Mumbai Court July 2005 Judgments

Nilesh Vijay Deshmukh and anr. Vs. Mathurabai Bhikanrao Deshmukh Decea ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(6)BomCR909; 2005(4)MhLj481

D.S. Zoting, J.1. Heard Shri G. V. Wani, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri R. R. Mantri, Advocate for the respondent.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent, taken up forthwith for hearing.3. It is to be noted that the respondent Mathurabai died during pendency of this petition. The respondents Nos. 1(A) to 1(E) are the legal representatives of the original respondent. By this petition, the present petitioners are challenging the order dated 17-9-2004 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik in RTS/Review/187/04 condoning the delay in preferring the review petition by the deceased Mathurabai.4. Relevant facts are as under :Mutation Entry No. 20740 came to be effected in favour of the present petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said entry, deceased Mathurabai filed an appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) before the Sub Divisional Officer, Pachora which was decided on 17-4-2000 and the appe...

Bharat Overseas Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Ep)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(190)ELT240Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants exported 100% cotton (fabric dyed) handloom pot holders and oven mitts under DEPB Scheme. The FOB value declared is Rs. 26,75,741 /-. Examination carried out by the docks staff revealed that the goods were quilted made ups and the material used for quilts was 100% Polyester Fibre. The Exporter claimed DEPB benefit under Serial No. 72 of DEPB schedule. The said serial number covers only all processed Cotton Made-ups including quilted cotton made-ups.2. The Commissioner's contention was that goods have been mis-declared with an intention to avail the benefit of DEPB. His contention is based on the examination report, which speaks of the presence of 100% polyester fibre in the export goods. He also held that the goods are liable to confiscation under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, but since the goods have been permitted to be exported provisionally and therefore not available for confiscation, he impose a penalty of Rs. 1,25,000/- on the exporter under Section...

Glaxo Smithkline Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(188)ELT171Tri(Mum.)bai

1. We find some typographical errors as a result of which the Order No.A-668/WZB/2004-CII, dated 20-8-2004 & Corrigendum No. M-514/WZB/05-CII, dated 9-12-2004 of this Tribunal does not make very clear reading and its meaning somewhat unclear. Therefore, we have considered it appropriate to correct the text of the order, now as reproduced below. "1. M/s. Glaxo SmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. formerly known as M/s. Glaxo India Ltd., a company registered is an appellant in this case. They are engaged in the manufacturing & sale of drugs, pharmaceuticals, fine chemical diagnostic & animal teed supplements. They along with M/s. Burrough Wellcome India Ltd. another company hereinafter referred to as BWIL for short are independent subsidiary of Glaxo Wellcome Pvt. Ltd. (now known as Glaxo SmithKline Service Pvt. Ltd.) UK, pending a formal merger of BWIL & appellants, to be carried out fully. BWIL is also engaged in the manufacture & sale of wide range of drugs & pharm...

interdril Asia Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(193)ELT440Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Appellants are a registered company, having an EOU and Domestic Supply unit and its Jt. Managing Director.1.2 (a) As an 100% EOU with imported Capital Goods, they are engaged in the manufacture and export of Down hole drilling equipments used for oil & gas exploration and hold the necessary Approvals as EOU & licencees under the Custom Warehousing provisions (Section 58 and Section 65). They availed the benefit of notification 1/95-C.E. as amended & 13/81-Cus. in respect of Indian & foreign raw materials, procured duty free, required for manufacture of the final products.(b) Some time in 1996, to cater the buyers in the domestic market as well as for carrying out repairs in respect of the drilling pipes received, they started the Domestic Tariff Unit (herein after referred to as DSU for short) adjacent to the EOU with its own set of Capital Goods manufacturing using locally procured duty paid material.1.3 Pursuant to specific intelligence, that they were evading Cus...

Su-vi Pharmaceuticals and Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The challenge in the present appeal is towards the penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- imposed upon the appellants under the provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules on the ground that the appellants were debarred from facility of fortnightly payments and was required to pay duty on consignment basis by debiting the PLA whereas they paid duty by debiting Cenvat credit in some cases.2. The Department raised demand on this ground by taking a stand that the appellants should have paid duty from PLA instead of debiting their Cenvat account. The appellants accepted the above stand of the Revenue and immediately made good the payment from the PLA.3. The appellants' contention, duly represented through their advocate, Shri RJ. Parakh, is that they were under the bona fide impression that duty, during such period, can also be paid through Cenvat account.However, as soon as the Revenue raised the Show Cause Notice, they paid the duty in PLA. In this view, he prays for setting aside the entire...

Zenith Ltd. Vs. M.V. Pontoporos and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)BomCR452

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. These two arbitration petitions are instituted under the provisions of Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 inter alia seeking that the Admiralty Suit being Suit No. 23 of 2004 be referred to the arbitration in view of the arbitration agreement between the parties. Some of the material facts in the present case are as under :2. The respondents have instituted a suit being Admiralty Suit No. 23 of 2004 against the vessel being defendant no. 1, Patvolk, a division of Forbes Gokak Limited being defendant no. 2 and Oldendorff Carriers, a company incorporated under foreign laws and carrying on their business through their agents the 2nd defendant in India being defendant no. 3.3. By the said suit the respondents are seeking that the said vessel which is the first defendant be ordered to be arrested and sold as and when she enters into the territorial waters of India and sale proceeds thereof should be applied towards the satisfaction of the plaintiffs c...

Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs. Sarangpur Transport Co. a ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: III(2006)BC184; 2005(4)BomCR449

S.U. Kamdar, J.1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of a sum of Rs. 72,311/- with interest on the principal amount of Rs. 63,677/-at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the suit till payment and/or realisation and Rs. 1,15,595/- towards damages along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Some of the material2. On 1.9.1976 an agreement was executed between the plaintiff as the owner of the vehicle and Defendant no. 1 company for purchase of motor vehicle bearing Registration No. GTT - 4010 on the higher purchase basis. The 2nd defendant executed a guarantee in respect thereof. On execution of the said agreement, the defendant no. 1 made payment of the sum of Rs. 15,371.92 as and by way of initial payment for the purchase of the said motor vehicle and agreed to make balance payment in instalments which will become due from time to time as provided in the said agreement. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant no. 1 was irregular in mak...

Sajid Basir Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(3)MhLj860

A.S. Oka, J. 1. In this Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Code'), the Advocate appearing for the applicant has raised interesting questions.2. F.I.R. has been registered against the applicant and other co-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397, 324, 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. It is not in dispute that a co-accused was enlarged on bail under the orders of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The said co-accused is Dhananjay Shantaram Keer. By order dated 6th October, 2004 the said co-accused was enlarged on compulsory bail under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the said Code on the ground that the chargesheet was not filed within the period of ninety days. The applicant herein was arrested on 7th July, 2004 and the said co-accused Dhananjay Keer was arrested on 8th July, 2004. It appears that the applicant submitted an A...

Food Corporation of India Vs. Prashant Pandurang Ramteke and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2006(1)ALLMR248; 2006(2)BomCR167; 2005(4)MhLj742

F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. The petitioner by the present petition has prayed for writ of certiorari or any other writ to quash the order dated 25th September, 2003 which is the failure report submitted by the Conciliation Officer to the Appropriate Government, in the instant case the Central Government. The petitioner also seeks to quash the summons dated 22nd July, 2004 by which the petitioner herein has been called upon to appear before the Industrial Tribunal to which a reference in respect of the industrial dispute raised by the respondent No. 1 as represented by the Union has been referred to by the appropriate Government.2. A few facts may now be set out :- There is no dispute that the petitioner falls within the expression State, within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners were engaging contract labourers through contractor for their business activities. In the instant petition and other petitions before this Court, we...

Sunil S/O Pundlikrao Pathak Vs. Maharashtra State Mining Corporation ( ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(4)ALLMR524; (2005)107BOMLR1441; 2006(1)MhLj495

D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Mrs. Kalyani Marpakwar, (Deshpande), learned Counsel for Petitioner and Mr. A.B. Choudhari, learned Counsel for respondent. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that on 16.11.1974, the petitioner was appointed as Mines Foreman and was posted at Pohara Mines in Bhandara District. The petitioner was confirmed on the post of Junior Mining Engineer by order dated 13.08.1991. On 15.09.1983, the petitioner resigned from the post. In the year 1986 the petitioner again applied to the respondent for appointment on the post of Mining Engineer / First Class Mines Manger, on the fixed pay of Rs. 1550/- per month plus other allowances in the pay scale of Rs. 1100 - 50 - 1550 - 75 - 1700. On 5.02.1988, the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Mining Engineer/First Class Mining Manager w.e.f. 07.04.1987. 3. That on 10.08.1988, the petitioner was transferred to Nagpur. On 19.08.1988, the petitioner was placed under suspension for contemplated enquiry. On 15.02....