between manufacturer, distributor and marketing points to achieve better inventory control. It is seen that the contract for registration for import of goods pertains to initial setting up of a plant for manufacture of Vicks Vaporub". It is the contention of the appellant that these goods may be treated as auxiliary goods for the purpose of project import benefit. They are also relying on recommendation certification issued by Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers. It is seen that in view of Tribunal decision in Commissioner v. GE Plastics India Ltd. 1999 (111) EL.T. 483 (T) in which it was held that in issue of classification of imported goods judgment of Customs authority prev...